What is Human?

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Agathon


That sounds like a machine talking to me.

[mrmitchell]

So, by extension, we can simply kill babies and infants if they become bothersome, sorta like we can put down dogs, right?

Those babies eventually grow into (mostly) functional humans. Dogs don't.

(Not that putting down dogs is that pleasant either)

[Zero]

So, by extension, we can simply kill babies and infants if they become bothersome, sorta like we can put down dogs, right?

Those babies eventually grow into (mostly) functional humans. Dogs don't.

(Not that putting down dogs is that pleasant either)

interesting that you brought that up.

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=97429

[MrFun]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


I would argue that babies and infants aren't really human beings yet.

[David Floyd]

But our society finds such things deplorable and has outlawed such behavior.

Our society also outlawed slavery, finding it deplorable. This doesn't mean that there is no right NOT to be a slave, and just because we have laws against murdering babies in our society doesn't make murdering babies an acceptable practice in ANY society.

[Rogan Josh]

Who is human?

Anyone with human DNA, defined within a set of parameters which I am not qualified to say.

[Jon Miller]

nobody responded to my post

Jon Miller

[blackice]

Human-ity, a lot just don't get it....

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
nobody responded to my post

Jon Miller

You ask one of the deepest questions in philosophy and you're sad that no one has answered your question yet?

[Jon Miller]

yes?

Jon Miller

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


I would argue that babies and infants aren't really human beings yet.

And the pro-choice side marches on...

[SKILORD]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
nobody responded to my post

Jon Miller

What you asked was whether we are human when we cease to exercise control over our future 'selves'. This view of life leaves one constantly paranoid, incapable of even trusting oneself (if one can only be thought of as oneself because one's "self" is so transient according to your philosophy) I (personally) cannot subscribe to such a philosophy because I don't like the feeling of insignificance which it lends to life.

If you define human, therefore, as an entity which controls it's future selves, a being with absolute, uninfluenced free will. Since free will is not specific to humans this allows a broad defenition of 'human', since any entity can be said to have free will, with the exception of infants, drug addicts, the disabled, plant life and those living under the influences of despotism who are influenced in their free will not by the despots, but rather by their fear therof.

So... you do not really ask a question, you make a statement. My reply being that while it is possible that your philosophy is valid, it is rather bleak and I shall maintain my view of life which you may term 'simplistic, but why do I care? According to your philosophy you won't exist a moment from now.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Lincoln


And the pro-choice side marches on...

I am pro-choice to an extent, but I recognize that infants and born babies are fully human.

I also oppose partial-birth abortion.



You quit with your ad-hominem attacks now -- Chegitz might be pro-choice, and stands behind his statement about infants and babies, but he certainly does not speak for all of us.

[Lincoln]

Well Fun, I am glad that you see the difference. Unfortunately some do not know where to draw the line and they extend the concept of "choice" one step further. If choice trumps the rights of the unborn because they hinder the mother's lifestyle then why stop when the baby is born? The concept of choice marches on without you anyway.

[SKILORD]

Since free will is not specific to humans this allows a broad defenition of 'human', since any entity can be said to have free will, with the exception of infants, drug addicts, the disabled, plant life and those living under the influences of despotism who are influenced in their free will not by the despots, but rather by their fear therof.

Rather I have rethought this, since your philosohy requires a 'human' to have unadaltured control of his future selves no man is truely 'human' noone is human in this defenition unless they are in complete control of the version of themselves immediately proceeding. Am I right now in control of myself .... well... now? Rather not, by dignifying you with a reply I have granted you a bit of influence oin my affairs and am therefore not human.

Unless I misunderstood your post this is what it comes out to be, a human being is an entity whose free will is imposed on his future selves free of outside influences (i.e. drugs, retardation, fear, etc). In such a case it is possible to be human only at specific points in your life, or rather there is a percentage of entities similar enough to be grouped as 'me' which are human, but I would daresay that a far larger percentage are not, by your defenition, human.