[Vision2020] "Please do not continue to confuse people with facts."
Joe Campbell
philosopher.joe at gmail.com
Sat Jul 25 21:37:30 PDT 2009
Dear Keely,
Very good questions. I don't want to give the impression that I'm an expert
on personhood, for I'm not. My areas are metaphysics and epistemology, not
ethics. Also, the term 'person' has a wide array of uses among philosophers.
Some like Harry Frankfurt (Princeton), who writes on issues about free will,
think of personhood in terms of volition, for instance, but I was speaking
mainly about the use of the term in philosophical debates about death:
abortion, euthanasia, animal rights, etc. It isn't quite right to define
'person' as a being with rights but usually it turns out (given the
definition) that persons have full rights and non-persons have, at most,
limited rights. So it is hard to separate our contemporary philosophical
discussions of personhood from talk about rights. Lastly, there are many
common sense views on personhood that I won't even mention. This is a report
from the field (philosophy), so to speak.
In this context, Joel Feinberg (a former professor of mine at Arizona who
has since passed away) and Peter Singer (Princeton) define 'person'
(roughly) as a being with certain rational capacities. Given that
definition, it turns out that not all human beings are persons since the
kinds of capacities in question are not developed until age 2 or so. It also
turns out that some non-humans are persons. I understand how this might
sound absurd and offensive to some but it is useful in answering questions
about the rights to life of various beings at various stages of development.
Think of it as a term of art. An interesting article along this lines, on
the abortion issue, is located here:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/a/abortion.htm
(I'm the metaphysics editor of the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy,
though I had nothing to do with this article. Another good source for
on-line philosophical articles is the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.)
In any event, let's look more closely at the definitions that you offer
below and see what consequences follow were we to adopt them. First, suppose
that we define 'person' as a being with a soul. The problem with this
definition is that it is not clear when the term applies or even if it ever
does. Some folks are materialists, they think that no one has a soul, in
which case it follows that no human beings are persons, which is even more
absurd than the claim that only some of them are persons. And what about
animals? Do they have souls? Again, it is not clear how we could answer that
question. Thus, defining 'person' as a being with a soul is not going to
help us to settle important questions like which beings do or do not have
rights, like the right to life. And the same problem holds if we define
'person' as a being created in God's image. What does God look like, and
who's to say? For this reason, many philosophers have searched for other
definitions.
Let's consider another group: beings with "volition, awareness of self,
capacity for relationship." Note first that these are three distinct
criteria. Ants have the capacity for relationship -- they are social beings
-- but likely not self-awareness or volition. Humans are social beings and
have self-awareness but whether they genuinely have volition is a matter of
debate (I think they do but I won't want to hang any substantive hat on the
matter). Do dogs have volition or self-awareness? That's hard to say.
Note too that NOT ALL humans have volition, self-awareness, or the capacity
for relationship. Just as with the Feinberg/Singer definition, if you define
'person' as a being with, say, self-awareness, then it is undeniable that no
fetus is a person. Self-awareness is not developed until well after birth.
(Note that though infants are not always persons, and thus have no rights
according to Feinberg, he still thinks that it is wrong to kill an infant,
or to abort a fetus after the point of viability, since the state still has
an interest in the protection and development of all humans and after the
point of viability the mother is no longer required for this.)
Perhaps what you meant was that a person is a being with the potential for
self-awareness, etc. But this definition seems ad hoc since the only beings
with the potential for all three capacities are humans. It no longer seems
like a discovery that all human beings have rights, given that persons have
rights, for the "fact" appears to be pre-built into the definition. Given
this, the result is not surprising. And the problem is even worse if one
defines 'person' as human being, for this clearly begs all of the relevant,
interesting questions. That doesn't mean it isn't true but it is unhelpful.
Lastly, we have a final definition that is often used, which you also hint:
'person' is a sentient being. Again, Peter Singer's views are close to this,
for while his definition of 'person' precludes many animals from the full
slate of rights "the capacity for suffering" is "the vital characteristic
that gives a being the right to equal consideration" and moral worth <
http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/singer02.htm>.
Thus, as you note, one might argue that non-human animals have rights to
life and protection even if they are not persons, for they have the capacity
to feel pain. Again, it is doubtful that this will help in the case of
abortion, since the capacity to feel pain requires a level of self-awareness
that humans are incapable of until well after birth.
In short, certainly a view like yours -- where only humans are persons but
animals have rights nonetheless -- is well in the running and I did not mean
to suggest otherwise. I don't have much else to say other than that,
personally, I believe in the sanctity of human life -- maybe even the
sanctity of life in general -- and thus I think the issue of personhood is
irrelevant to any of the more interesting questions. This is a good thing
since it is a struggle to find a definition of 'person' that is (a)
informative, (b) non-question begging, and (c) gets the result that all
humans are persons.
Best, Joe
PS This was a "fair and balanced" report on the concept of personhood from a
contemporary, analytical, philosophical perspective. I report, you decide!
Don't make the Crabtree mistake of thinking that just because I report an
argument that I accept it.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 25, 2009, at 2:04 PM, keely emerinemix <kjajmix1 at msn.com> wrote:
Really?
I'm sorry, but is the definition of "persons," in a philosophical sense,
simply that they enjoy a "right-to-life"? Isn't there an argument from
necessary ontology that results in something being described as having
"personhood" -- i.e., volition, awareness of self, capacity for
relationship, and, of particular importance for the religious, a soul as a
creation in the imago Dei?
I am becoming more and more convinced that, for me, and certainly for the
world in an ecological sense, the eating of animals is wrong. They're
sentient beings, in my mind deserving of at least minimal safeguards to
their well-being - no torture for the benefit of my mascara -- but they're
not "persons." All human beings are persons; necessarily, from an
ontological, not a philosophical, perspective, all persons are human
beings. The necessary traits that define biological human beings include
personhood if that biologically human being is allowed to develop, if for no
other reason than her creation in the image of God.
Most religious people I know value, in some form or another, animal life --
even if only in the service of their sustenance. Some, myself included,
believe that while animals do not possess souls -- are not created in the
image of the Creator -- they will be in heaven, Eden recreated and teeming
with the animals that delight God, even if not created in God's image.
Keely
http://keely-prevailingwinds.blogspot.com/
------------------------------
From: philosopher.joe at gmail.com
To: lockshop at pull.twcbc.com
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2009 10:04:22 -0400
CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] "Please do not continue to confuse people with
facts."
I should add that if erring on the side of caution were relevant, you should
be in favor of laws againts eating non-human animals. After all, some think
they're persons too -- not humans but persons, things deserving of the right
to life -- and who are you to say otherwise? After all, we don't want to
unknowingly kill persons, do we?
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 24, 2009, at 3:40 PM, "the lockshop" <lockshop at pull.twcbc.com> wrote:
"He believes that his view that the fetus is a person trumps all other
views. I believe it is not the kind of issue that anyone can be certain of
and that the law should deal with knowledge, not certainty."
Since I believe that the fetus is a person, how could I not believe that it
trumps all other views? Since, as you admit there is uncertainty, I prefer
to err on the side of caution and allow a fetus to live rather than take a
what the hell attitude and have an innocent person die.
g
----- Original Message -----
*From:* Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
*To:* Wayne Price <bear at moscow.com>
*Cc:* the lockshop <lockshop at pull.twcbc.com> ; <vision2020 at moscow.com>
vision2020 at moscow.com
*Sent:* Friday, July 24, 2009 11:36 AM
*Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] "Please do not continue to confuse people with
facts."
Wayne,
I share your beliefs -- exactly. And in the past Crabtree has made fun of
these same beliefs, so don't expect him to respond. As in the case of
Sunil's questions, he'll remain silent when his inconsistencies are obvious.
The diiference between our views and Crabtree's is that we genuinely respect
freedom and think people should decide for themselves about personal,
religious, philosophical issues. Crabtree is only for those freedoms that
coincide with his own world view. He is not for freedom per se. He believes
that his view that the fetus is a person trumps all other views. I believe
it is not the kind of issue that anyone can be certain of and that the law
should deal with knowledge, not certainty.
Joe
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 24, 2009, at 2:14 PM, Wayne Price < <bear at moscow.com>bear at moscow.com>
wrote:
Gary,
I too am stuck with this one. While I am personally anti-abortion, I am
still pro-choice on the matter. IF I were in a situation where the abortion
decision had to be made, I would choose NOT to terminate the pregnancy and
put the child up for adoption. HOWEVER, I still believe that the choice to
be made should NOT be the governments to make but the individuals.
Wayne
Is mis-stating my position really the only way you can think of to try and
make a valid point?
As I have said repeatedly, I believe that if homosexuals can find someone
who is willing to pronounce them man and man, wife and wife, or man, wife,
wife, or any permutation thereof then swell, I wish them the best. What I am
not in favor of is in my or the state being forced to recognize it.
With regard to the abortion issue though I've really got to admit that
you've got me caught on the horns of a delimma. How could I not see the
similarity between making a choice that has a 1 in 15 chance of potentially
damaging the health of the person doing the choosing and making a
decision that has a 100% chance of killing an innocent party?
In both of your examples the decision extends to others who will not be
given a choice to participate. Bar patrons and employess do get to make an
informed choice and as a result your comments seem a trifle lame.
g
----- Original Message -----
*From:* Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
*To:* the lockshop <lockshop at pull.twcbc.com>
*Cc:* TIM RIGSBY <tim.rigsby at hotmail.com> ; <
<starbliss at gmail.com%3E><starbliss at gmail.com>
starbliss at gmail.com> ; < <vision2020 at moscow.com%3E> <vision2020 at moscow.com>
vision2020 at moscow.com>
*Sent:* Friday, July 24, 2009 9:29 AM
*Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] "Please do not continue to confuse people with
facts."
You don't even think that ADULTS are able to make decisions about whom to
marry or whether pr not to have children, so stop pretending to respect a
person's right to make decisions for him or herself!
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 24, 2009, at 12:11 PM, "the lockshop" <
<lockshop at pull.twcbc.com><lockshop at pull.twcbc.com>
lockshop at pull.twcbc.com> wrote:
It would seem that you, Mr. Moffet, and our city council have a mighty low
opinion of the intelligence of the patrons and employees of bars and
taverns. I can't speak for your students but, I find it very difficult to
believe that by the time a citizen reaches the age of 21 in the United
States he hasn't heard the anti-smoking mantra to the point of nausea.
How lucky we are that there are people out there who will take it upon
themselves to prevent emancipated Americans from making their own decisions
with regard to the risks they take in life.
g
----- Original Message -----
*From:* TIM RIGSBY <tim.rigsby at hotmail.com>
*To:* <starbliss at gmail.com> <starbliss at gmail.com> <starbliss at gmail.com>
starbliss at gmail.com ; <vision2020 at moscow.com>
<vision2020 at moscow.com><vision2020 at moscow.com>
vision2020 at moscow.com
*Sent:* Friday, July 24, 2009 7:47 AM
*Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] "Please do not continue to confuse people with
facts."
I would like to add the idea of this saying,
"Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story."
Either way Ted, you brought up some very valid points that tend to be
forgotten when people discuss tobacco/smoking regulation and legislation.
What scares me as a Health Teacher is when I hear my junior high and high
school aged students talking about how safe, they think anyway, Hookah bars
are. When asked if they would ever smoke cigarettes, they claim that they
won't. Yet what these students don't realize is that they are actually
smoking tobacco at the high school hookah parties. What is even scarier is
a lot of the parents think that hookah is a safe alternative as well.
The hookah bar closest to my house in Boise is constantly packed with young
people all of the time. Often times, other substances are being laced into
the tobacco as well and these young people are unknowingly smoking illegal
drugs along with their fruit and tobacco mixture.
I predict in the not so distant future, Boise and possibly the State
Legislature will enact legislation to regulate/control these hookah
establishments.
Here is a question to ponder. By definition based on Idaho Code, what is a
hookah bar categorized as? A restaurant, a bar, a private club? If it
falls under the bar definition, then people under 21 should not be allowed
in. It seems as though hookah bars would fall into an undefined gray area
of the Idaho Clean Indoor Air Act. However, Moscow seems to have covered
hookah bars in their recent ban of smoking, I could be wrong though.
" 'Politics is the art of controlling your environment.' That is one of the
key things I learned in these years, and I learned it the hard way. Anybody
who thinks that 'it doesn't matter who's President' has never been Drafted
and sent off to fight and die in a vicious, stupid War on the other side of
the World -- or been beaten and gassed by Police for trespassing on public
property -- or been hounded by the IRS for purely political reasons -- or
locked up in the Cook County Jail with a broken nose and no phone access and
twelve perverts wanting to stomp your ass in the shower. That is when it
matters who is President or Governor or Police Chief. That is when you will
wish you had voted." - Hunter S. Thompson
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 21:39:45 -0700
From: <starbliss at gmail.com> <starbliss at gmail.com> <starbliss at gmail.com>
starbliss at gmail.com
To: <vision2020 at moscow.com> <vision2020 at moscow.com> <vision2020 at moscow.com>
vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: [Vision2020] "Please do not continue to confuse people with facts."
The "Off List" response referenced, from someone I regard as one of the most
educated and honest Vision2020 participants, that I received to my post
below on tobacco regulation, is in total what is stated in the subject
heading of this post. Wise words, no doubt, that I ignore at my own risk...
Notice there is limited or no discussion of some of the critical facts my
post presented: that tobacco (nicotine) is a physically addictive drug, with
underage tobacco addiction common, raising questions if whether adult
"choice" is in effect regarding employees or consumers in tobacco related
decisions; that tobacco is the leading cause of premature death (nuclear
waste or energy or even nuclear weapons production is not even close as a
cause of premature death); that other drugs doing less harm to society than
tobacco are criminalized and prosecuted aggressively, involving civil and
human rights violations, yet who among those opposing regulation of
tobacco, will as aggressively advocate for these drugs to be managed by free
choice and the marketplace, rather than a government "Big Brother?" Some,
perhaps... While there are others who should know better playing some on
this list as fools, for the sake of debate, or political advantage, or
popular image or whatever... Or they are as deluded as those they are
debating with...
My response to the "Off List" comment discussed here:
Ummm... OK, I guess... However, being an idealist in belief that expressing
the truth is morally mandated (where did I get that dangerous idea? I''ll
end up in serious trouble! Oh, I forgot, I already am...), I may not
comply. I recently read a variation of this same expression in James
Lovelock's "Revenge of Gaia:" "Don't confuse me with the facts, my minds
made up." Lovelock was referring to this mentality regarding the rejection
of nuclear power by many in the environmental movement.
Ted
Please do not continue to confuse people with facts.
----- Original Message -----
*From:* Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com>
*To:* Moscow Vision 2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com>
*Sent:* Wednesday, July 22, 2009 1:55 AM
*Subject:* [Vision2020] Tobacco: Targeting the Nation’s Leading Killer:
Centers for Disease Control
Tobacco (nicotine) is a physically addictive drug. Once addicted, "choice"
becomes a problematic concept. And many people become addicted while
underage, encouraged to continue their addiction in bars, where cigarettes
are often shared between customers.
The fact tobacco is physically addictive is absent from the comments of many
opposing the smoking ordinance, as are the facts regarding the magnitude of
the damage. Comparisons to other harmful behaviors are drawn (fatty food,
etc.), suggesting that a slippery slope of regulation will lead to
government control over too many aspects of life, but many of these
behaviors do not involve a drug addiction. Of course alcohol has dramatic
negative impacts. But workers in bars are not forced to drink the drinks
the customers order, as they breathe the smoke of the customers.
I find it incredible that the health of workers exposed to an addictive drug
when they breathe in the workplace is approached so callously. They can
work elsewhere, it's announced with smug authority, as if in this economy
workers have the luxury of choosing whatever job suits their fancy, rather
than an urgency to take whatever work they can find. If it was cocaine or
heroin or methamphetamine that workers were exposed to, the attitude might
be different.
Profits from exposing workers to addictive drugs in the workplace should be
protected based on free market, free choice, adult responsibility? If this
is the logic, where are the protests against laws imposed on those selling
cocaine, heroin or methamphetamine, et. al., to consenting adults, which can
result in long prison sentences? Let the free market decide! Why stand in
the way of profits and the free choice of adults?
If those opposing the smoking ordinance were consistent in their outrage
against limits on the free market, their ideology might have more
intellectual credibility. Instead, the libertarianism proposed is
inconsistent and conformist. Or perhaps those opposed to the smoking
ordinance will now protest that bars do not allow legal cocaine, heroin or
methamphetamine use? Think of the profits to be made! And remember,
tobacco prematurely kills more people than those three drugs combined...
If attempts were made to criminalize tobacco like cannabis is, resulting in
prison sentences, home invasions, for sale or use, I would oppose this
vehemently. But an ordinance regulating smoking in bars does not stop any
adult from legally using tobacco products in settings where they do not
expose workers.
If worker freedom of choice was a valid argument to justify the exposure of
workers to tobacco smoke in bars, than OSHA could be mostly eliminated.
After all, if workers exposed to hazards monitored or banned by OSHA don't
want to work with those risks, they can work elsewhere, as long as signs
posted in the workplace inform them of the risks. A "Big Brother"
government bureaucracy gone.
--------------------------
<http://www.cdc.gov/NCCDPHP/publications/aag/osh.htm><http://www.cdc.gov/NCCDPHP/publications/aag/osh.htm><http://www.cdc.gov/NCCDPHP/publications/aag/osh.htm>
http://www.cdc.gov/NCCDPHP/publications/aag/osh.htm
The Burden of Tobacco UseTobacco use is the single most preventable cause
of disease, disability, and death in the United States. Each year, an
estimated 443,000 people die prematurely from smoking or exposure to
secondhand smoke, and another 8.6 million have a serious illness caused by
smoking. For every person who dies from smoking, 20 more people suffer from
at least one serious tobacco-related illness. Despite these risks,
approximately 43.4 million U.S. adults smoke cigarettes. Smokeless tobacco,
cigars, and pipes also have deadly consequences, including lung, larynx,
esophageal, and oral cancers.
The harmful effects of smoking do not end with the smoker. More than 126
million nonsmoking Americans, including children and adults, are regularly
exposed to secondhand smoke. Even brief exposure can be dangerous because
nonsmokers inhale many of the same carcinogens and toxins in cigarette smoke
as smokers. Secondhand smoke exposure causes serious disease and death,
including heart disease and lung cancer in nonsmoking adults and sudden
infant death syndrome, acute respiratory infections, ear problems, and more
frequent and severe asthma attacks in children. Each year, primarily because
of exposure to secondhand smoke, an estimated 3,000 nonsmoking Americans die
of lung cancer, more than 46,000 (range: 22,700–69,600) die of heart
disease, and about 150,000–300,000 children younger than 18 months have
lower respiratory tract infections.
Coupled with this enormous health toll is the significant economic burden of
tobacco use—more than $96 billion per year in medical expenditures and
another $97 billion per year resulting from lost productivity.
[image: Chart showing about 443,000 U.S. deaths attributable each year to
cigarette smoking. Text description below.]
[A text description of this
graph<http://www.cdc.gov/NCCDPHP/publications/aag/osh_text.htm#1>
is also available.]
The Tobacco Use Epidemic Can Be StoppedA 2007 Institute of Medicine (IOM)
report presented a blueprint for action to “reduce smoking so substantially
that it is no longer a public health problem for our nation.” The
two-pronged strategy for achieving this goal includes not only strengthening
and fully implementing currently proven tobacco control measures, but also
changing the regulatory landscape to permit policy innovations. Foremost
among the IOM recommendations is that each state should fund a comprehensive
tobacco control program at the level recommended by CDC in *Best Practices
for Comprehensive Tobacco Control Programs–2007*.
Evidence-based, statewide tobacco control programs that are comprehensive,
sustained, and accountable have been shown to reduce smoking rates,
tobacco-related deaths, and diseases caused by smoking. A comprehensive
program is a coordinated effort to establish smoke-free policies and social
norms, to promote and assist tobacco users to quit, and to prevent
initiation of tobacco use. This approach combines educational, clinical,
regulatory, economic, and social strategies.
Research has documented the effectiveness of laws and policies to protect
the public from secondhand smoke exposure, promote cessation, and prevent
initiation when they are applied in a comprehensive way. For example, states
can increase the unit price of tobacco products; implement smoking bans
through policies, regulations, and laws; provide insurance coverage of
tobacco use treatment; and limit minors’ access to tobacco products.
If the nation is to achieve the objectives outlined in *Healthy People 2010*,
comprehensive, evidence-based approaches for preventing smoking initiation
and increasing cessation need to be fully implemented.
CDC's ResponseCDC is the lead federal agency for tobacco control. CDC’s
Office on Smoking and Health (OSH) provides national leadership for a
comprehensive, broad-based approach to reducing tobacco use. A variety of
government agencies, professional and voluntary organizations, and academic
institutions have joined together to advance this approach, which involves
the following activities:
- Preventing young people from starting to smoke.
- Eliminating exposure to secondhand smoke.
- Promoting quitting among young people and adults.
- Identifying and eliminating tobacco-related health disparities.
Essential elements of this approach include state-based, community-based,
and health system-based interventions; cessation services; counter
marketing; policy development and implementation; surveillance; and
evaluation. These activities target groups who are at highest risk for
tobacco-related health problems.
-------------------------------------------
Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
------------------------------
Windows Live™ Hotmail®: Celebrate the moment with your favorite sports pics.
Check it out.<http://www.windowslive.com/Online/Hotmail/Campaign/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_QA_HM_sports_photos_072009&cat=sports>
------------------------------
=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<http://www.fsr.net> <http://www.fsr.net>http://www.fsr.net
<Vision2020 at moscow.com>
<Vision2020 at moscow.com><Vision2020 at moscow.com>
mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com <Vision2020 at moscow.com>
=======================================================
------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - <http://www.avg.com> <http://www.avg.com>www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.26/2257 - Release Date: 07/23/09
18:00:00
=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<http://www.fsr.net> <http://www.fsr.net>http://www.fsr.net
<Vision2020 at moscow.com> <Vision2020 at moscow.com><Vision2020 at moscow.com>
mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com <Vision2020 at moscow.com>
=======================================================
------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - <http://www.avg.com> <http://www.avg.com>www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.27/2258 - Release Date: 07/24/09
05:58:00
=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<http://www.fsr.net> <http://www.fsr.net>http://www.fsr.net
<Vision2020 at moscow.com> <Vision2020 at moscow.com>
mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com <Vision2020 at moscow.com>
=======================================================
------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.27/2258 - Release Date: 07/24/09
05:58:00
------------------------------
Windows Live™ Hotmail®: Celebrate the moment with your favorite sports pics.
Check it out.<http://www.windowslive.com/Online/Hotmail/Campaign/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_QA_HM_sports_photos_072009&cat=sports>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20090725/e674ec24/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list