Personhood: Crash Course Philosophy #21
video description
Date: 2022-04-04
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 10
Shane
Take this into consideration: if a computer game was developed wherein the NPC's have full memories of their previous lives, are programmed to react in human ways to all outside stimuli, are capable of carrying on full, intelligent, and empathetic conversations, and are in all manners indiscernible from -real- players in some VR MMO. Would they be considered persons? Would their grief at the murder of their spouse be any less meaningful than yours would be? Their reactions might be nothing more than programming, but aren't our reactions simply the result of our own genetic programming? Just because these NPC's don't have a physical body, are they incapable of feeling pain? Are they still not persons? What about if I were to transfer my conscience from my frail and dying body into a VR world to keep living. Would I be a person still? Should I maintain my physical property, or should my children inherit it because my body died, although my mind lives? At what point does something become or lose personhood? These are important questions to address because my hypothetical situations aren't going to stay science fiction for long
reply
Take this into consideration: if a computer game was developed wherein the NPC's have full memories of their previous lives, are programmed to react in human ways to all outside stimuli, are capable of carrying on full, intelligent, and empathetic conversations, and are in all manners indiscernible from -real- players in some VR MMO. Would they be considered persons? Would their grief at the murder of their spouse be any less meaningful than yours would be? Their reactions might be nothing more than programming, but aren't our reactions simply the result of our own genetic programming? Just because these NPC's don't have a physical body, are they incapable of feeling pain? Are they still not persons? What about if I were to transfer my conscience from my frail and dying body into a VR world to keep living. Would I be a person still? Should I maintain my physical property, or should my children inherit it because my body died, although my mind lives? At what point does something become or lose personhood? These are important questions to address because my hypothetical situations aren't going to stay science fiction for long
reply
Chaos
-. and exclude those who you think should be excluded-
Oh boy if i were you i wouldn't encourage people to do such thing because there are peo- there are humans ) who think exclusion of certain other humans like certain races or minorities such as the lgbt community is justified. There are humans who think someone doesn't deserve to live just because they identify as a transgender person. Encouraging people to think is important but to mindlessly shout their opinions to the void can be dangerous. I think we shouldn't encourage the thought that someone might be less of a person for who they are what they believe in or what they've done.
reply
-. and exclude those who you think should be excluded-
Oh boy if i were you i wouldn't encourage people to do such thing because there are peo- there are humans ) who think exclusion of certain other humans like certain races or minorities such as the lgbt community is justified. There are humans who think someone doesn't deserve to live just because they identify as a transgender person. Encouraging people to think is important but to mindlessly shout their opinions to the void can be dangerous. I think we shouldn't encourage the thought that someone might be less of a person for who they are what they believe in or what they've done.
reply
education
The Social Criterion seems like a whole mess, honestly. Hoes do you determine who has the power to make someone a person by caring about them? Can't someone care about themselves and therefore make themselves a person? Does -caring- include just general motivation to support an individual's intentions for itself? As in does it include animals who explicitly care about surviving and avoiding harm?
Also, does that criterion make it possible for people to make inanimate object people just by caring about them?
reply
The Social Criterion seems like a whole mess, honestly. Hoes do you determine who has the power to make someone a person by caring about them? Can't someone care about themselves and therefore make themselves a person? Does -caring- include just general motivation to support an individual's intentions for itself? As in does it include animals who explicitly care about surviving and avoiding harm?
Also, does that criterion make it possible for people to make inanimate object people just by caring about them?
reply
Boti
5: 20 Child abuse and extreme bullying survivor here. I can confirm this view to be true. When you are not recognized as a person be anyone around you, arguing in favour or you being a person is completely useless. Really, the thing is that when a capable, fully functioning human is denied personhood, the morally correct thing to do is to offer a helping hand by caring about that non-person, restoring their personhood in the process. I am eternally grateful for the person who did that to me
reply
5: 20 Child abuse and extreme bullying survivor here. I can confirm this view to be true. When you are not recognized as a person be anyone around you, arguing in favour or you being a person is completely useless. Really, the thing is that when a capable, fully functioning human is denied personhood, the morally correct thing to do is to offer a helping hand by caring about that non-person, restoring their personhood in the process. I am eternally grateful for the person who did that to me
reply
Mark
Ernst Mayr liked to discuss the concept of typological thinking and population thinking. Typological thinking has a strict criteria for inclusion in a group, core features. And this is intuitive. But research in biology has shown that breeding populations have a wide range of genetics and thus features. Anyone born of two human parents is fully human themself regardless of their features. Diversity within a population and norms of reaction come to mind.
reply
Ernst Mayr liked to discuss the concept of typological thinking and population thinking. Typological thinking has a strict criteria for inclusion in a group, core features. And this is intuitive. But research in biology has shown that breeding populations have a wide range of genetics and thus features. Anyone born of two human parents is fully human themself regardless of their features. Diversity within a population and norms of reaction come to mind.
reply
TJ
Bit of those last 3 episodes: Imagine a murderer who got into car accident. For few weeks was in a coma and after he awakes he has amnesia. How should he be treated by the law / justice system? After that severe brain damage is he still the same person and should be punished for -his- crimes? When in coma is he still a person? What about people with mental issues: split personality, bipolar syndrome, schizophrenia. ?
reply
Bit of those last 3 episodes: Imagine a murderer who got into car accident. For few weeks was in a coma and after he awakes he has amnesia. How should he be treated by the law / justice system? After that severe brain damage is he still the same person and should be punished for -his- crimes? When in coma is he still a person? What about people with mental issues: split personality, bipolar syndrome, schizophrenia. ?
reply
Dave
That was just dumb. Talk about a made-up concept: anthropocentric, intolerant, insignificant, rationalizing and a very slippery slope. Ask a soldier what the first skill to learn in a war - dehumanize your opponent. This presumes that the only thing of value are people (Genesis 1: 26, i. e, those like us. Screw the trees, the sky, the earth, animals, aliens both earthly and otherwise. grrrrr
reply
That was just dumb. Talk about a made-up concept: anthropocentric, intolerant, insignificant, rationalizing and a very slippery slope. Ask a soldier what the first skill to learn in a war - dehumanize your opponent. This presumes that the only thing of value are people (Genesis 1: 26, i. e, those like us. Screw the trees, the sky, the earth, animals, aliens both earthly and otherwise. grrrrr
reply
Kristian
Anything that has the potensial to rasoning is a person. This include fetuses, but not brain dead people. Fetuses have the potensial reason, but permanently brain dead people do not. The other is not cause more suffering than necessary. It is okay to kill someone or an animal if it is necessary for your own protection or the survival of the greater good. My own opinion short and simple
reply
Anything that has the potensial to rasoning is a person. This include fetuses, but not brain dead people. Fetuses have the potensial reason, but permanently brain dead people do not. The other is not cause more suffering than necessary. It is okay to kill someone or an animal if it is necessary for your own protection or the survival of the greater good. My own opinion short and simple
reply
by
i had no idea that people debated -personhood-.
if you're a fricking human, you're a person.
superman, chewbacca, c-3po and aliens aren't real, d'uh, so they're not really -persons-.
on the other hand, a fetus, a comatose person and a corpse are all -persons-.
btw, every other critter on earth is equal to humans (if not superior) without needing to be classified as -persons-.
reply
i had no idea that people debated -personhood-.
if you're a fricking human, you're a person.
superman, chewbacca, c-3po and aliens aren't real, d'uh, so they're not really -persons-.
on the other hand, a fetus, a comatose person and a corpse are all -persons-.
btw, every other critter on earth is equal to humans (if not superior) without needing to be classified as -persons-.
reply
Wian
In regards to Singers philosophy, a thought experiment
If a scientist genetically engineers two sets of humans, one set unable to feel physical pain and other set unable to feel any emotional pain, which ones would be more human? And if a human is created which possesses neither physical nor emotional pain, would it be morally just to do anything to such a human in the name of science?
reply
In regards to Singers philosophy, a thought experiment
If a scientist genetically engineers two sets of humans, one set unable to feel physical pain and other set unable to feel any emotional pain, which ones would be more human? And if a human is created which possesses neither physical nor emotional pain, would it be morally just to do anything to such a human in the name of science?
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
