Personhood: Crash Course Philosophy #21
Vložit
- čas přidán 24. 07. 2016
- Now that we’ve started talking about identity, today Hank tackles the question of personhood. Philosophers have tried to assess what constitutes personhood with a variety of different criteria, including genetic, cognitive, social, sentience, and the gradient theory. As with many of philosophy’s great questions, this has much broader implications than simple conjecture. The way we answer this question informs all sorts of things about the way we move about the world, including our views on some of our greatest social debates.
--
All other images via Wikimedia Commons, licensed under Creative Commons BY 4.0: creativecommons.org/licenses/...
--
Produced in collaboration with PBS Digital Studios: / pbsdigitalstudios
Crash Course Philosophy is sponsored by Squarespace.
www.squarespace.com/crashcourse
--
Want to find Crash Course elsewhere on the internet?
Facebook - / youtubecrashc. .
Twitter - / thecrashcourse
Tumblr - / thecrashcourse
Support CrashCourse on Patreon: / crashcourse
CC Kids: / crashcoursekids
Crashcourse philosophy has been truly masterful at handling difficult topics in a very rational way. Keep up the good work.
+
+
+
+
+
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
MY OPINIONS ON THE MATTER!
ANGRY UNINFORMED REPLY
I REFUTE YOUR OPINION AND POSIT ONE WITH NO EVIDENCE
OMG! I NEVER THOUGHT ABOUT IT THAT WAY! YOU'VE CHANGED MY LIFE!
OFF TOPIC QUESTION
*RAGES ABOUT YOUR STUPID OPINION AND GIVES HIS*
Crash Course Whatever: Hank poses a question, Hank guides us through reasoning to get the answer
Crash Course Philosophy: Hank poses a question, Hank guides us to more questions which are even more frustrating and a little bit mind blowing, then you eat gelato and weep silently
L
O
to me this is not frustrating but very much mind blowing
Philosophy should be mandatory in school.
no just no
no, that's a terrible idea.
Obscene Vegetable Matter
High school maybe, would be a bit much for children.
How to reason should be, but not philosophy like these topics.
well
first of all I think you should change the school system
think about how many people hate math
philosophy is very similar to math by its methods and sometimes its abstractness
so right now a bad idea
probably good in hypothetical good system
Regarding the gradient theory of personhood, how do you determine where someone falls on that gradient? If we take that theory in conjunction with Singer's theory (since they don't appear to be mutually exclusive theories), then a cow may be considered more of a person than a week-old fetus, since the cow at least has the capacity to feel pain and pleasure, whereas the fetus does not. In which case, abortion of a fetus in the early stages of development has no more of a moral implication than slaughtering a cow for meat.
On the other hand, it may in fact make the matter of slaughtering animals such as cows for meat even more controversial, since cows have now been promoted to persons and killing them could be considered murder. To go even further, if we believe that persons can forfeit their personhood by committing grievous acts against other persons (like murder), then a lion (which is now technically a person since it can feel pain and pleasure) hunting and killing a gazelle (also now a person) is forfeiting its personhood by killing another person. But since lions are cold-blooded animals and must kill other animals (mostly persons) to survive they can never be persons, since their survival precludes their ability to be persons.
Therefore, a person cannot be defined by its ability to feel pain and pleasure if persons are also capable of forfeiting their personhood through seriously immoral acts against other persons. By extension, all carnivores have forfeited their personhood by murdering other people (that is, if they have killed the animal themselves).
he had glasses in his mother's womb
aye
@@obitavora7478 foxy the pirates animatronic?! Is that you????!!!!!
I thought of philosophy as a rubbish subject but you showed me what philosophy really is. I find it very interesting now. Thank you!
Thanks to Crash Course Philosophy, is now my favorite subject.
Thanks to Crash Course, Philosophy is now my favorite subject.
Thanks to Philosophy, Crash Course is now my subject favorite.
I knew that would attract the grammar Nazi's!
Like fish ya took the bait!
***** Bait you took fish like!
Thank you Crash Course Philosophy. This is now my favourite subject.
Tough to talk about but worth it
+
+
-
+
+
I don't think it is necessary to take away one's personhood in order to punish them for their actions. ...It is by their being people that they can be punished for what they have done.
If you take away their personhood, it is like you are trying to punish a rock for not being a tree.
Yeah. We are mad at Hitler for example because he was a person and he did what he did.
Agreed! As explained in the past episodes, "personhood" changes from time to time. I don't think that murderers and rapists HAVE to be that way forever. And if you're a theist of some sort, taking someone's "personhood" shouldn't be an ability anyway.
Agree, with some exception. When we find fault with a human we find a way to demonize and they become a bad person or an evil person. When we find fault with other fauna we tend to forget they have personalities and become to us mindless beasts. Certain "primitive" cultures still refer to what we think of animals as a monkey person or an elephant person for example. This, to me, suggests a combination of instinctive self preservation coupled with a trained response to a such a "person".
"if all you need are human DNA, then my mouth cells are persons" 3:54
Then shows red blood cells, which do not have DNA when they mature =.=
really? I learned every cell (except for mutations) carry the same DNA as other cells, including the cell which divided into it. (getting into biology in a philosophical discussion? might be somewhat relevant but it's not the focus here lol)
@@Obi-Wen Red cells are an exception, since all they do is carry carbon dioxide and oxygen. They aren't technically a true cell with DNA in maturity, and mostly function as a protein.
My problem with Personhood is we only have one real example, Us.
A sample size of one is difficult to examine. That's why I've always been fascinated by Neanderthals. In many ways they were very different than us but we would seem to give them personhood.
+
+
Animals are people, they meet all the right criteria. Consciousness, self aware and can potentially adapt to it's surroundings.
Who's to say bacteria don't have all those things?
It's certainly possible Adrian but difficult to prove.
I find that the gradient approach is serving me quite well on a moral basis now. Thanks so much for this video!
+
+Nick Christensen that is on point
Personhood wasn't the primary criterion on the Titanic.
The gradient view doesn't work as an independent idea of personhood, you have to mix it with one of the other views. So for example, if you say that a man on the Titanic has more personhood than a child (or vice-versa,) you have to explain why. Is it because the man has more cells containing DNA? Because he is more cognitive? More important socially? Or more sentient?
The problem I have with the gradient approach is that it could be used to justify discrimination. For example, people with IQ less than 100 could be considered inferior to those with IQ's of 150 because they have a greater capacity to reason.
"I'm sure no one in the comments will be shouting their opinion at all" - LOL thanks Hank, I just spat my porridge all over my phone at that line! 😂
Great episode. My philosophy teacher back in college took two classes to discuss this and didn't do the awesome job you guys did. Two thumbs up.
i think hank does a great job of talking about these kinds of things in a neutral, objective way, which is important when educating. good job, hank!
Warren's criteria also excludes about a third of humanity at any given point... you know, the part that's -asleep-, as in, not conscious, not able to communicate and definitely not self-aware.
+
+
Being asleep isn't the same thing as being unconscious. I'd also wager that the thought process only excludes you from personhood if you permanently lack one of the criteria, which would not be the case for people who are simply asleep.
FamAD 123 I thought of this, the problem with the "permanently" argument is that, by that logic, fetuses SHOULD be people, since after a few months, they will be conscious and all that. And what about coma patients? In that case, you just don't KNOW if they'll ever wake up for sure, so are they people or not?
+
It is extremely brave of you to make this episode.
+
how is it brave to make this episode?
In order for Crash Course to be brave to produce this video they would need to have fear. This particular series has covered a wide range of controversial topic already that could be more dangerous in the current period of history. The fact that it is a complicated subject does not make one brave to discuss it... especially in a video format on a public domain. The video could be described as brave if they would have taken a firm stance on exactly what defines personhood and argued for that sake at the risk of repercussion. Since there is no possible repercussion from this video there was nothing that required bravery. It is an extremely well thought out video and a great discussion starter...but not brave.
+Brian Griffin My guess would be that because this is a hot button issue it's kinda risky to bring it up. But I think that bravery comes from taking a stance on a subject rather than discussing something that should and is constantly being debated and considered. Not to say that somebody somewhere didn't get their knickers in a twist and add the bookshelves to their hit list because a group of people decided to actually present something for consideration and *gasp* allow people to draw their own conclusions.
+Will Plume So yeah, I guess it is kinda brave. Mayhaps I need not be such a muscle brained purist.
Can I just say how much I appreciate that the ads were at the end of the episode. Thanks squarespace !
I'm grateful for this season of crashcourse, it's a helpful introduction.
Great series! Keep it up! To the description or to the videos themselves you should add a suggested readings section or additional information area about the video, so people with interest in that topic can find out more about it.
I really love this series! Hank in general is amazing and I just recently discovered this, and it is still so useful even 6 years later! I love how you consider very difficult questions while presenting different views. It really helps me think about these very important ideas! Most people just ignore them because they are too hard and confusing, but their answers play such a vital role in society that I wish more people would. Thanks, Hank! ❤🤔💭
Loved it. Thank you for your dedication to bringing intellectual light to all.
>3. Self-motivated activity
>4. Capacity to communicate
or
>Social Criterion
Dang guess I'm not a person
Thanks to Crash Course for helping me through philosophy class this semester in an engaging way. I can imagine I'll continue to use this channel throughout college and beyond :)
Thank you very much Crash Course and Hank Green! This is an issue I've been thinking about for a long time and I think that It will be helpful for me to think about Personhood as ability to suffer on a gradient scale as a new solution to explore. hank you for introducing me to a new perspective!
Nicely Done Hank. Not an easy subject to do well but you and the teams have given us food for thought.
I wish this episode was longer. These are some extremely fascinating ideas and I feel like you didn't have enough time to discuss the arguments for and against each idea of personhood. Is there any recommended reading out there that can compare these definitions in greater detail? Great episode! Definitely got me thinking.
Really enjoyed this episode - I had heard of the term personhood used in this way before, but without the definition just made it feel like weird semantics.
I'm flashing back to my time watching Smallville after this week's Flash Philosophy. Awesome episode guys, love this series.
I think I love philosophy. Thanks, Crash Course for providing such brilliant content for free.
So that's why people say "dogs are people too." I always agreed with this, even though I didn't know how or why I thought that way. Now I do and I can efficiently explain my reasoning to others. Thanks CC!
I didn't expect the conversation to concern fetuses or capital punishment but I found it's an interesting place to start from for these topics. Fascinating as usual, thanks Hank :D
This episode reminded me of a very similar question my philosophy instructor once asked, and that is what makes someone a human. It essentially has the same answers and conundrums as this question in a slightly easier package, at least on the surface. The conundrums being people with some form of disability and newborns. Also animals such as other prime apes, elephants, crows, and dolphins usually through a wrench into the idea.
They really are super considerate about sensitive issues. I love how great they do at really staying neutral
Cognitive also calls into question if we're still persons when asleep.
I quite like the gradient theory. I also like the Cognitive Criteria. I'ma just combine them. Meeting more of those criteria or meeting them to a greater extent will make you more of a person on the gradient.
I know I'm late to the party but I just want to say thanks for these videos, you guys deserve all the credit people give you!!!!
"This stuff is hard to talk about, which is why we're talking about it" is kind of a great quote. I think I'll use it in the future.
Oh man, I can't even WAIT for Ethics. one of my favorite subjects.
Reminds me of a time when I was a little kid and referred to Winnie the Pooh as a nice person, and was ridiculed by my brothers. "He's not a person!" I guess I was ahead of the curve.
The crash course philosophy has changed my life. Thankyou so much
This is one of my favorite episodes so far.
would the cognitive criteria exclude people with more severe mental/physical disabilities? would you have to meet all five of the requirements to make the cut?
That's exactly what I was thinking, I was waiting for him to bring it up.
It seems to be presented as the criteria being individually necessary, so yes, those with certain handicaps would be excluded. If you were to say they weren't all necessary, it'd be tough pinpointing what makes a person a person (unless you combined it with a gradient perspective, possibly.)
How severe would a disability have to be to entirely fail one of those criteria? Maybe I'm just a terrible person, but if someone's brain deteriorates to the point where they are no longer capable in any way whatsoever of any form of communication, then they have lost their personhood.
Though consciousness is a bit of an awkward one, because most living creatures frequently lose consciousness, so does that mean we all stop being people for roughly a third of every day?
yeah, my main problem is point 4 communication (3 wich self-motivated activity is problematic too). As soon as you are alone there is noone to comunicate to, thus you are uncapable of communication and no person. As soon as you meet someone you become a person again (seems quite ridiculess, right? :D). But with diseases only affecting the body a person thinking just the same as always would become a non person by getting paralyzed, also very problematic for mute people. This is why my personal definition is very close to the cognitive definition, but excludes points 3 and 4 (can't actually phrase out something accurately describing my personal definition as it's a lot of subtle stuff feeling right).
+Setririon I feel like you don't understand what the point about communication is. When you're alone you still have the ability to communicate, just not the opportunity, so you wouldn't lose personhood.
Plus, mute people can still communicate very well, as any mute person will be willing to sign to you. It says communication, not speech.
You're correct though that under this belief you would lose your personhood if you got a disease that put you in a vegetative state.
Would I stop being a person when I'm sleeping? Or too lazy to move on my own?
This has to be my favourite EP of Crash Course to date.
excellent video as always!
I'd really like to see you address the personhood of legal entities (corporations, etc). thats a particularly contentious issue that has implications well beyond the issues brought up here.
I think person-hood is not about if something is sentient or not, but if that sentience is closely human relatable / compatible.
Such as a cat may not experience all the emotions we do, and express them in the same way we do, thus we don't call it a 'person'. This can easily be applied in a scale manner, such as a scale from Human, to Gorilla, to cat and some alien creature. Looking at personified characters, they may not be considered a person, but they are very close, showing and expressing emotions and thought.
One of my favourite things to do is go to one of these videos, scroll down and just enjoy the debates :)
Of all the Crash Course subjects, Philosophy has to be my favorite.
"Some beings have more personhood than others"... sounds a lot like "all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others".
Great video! Hope this helps us all think more clearly.
This video made me realize that I'm being much more literal that I thought by jokingly saying "animals are people too!" when talking about being vegan.
i think Data is a person and Commander Maddox shouldn't be allowed to take him apart to study his brain!
But was Data right to deactivate Lore?
+aperson22222 +
Yes, I believe Lore surrendered his personhood when he tried to kill the whole of the Enterprise and its several thousand crew members.
Joshua Guillemette Elsewhere on the comments section of the video I pointed out that leaving the phrase "moral responsibility" undefined really hampers this discussion. Here you say that Lore's immoral actions earned him death. Fair enough, that's a consistent application of the real-world justification of capital punishment.
You further say that this is acceptable because Lore forfeited his personhood by his actions. Well all right, but I must ask: Is it ever acceptable to kill someone _without_ first demonstrating their non-personhood? A person is someone to whom we are morally responsible, but does moral responsibility include an obligation to avoid ending a person's life at all costs?
I'm not at all sure it does. And I think that challenging the idea that it does could potentially create a far more nuanced and robust debate on the capital punishment issue.
+aperson22222 You're right. Our Judeo-Christian morality comes with conflicting ideas. 'Thou shalt not kill' doesn't sit easily with "thou shalt not suffer (X) to live". Hence, capital punishment at any level is a conflicted issue.
I love these Philosophy courses... so good.
Recently started watching the series Westworld, very relevant
I kinda like lex Luthor. He is arguably smarter than batman, and the reason he hates superman is actually pretty easily justifiable.
Superman: Save Martha...
Batman: How do you know that name???!!!??
He hates Superman, because Superman is powerful and Luthor cannot conceive a person who is both powerful and altruistic, and so he just assumed Superman to be evil sight unseen. That doesn't seem very justified to me.
And that's when Luthor cares about morality and ethics at all. Usually, he just hates Superman because Superman opposes him.
+TheManWithTheFlan No, in most renditions of Luthor, he hates superman because he is making the human race rely on him. He wants humans to advance so that they can continue to thrive without outside help.
I think that it is banon that Batman is smarter than Lex.
+Christopher McKee I don't think so, batman is supposed to be a representation of just how well rounded a man can be. Cyborg is a better hacker, there are better planners and fighters.
If anyone is going to be smarter it would be Luthor.
So the railroad is right, synths are people.
Synth Lives Matter
+
As the institute director of the "slaver" of sinths but thay are the best hope for humanity
Railroad were the best. If only the actual story of Fallout 4 was better, they might have had more depth to them like the Institute...
#GradientTheoryOfPersonhood
*Scrolls through comments, smiling* This is why I love this community so much...
Aww I love thought bubble :) Hank always features in flash philosophy! Also I think crash course is amazing and I love your videos! :)
Is there going to be an episode on Morality? I feel like we are taking it for granted.
+
He said ethics is coming up, which includes morality :)
I wouldn't hold your breath for accuracy, though. Hank is an atheists and struggles to suppress his atheists leanings even while he acts _as if_ he is presenting things accurately for the theist. Since reason and logic are exclusively on the side of theism for when it comes to the subject of morality, and thus by extension ethics, you can be sure that he will downplay things tremendously.
I think it's incredibly biased to state that reason and logic are Exclusively on the side of theism. You can paint a complete and internally consistent ethical picture of the world through theism, but you can do the same without invoking God.
kcazllerraf Actually it's a thoroughly thought out and discovered "bias." I hold to this "bias" *because* I've discovered that it is true necessarily without even the hope of a logical possibility otherwise. So, I wouldn't say I'm "incredibly biased," person who spoke rashly without knowing me.
7:40 - "some animals are more equal than others." - George Orwell
Very informative episode. Thanks Hank!!
Thank you for another excellent episode.
I have some questions, I'm truly and honestly not implying anything, but I found these questions to be interesting to think about, and would like to know your perspectives too, if you would honor me:
About cognitive criteria:
1- Do you need to have all or at least 1(or x)?
2- Is a man sleeping or unconscious a person?
3- Can a table be a person capable of reasoning, but incapable of communication?
4(3)- Can all these criteria be summarized to ability to communicate?
Social criteria:
1- Does this allow for multiple levels of person hood? (is a hit singer more of a person than me, as more people care for him.)
2- Is this perspective recognizing the belief of majority as the ultimate truth?
3- Does the person who cares about you also have to be a person?(Can I claim a table cares about me, or the sun?)
4(if 3)- Who is the person whose person hood doesn't depend on another? Who is The First person?(damn it, god get out of here)
The capacity to suffer:
1-Does that mean some one who is unconscious is not a person?
2-What role does the ability to communicate pain play in this?(How to recognize a suffering creature unable to communicate?)
3-Does it mean later moral conclusion would only apply if suffering is involved, and not when harm is evolved?
Gradient theory:
1- What is measurement of Personhood?(Damn, this one just expands the question)
hear are some possibilities:
i- Remaining lifetime: An Embryo is more person than all of us.
ii- Power: in which case anyone with ability to end another is more of a person than the other. like a mother.
iii- Toughness: In this case a table is more of a person than all of us.
Also maybe a semantic point(specially since English is not my language this is really in my interest,) I thought rights are attached to you except if you refuse to receive them, and at any points you can ask them to be given to you(as in america right or receiving a trial by pears is a thing I hear.) I was expecting the word privilege to be used in explaining ones ability to loose his/her/its personhood.
Where can I find a good literature about the "gradient theory of personhood?" Thanks!
Glad to see another episode. Was worried for a bit that it might have been dead.
Hey! This is neat, because I decided I felt like Singer around a decade ago. This gave me consistency in my ethics. Yay, now I have a philosopher to point to and I can more deeply review the limits of my view by looking into any critiques on him that are around. Neat!
Could the Gradient theory of personhood not be used to justify felonies such as child abuse, given that the adult would be considered to have more personhood than the kid?
that situation isn't just weighing lives against each other by coincidence. there's a clear direction of harm.
@@claudiajcs9172 Well, but its weighing harm against pleasure. So disadvantage of one vs advantage for the other. Or in case you would like prevent it: Neutral for the child (or positive of being spared, depending on how you see it) and disadvantage for the potential abuser.
Therefore I think the Gradient Personhood concept is flawed.
As an abortion abolitionist and somewhat of an amateur philosopher, I really enjoyed your fair, unbiased presentation of this issue. I have genuinely never heard a truly unbiased laying out of these positions until now. Well done. Love your science videos as well.
Austin Henning may I ask why you want abortion abolished?
Rude
Sydney Freeman "To their bodies", something I always here from you feminists, nothing but selfish women and men who conform to the feminist ideology. You can do what you want to "your" body, but you definitely shouldn't have the right to someone else's life, being an unborn child. Though not considered a person in terms of this video, a human is a human, no matter how small. No reason can justify the murder of unborn babies.
Sydney Freeman I suggest you look up information on abortions from both perspectives in terms of abortion and what really happens during one.
Sydney Freeman In your opinion, how exactly is "bodily autonomy" a determing factor in terms of abortion? How does it justify the ending of a HUMAN life, without regards as to whether a human fetus is a person or not?
I enjoyed this episode all of your stuff really opens up the way I think
I love this series so much.
Please consider "Crash Course Theology". I would love that!
It would have to be pretty good. Misrepresentation is just too easy.
Could you do a course over fiction writing?
I second this motion.
+
+
+ that would help me so much!!!! DFTBA
They're doing Literature already, so I think they have that covered.
This is a great intro for us that struggle to get a hold of philosophy
this is a very complicated issue, kudos for trying to tackle this
2:05 Dropping some truth bombs.
Watching this all I can think is that I would consider myself a people person
I never knew this was such a hot topic. I've always thought about it a lot, but never decided on an existing theory.
It is interesting how strongly people defend their beliefs regarding this subject. Hopefully I will be able to do the same some day.
As a subjectivist this series is both interesting and entertaining.
I'm surprised Hank didn't take this discussion to where I'm about to go, but as somebody who has chosen to professionally care for adults with severe physical and mental disabilities, I've had to redefine my own definition of personhood. A lot of the folks I help lack all outward signs of sentience - some are barely able to chew up blended meals and require 100% support simply to stay alive - and yet, as myself, my coworkers, and even the State consider them, they are people.
When I come home I have my dog, and compared to a lot of humans that I know, she is a LOT more aware, intelligent, and self-actualizing. Thus, since the humans I assist are people, so is my dog, and therefore at LEAST any other animal that can interact with the world on her level.
My current take on personhood is to assume that a being has it when all other signs point against them. It is not my place to assign or unassign personhood to any being. All I can do is extend my empathy and hope that somewhere, however deep inside their mind, they receive my love and return it however they are able. THAT'S how I resolve this question: It isn't up to me.
that's why I think the label of personhood is utterly meaningless. Even a thing that is utterly devoid of sentience (or even life) can still be blamed, praised and even punished or rewarded. For example when tunnel is about to be bored through a beautiful rock formation, there is always a question about whether the tunnel is worth the destruction/mutilation of the completely lifeless purposeless structure. Our sense of empathy, ethics and morality is not restricted to persons - not even to life. It is a measure of relevance...
I agree.
So many of the points on the gradation theory can be completely thrown off by what our perception just fails at. Like the ability to communicate, and to be self aware. Recent advances and tests with fMRI are showing that lots of people the medical community considered brain dead or vegetative & unaware, are in fact perfectly aware of whats going on and are able to communicate via the fMRI. People just can't see beyond the physical disability and never bothered checking before. Terrible reason to deny someone personhood
Aeryn Walker Exactly! I spent a few years working with a woman who could only communicate by slightly raising her eyebrows. She's one the smartest people I've met in the community, but, to put it frankly, she's just trapped in a shitty body. Once I got through the barriers, we had a lot of fun together!
I agree with Peter Singer. I find it silly to care about hurting something or wanting to please something that cannot feel the pain or pleasure.
+
+
+
Just to play Devil's Advocate, what are your feelings concerning eating animals? If they have a sufficiently developed nervous system (and most animals we eat do), then they are sentient and deserve moral consideration. How then can we justify treating them the way we do, what with factory farms and the like making their lives miserable? Would you propose a sliding scale of personhood, or would you advocate for more vegetarians/vegans, or something else entirely?
"How then can we justify treating them the way we do, what with factory farms and the like making their lives miserable?"
I couldn't justify it, so I became a vegetarian. Have been one for over a year.
It is great how it addresses all the topics especially I believe the 8th admentment in Ireland is brilliant
I really love this series, Hank. Look forward to each new episode, it's so interesting! Thanks so much for making these
I consider them all wrong, you are a person when you have the possibility (rather right now or in the future) of being self aware and conscious. Let me put is this way, everyone is not self aware, reasonable, capable of communication self motivated, nor conscious when they sleep, no one can feel (all though we have a nervous system reactions) when he or she sleeps, so then is it okay to kill a entity as long as it is asleep?
By that logic it a fertilized egg cell is a person, or even the cell or the the sperm by themselves.
By that logic, humans with a degrading mental health are not people
Clearly the value of life is in its potential. Conscious interaction is merely a demonstration of it.
Deep
Hank sounds super-interesting on every opening!!
This is the kind of class I wish I would have taken in college, but it never would have happened at my conservative Christian university. Thank you very much for saying that this was hard to talk about. That shows me you have empathy for how it feels for those who want to explore what these parts of existence mean.
[Unsolicited opinions on Israel]
[inflammatory rebuttal based upon knowingly-distorted historical narrative]
[dank memes]
[Generic and ambiguous approval of the entire thread]
[brackets]
[something about Donald Trump]
who else have played The Talos principle ?
+
sublime game
Me 😍
Yes! I also felt like SOMA raised a lot of similar questions, although in a different way. Both games really left me thinking...
Jón Aron Lundberg I'll have to check SOMA! seams like I should not play this game before going to sleep tho
The legal definition of a person is helpful to this discussion as well. Whether you agree with the definitions of "person" (in the US or other jurisdictions), they provide critical information about what that society values as personhood. For example, the history of corporations being persons in the US is a fascinating story and one that illuminates both American history and current and future values. I encourage anyone interested to read more about it.
Very helpful! Thank you so much for making these videos :-)
CC sociology!!
Pls
+
+
Yessss
+Nicole Feltman What's the deal with this plus sing?
Is it a new trend?
hank green started that to trick the youtube alogythm. it supports good comments to go up in the comment section over the controversial ones that provoke people into answering. there have been complains of course because it makes debates harder but there now is a plugin that stops showing you comments with only a plus sign. also i like your idea so you get a + from me two ;-)
I would define a person as something that is or has the potential for 'self awareness'
I think I like the gradual view of personhood more than the other ones. I connect it with the degree of consciousness a sentient creature has. The more a creature (whether we're talking about AI, humans or other animals) is able to experience, that is to say the more it is able to experience pleasure/pain, the more ethical responsibility everyone has towards this creature. If the concept of 'person' is necessary in order to include/exclude said person from our moral community, then I believe we ultimately have to discuss just how much or how little we should include/exclude it.
From this, an ant would be on one end of the spectrum, but on the far end of it and as far as we know at this point a human would be on the other end of it. We wouldn't treat the ant the same way we treat the human because of reasonable assumptions that an ant cannot experience to the same degree a human can.
Hence degree of consciousness = degree of personhood = degree of moral responsibility towards it.
What do you guys think?
the more of these i listen to the more his assumptions and personal views creep into things. still a great series.
"THEIR OPINIONS ON THE MATTER!!!!!!!"
Alright alright; so how do I define person hood?
The most appealing theory at first sight is the cognitive one. A problem immediately comes to mind here.
If I take a person and put them under general anesthesia (while ventilating them); they lose all five criteria of the cognitive rule of person hood. With these criteria, it would be perfectly acceptable to kill someone if they are under general anesthesia.
Clearly, that isn't very palatable.
The sentience theory is very similar to the cognitive one, albeit less strict in its definition of person hood, but encounters a similar problem.
There is another problem with sentience; and indeed with the cognitive theory. How do I know that anything has sentience / consciousness. Clearly, I think therefore I am, but do you? I assume you do because we support similar hardware, and you tell me you think therefore you are. What about a Korean person? I don't speak Korean so he can't tell me that he thinks, but clearly, it shouldn't change the outcome. Okay, what about a human that grew up in the jungle and doesn't actually speak a language. Well. Alright he's most likely sentient. What about a cat? Or a cow? Or a bunny? Are those sentient? They certainly have emotions, and we've already said that language isn't the cut off criteria...
So here is the ultimate test.
Assume that there is a box. In that box, there may be a human person, who's gagged and unable to answer you. Assume that you know for a fact that there is 50% chance that the person in in the box, or 50% chance they are in another safe location.
If you shoot the box with a gun, I will give you a million dollars.
Would it be morally acceptable to accept? What if the million goes to charity, and there is a 0.1% chance that there is a person in the box? Now is it moral?
I think the most helpful way to see it is to think of it as "based on my understanding of what sentience is, and what it comes from, how likely is it that _this_ has sentience?" and therefore "considering that I evaluate that there is 15% chance that _this_ is sentient, what benefit do I expect to gain for other sentient beings in order for it to be justifiable to have a 15% risk of killing a sentient thing?".
And suddenly, it's just as easy to manage in a consequentialist model as risk-benefit is.
Also, my knowledge of my own sentience is 100%, whereas I don't know for 100% that other humans are sentient, which justifies the fact that I'd save my own life over another human, for example in self defense.
As for the general anesthesia problem, we could slide in a phrase about "potential for sentience", which would at the same time solve the toddler problem.
@@GregTom2
Add and/or subtract criteria such a is, will be, can no longer be.
I love the clouds at the end, if you look you can see two faces looking at one another.
Everyone should watch "Unplanned". It answers so much!
As a pro-lifer, it’s so unrealistic and flawed lmao
@@mopolitics8158 This movie mirrors all the research that I have done including the testimonies from 3 girls who I have known personally since grade school, plus all the testimonies from past abortion doctors, past abortion workers, abortion survivors, to the mothers and fathers themselves. There are literally thousands upon thousands of similar testimonies from all over the U.S., let alone the world. Why do you not believe all these people? Why do you think that they are all lying?
I challenge you to prove scientifically what is unrealistic and flawed about this movie, not some generalization, insults, or opinions, but real peer reviewed scientific evidence. I wonder if you even watched this movie or not. If you haven't watched it, you can watch it for free on Amazon Prime Videos.