Perhaps. So, what does that have to do with the discussion between me and Spidey?
By being a moral agent.
It’s the fact that the child is having his or her body violated. If it’s rape when the child is 20, why isn’t it rape when the child is 4?
tacoface,
Recently you’ve only offered cheerleading and your use of the word “reality” in numerous posts recently. Maybe if you had something more to offer other than your take on ‘reality’ it would be helpful.
False. Try again.
Thanks. We’ll take note of how your bootlicking reflects badly on us.
Until a brain in a vat actually happens I’ll believe that.
If that’s possible.
And when a person doesn’t understand rights does that mean they can be violated? of course not.
**
dead humans are dead. This is about human nature. life, liberty, and property - that whole shabang.
Non sequitur.
Nonsense.
Bullshit.
No, you do not. Please do try so stop your idiotic hyperbole before no one ever takes you seriously again.
No. But there is a concept for you to look into: supererogatory.
wilderness, you know generally speaking I’m a fan, but I don’t understand your criticisms, you seem to have not comprehended what I had written.
Could you try again?
I would also encourage KoB to have at me, if I have laid out whoppers, I do trust his insight in such matters.
I don’t understand your criticisms. And you don’t seem to have comprehended what I had written. same question to you.
This makes sense. In discussions pertaining rights, the mental faculties of animals are used as a benchmark (as opposed to their DNA). Whether something has rights I believe is determined by whether it is autonomous, which of course would require a mind.
my brain is in the vat of my body. the point is that moral agency does not stem from DNA, it stems from other attributes rational ability, will etc. now in humans these attributes manifest in adults, i believe they manifest in children too, but i deny they exist in zygotes, hence i note a grey area in childhood, which i understand to be a significant feature.
great, i’m glad you agree.
no, the discussion is not about teleologically comprehensible beings that have reason and wills but yet lack understanding merely of the field of knowledge known as ethics, and in particular the role that rights play. my point is only that for beings for whom it is not appropriate to analyse by appeal to teleology, beings that have no reason or will,can never be said to be ‘violated’ since ‘violated’ is a concept that only applies to teleological beings of the type mentioned above. ‘violated’ implies ‘logically possibility of them refusing; and this refusal (or lack of telological consent) not being acknowledged by another party who goes expressly against their wishes’ you know this since you are aware there is no debate over whether teapots are ever violated or chairs are violated. or dead humans are violated, or human bodies with beating hearts and healthy skin suffering from braindeath ‘violated’.
and you agree that Zygotes lack minds but didn’t want to come out in agreement with me ???**
The point being, that human beings are potential moral agents. Even 70 year olds are potential moral agents. A criminal that stole might turn their life around and recognize life one day. Shouldn’t they have this opportunity?
The DNA is to point out the species, but is not at all about whether the person is a moral agent or not, and whether they know it or not. DNA is a solid demarcation that this discussion is not about dogs. That’s all.
But it is about that. That’s why potential is always ever-present. I mean it is about the knowledge - mind - correct?
yes but we know the baby is a human, thus why I brought up the DNA, and not a teapot. Even a baby controls, though limitedly, him or her self. And so does a monkey, but a monkey will never in their life-time recognize the theory of rights but a baby has that ability and so does a 70 year old man/woman.
**
sorry, I was focused on the statement “dead Humans for example”. What do zygotes have to do with this?
lol
by the way, you know I wasn’t talking about that kind of vat.
zygotes are humans that lack minds and are not moral agents.
70 year olds that you refer to, i assume they are human and alive. they are not ‘potential’ moral agents. they are moral agents. perhaps you are confused by moral agent, into thinking that it is meant that they act ethically instead of acting evily. thats is not what is meant by the phrase. (ignore if this was not the confusion)
My theory includes the concept “potential”. It is Aristotlean and I’ve read not only him but Aquinas discuss this concept in the book “On Human Nature”. It makes complete sense to me that to get from here to there - there has to be the potential of a ‘there’ to get to. Children have the potential to get to ‘there’. Monkey’s don’t. Keyboards don’t. Tea kettles don’t. I believe, let me know if I’m wrong, it’s been some time since I read about teleology (sp?), but I think to understand telogy the concept of potential is necessary.
potential moral agency is not the same as moral agency. it actually underlines the fact the moral agency whilst possible in some contingent future, is nevertheless not present, not actual. to say that something is ‘potental moral agent’ is to admit that it lacks moral agency.
not really. it means it is potential within the agent extant. meaning, the intellect needs a potential to become actualized. without the existence of a potential realization then the actualization will not happen. we don’t know everything right off the bat. we learn. the intellect is capable of potentially realizing ‘rights’ but doesn’t actualize this knowledge until it is actualized. teapots and monkey’s will not do this.
These false analogies you churn out only bear one result. They exemplify your indifference to human suffering and logic.
What not who.