Thread replies: 13
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
File: CksVOgKWEAAkTjK.jpg (92KB, 575x1024px) Image search:
[Google]
92KB, 575x1024px
Are Humans that reject science, math and reason still technically "People" in the modern philosophical sense when it comes to Ethics?
I have a hard time empathizing with Humans that reject math, science and reason because it's hard for me to picture that they would have a functioning brain that would even comprehend the intellectual and emotional suffering that self-aware members of the species do.
Do happy-idiots feel pain or care about consequences as much as intelligent People do?
Do happy-idiot Humans pass the test for Personhood if they reject consequences, responsibility and accountability?
The only conclusion I can reach is that they lack the ability to feel deep emotional pain and are not fettered by incorrectness, tragedy, oppression, etc.
They may bleed when picked, they do not feel loss nor seek self preservation (at least long term self preservation).
Pic unrelated.
>>
>>8242783
>responsibility and accountability
>science
Idiot.
>>
>>8242783
>Are Humans ... still technically "People" in [a given context]?
Alright, Hitler. Settle down.
>>
>>8242783
Yes. Just because you're pretentious and look down on people, doesn't mean that they're lesser or better than you.
>>
OP here.
I'm not seeing and counterpositive points.
In fact, I'm not seeing much of anything.
In regards to the theory of the mind and/or psychology, how can a non-self aware Human be considered a Person, meaning a self-aware status.
It's clearly a contradiction.
>>
>>8242805
OP here.
>>Are Humans ... still technically "People" in [a given context]?
Human and People are not synonymous.
People, in this context, refers to the Ethical concept of "Personhood" in which self-awareness is the primary point of contention.
The "reductio ad hitlerum"/slippy slope fallacies will be ignored; I'll chalk it up to your ignorant over reliance on hyperbolic conclusions draw from mindless and under-researched political stances.
>>
>>8242812
OP here.
That's a false equivocation and a non-sequitur.
You didn't off a counterpoint.
You said I look down on "people".
I don't.
The word "Human" and "Person" are not interchange.
Person refers to Personhood, meaning a self-aware individual capable of taking responsibility for their actions.
I'm saying Humans that are not capable of self-awareness aren't considered Humans in Science (Neurology, Psychology, Psychiatry), so why should I feel pressured to treat them as such?
>>
>>8242800
OP here.
Rejecting Life Sciences are we?
Cause and effect?
Identity in Science?
http://www.ethicsweb.eu/node/122
The unread are always so quick to dismiss!
Do you have a counterpoint?
>>
>>8242823
Well first if you accept any form of ethics that isn't error theory, then treating people poorly because you think they're not "self-aware" is ethically wrong across the board.
Second what do you mean by self aware? Why don't we get a good definition from you
>>
>>8242823
Define "People" and "consciousness" formally
>>
>>8242824
>responsibility and accountability
In the absence of free will.
You fucking muppet.
>>
>>8242821
It boils down to you not liking the interests of a certain group of people and, rather than thinking of pragmatic solutions to scientific ignorance, you picked up on an ethical perspective that justifies your disapproval and validates a systematic way of ostracising said people: Some people aren't people when "people" is defined thusly .... Hence, "Hitler".
Also,>"reductio ad hitlerum"/slippery slope fallacies.... would you fucking lighten up. I was clearly being facetious. Consider taking your autism somewhere else.
>>
>>8242783
Yes, fuck math desu.
Thread posts: 13
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1