When do we begin to have personhood?

Well, condolences, if they are due, but then family lore has it that my own mother miscarried five times before I was conceived, so it’s not the end.

It might be worth recalling that the origin of the word ‘person’ is ‘persona’ which was the mask worn by the actors in Greek dramas, to depict the character they were playing. I think ‘person’, ‘self’ and ‘ego’ are pretty well interchangeable terms. And, I don’t think that newborns are persons - they have yet to form as personalities. This however doesn’t mean they don’t have the intrinsic rights accorded to individuals. But until they learn to differentiate themselves, or recognise themselves as ‘me’, then I don’t think they’re persons as such.

As for the existential issues that you’re grappling with - I have found a measure of solace through Buddhist meditation and philosophy. An important part of that is actually seeing through the sense of the apparent solidity of the person or ego; that we exist in relationship with others and indeed with everything. That is the work of meditation - gaining insight into the way ‘thought creates thinker’. Actually on that note, there are some very good centres and teachers around teaching mindfulness meditation as an antidote to existential dread - see for example the books of Jon Kabat-Zinn and Mark Epstein, or the Oxford Centre for Mindfulness Research.

http://oxfordmindfulness.org/

https://amzn.com/0465050948

https://amzn.com/0316411752

When do we begin to have personhood?

Somewhere between zygote and the grave, I suppose. I view "personhood" as a continuum.

All that a zygote 'has' is the DNA of its parents, and a temporary location. With luck, the zygote will move through the stages of development and become a human baby in about 9 months, and then be thrust out into the world. A cigar, but no person. Another much longer period of time is required before the young human can begin to apprehend "self" and begin to direct its self-development. All this time DNA, parents, siblings, playmates, caregivers, teachers, climate, diet, the biome--the terroir (think of what gives a wine a particular flavor) is shaping this person. Personhood is beginning to emerge. We can see the sculpture emerging from the stone

By adulthood, the human is closing in on personhood. Perhaps we have 'built out' 50% to 99.9% of the personhood we might ultimately have. For the next 15 minutes on to 80 years, we progress, but we are always on the way to the final act of becoming. We never arrive at Full Personhood. So, personhood may become richer and deeper and wider and higher. It may plateau early on. It may begin to shrink--by disease, for instance (Alzheimers) or by a slow flagging of will, of interest, of vitality.

A 'more fulfilled personhood' is possible and I wish it for any and all. Alas, not all will progress the same way.

Dying is the person's final experience and death is the end.

Quoting Mark Dennis

Sorry for the personal nature of this post. However, where does a philosopher go for therapy? As if the psychologist or psychiatrist could be prepared to deal with the kind of existential depression that comes hand in hand with increasing ones understanding of the nature of reality, or the clear ethical conflicts of duty that arise when our personal lives are rocked by tragedy and we have to consider the world we bring our children into or whether we even should bring any into it?

For some problems, you may have to heal yourself. There ain't no cure for the global warming blues Terrifying? Indeed it is. Difficult choices? Absolutely.

IF you need a therapist, I think you will find that there are psychologists and psychiatrists who are familiar with existential despair. Finding a good practitioner is always tricky. Good luck.

Quoting Mark Dennis

Sorry for the personal nature of this post. However, where does a philosopher go for therapy? As if the psychologist or psychiatrist could be prepared to deal with the kind of existential depression that comes hand in hand with increasing ones understanding of the nature of reality, or the clear ethical conflicts of duty that arise when our personal lives are rocked by tragedy and we have to consider the world we bring our children into or whether we even should bring any into it?

I’m sorry for your loss. Truly.

Psychiatry cannot help the existential depression of a philosopher. They prescribe meds, and I don’t think meds would be helpful in your case. IMO meds should only be used to treat serious disorders where the person would be a danger to herself or others without them. A lot of people need meds, but I think they’re overprescribed.

As @Bitter Crank suggested, there may be psychologists or therapists out there who can help a philosopher, but I haven’t had such luck myself. I see a psychiatrist, but I’ve had bad experiences with therapists.

What @Wayfarer suggested about meditation may be helpful. I’ve not been successful with it due to my thought disorder, but it probably would help you if you found the right guide.

Best wishes to you.

Reply to Mark Dennis I genuinely feel for your loss. The immense value that these unborn children had for you and your fiancé is real, regardless of any evidence of being in time, and their impact on you in this respect reflects their personhood in your experience, despite what anyone else believes. So if they had died at the age of one, I would say that the loss you now feel would seem to be shared by others to the extent that they shared your experience of valuing that child’s personhood, their unique potential, and had opened themselves up to its impact upon their own. Then I guess the child’s value would at least appear more real, and you would perhaps feel less alone in your grief, so long as you had the courage to connect and work together in coming to terms with your loss, as I imagine you would now with your fiancé. But otherwise I would think the grief itself would be the same.

In the same respect, the value that you then attribute to future generations, regardless of your genetic connection to them, is a choice only you can make. If you value anything about the potential universe beyond your own finite physical existence, then you can work towards realising that potential in some way. You make the connection and attribute value to it. You open yourself up to being aware of and valuing the unique potential of others, to allowing their potential to collaborate with your own and enable you to contribute in greater, more meaningful ways. Genetics has nothing to do with it, in my opinion. It’s only an awareness that contributes to your perception of value, in the end.

In doing so, however, you also open yourself up to experiencing more pain and loss, because each of us only has a finite physical impact on the universe anyway, despite our efforts. I’m afriad I can’t sugar-coat that for you. You can attempt to disconnect from what you value, pretend to value less and try to minimise your impact on the universe in an effort to minimise suffering, but in my view that isn’t really living, is it? I think at some point we have to realise that pain, loss and vulnerability are part of life, humbly accept our share of it, and focus on what we can do together to share the load without adding to it. Because I think our unique potential to achieve anything is only increased by our connection and collaboration with others.

Quoting Mark Dennis

With the way things are going now, does my grief make logical sense? Or should I feel glad that my child won’t share in the probably horrible fate bringing them into this world will bring to them? Should I keep trying to make this world a better place for future generations so the grief makes more sense? What if my worst fears should be realised and I find out I cannot have children? Should I still contribute even though none of those future generations will be of me?

I don't know if you've seen them, but there are lots of discussions on the forum about anti-natalism. "On Anti-natalism" is currently on the front page, but it's already 500 posts long, so it may be hard to get into.

Quoting Mark Dennis

Sorry for the personal nature of this post. However, where does a philosopher go for therapy? As if the psychologist or psychiatrist could be prepared to deal with the kind of existential depression that comes hand in hand with increasing ones understanding of the nature of reality, or the clear ethical conflicts of duty that arise when our personal lives are rocked by tragedy and we have to consider the world we bring our children into or whether we even should bring any into it?

I've read that some philosophers who convinced themselves that there is not free will committed suicide. There is plenty of psychological, physiological depression around without creating more out of thin air.

Quoting Bitter Crank

All that a zygote 'has' is the DNA of its parents, and a temporary location. With luck, the zygote will move through the stages of development and become a human baby in about 9 months, and then be thrust out into the world. A cigar, but no person.

When a person becomes a person is a matter of convention. Some thoughts:

• Black people used to be considered 3/5 of a person. Or was it 2/3.
• It says "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all [People] [s]Men[/s] are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness…." So, that doesn't apply to newborns?
• I've said this many times - babies come out of their mothers already the people they are and will be. So much of temperament and personality is there from the very beginning. Probably before the beginning.
• Which brings us to the problem of abortion. I support women's right to choose whether or not to have a child. That doesn't mean I don't recognize that personhood develops sometime between conception and birth. Something important is lost when a pregnancy is ended. Abortion is a bad method of birth control.
• Of course, Republicans think that life, and personhood, begins at incorporation.

Quoting T Clark

When a person becomes a person is a matter of convention. Some thoughts:

I had intended to say that very thing, but didn't. Quite so: For various purposes we can define a person as an object, and we do. From the POV of the person as subject, personhood develops over time, with a gradual awareness of personhood. This gradual appreciation of ones own personhood continues to develop throughout life. All persons pursue their self realization within the constraints of their individual reality, which can range from impoverished to rich (in various ways).

Let me drag in another contentious issue: the movement of humans across borders, and the term "Illegals".

There is nothing at all inappropriate about defining an unauthorized entrant into a country as an "illegal"--illegal alien, illegal immigrant, illegal whatever, because this definition is limited to whether they are here or there with authorization from the state, or not. It doesn't affect or apply to their existential personhood.

Immigration activists, it seems to me, behave as if the term "illegal" applied to the person's existential quality. It does not.

Nations are fully entitled to differentiate between legal and illegal entrants into the country, in order to protect the interests of the citizens who make up the nation. Both authorized and unauthorized border crossers are full persons with the usual human mix of laudable and lamentable motivations and characteristics, but they are also "legal" or "illegal".

States and citizens had better sort out this very difficult problem, because more and more people are going to wish to be somewhere else as life on the planet becomes more difficult. On the one hand, we feel for the suffering of persons; on the other hand, we want to protect--we should protect--our own interests.

There will not be enough room in the coolest, richest, most pleasant geography for the populations of the hottest, poorest, least pleasant places on the heating, overcrowded map, especially if the most pleasant places have a chance of remaining pleasant. I don't know what the solution should be -- I don't know how we are even going to attempt a conclusion on the matter.

It isn't even a question of race. People in Scotland won't want all the southern English people fleeing heat and flooding. People in Northern France won't want everyone from the hot parts of France and Spain to move there. People in Northwestern European countries certainly won't be happy if all the hot, thirsty, hungry people from France, Italy, Spain, Greece, Germany, Hungary, Bulgaria, Rumania, et all decide to move into Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Norway, and NW Russia. 4 million lily white Minnesotans don't want 30 million lily white southerners arriving on their doorstep.

Quoting Bitter Crank

States and citizens had better sort out this very difficult problem, because more and more people are going to wish to be somewhere else as life on the planet becomes more difficult. On the one hand, we feel for the suffering of persons; on the other hand, we want to protect--we should protect--our own interests.

The governments of Europe opened their borders to refugees from the Syrian civil war. If my memory is correct, about a million. The migration has had a significant negative impact on the host countries. The amazing, heartening thing to me is that they agreed to let them in. Somebody, probably someone in Germany, probably more than one, deserves a Nobel Peace Prize. I can't imagine that will be a feasible solution if what you fear comes to pass.

Reply to T Clark It wasn't as if Europe had a lot of choice. The refugees from the Syrian state disaster just "arrived". Hungary was excoriated (or praised) in the press for putting up a fence, and channeling refugees THROUGH, but not TO Hungary.

Arrivals by the ones and twos ask to come in, because before 1 or 2 at a time, the door is easily kept closed. Hundreds of thousands of refugees, economic migrants, opportunity seekers, people fleeing disaster don't generally ask if they can come in, because they are more like a fluid mass who push the door open. Short of setting up banks of machine guns on their shores and borders, how was Greece to resist the arrival of so many? They, being civilized people, did their best to care for the arrivals before they moved on. Once in Greece, the refugees had arrived in Europe.

One of the lessons here is: If you don't want near by countries to collapse into shit holes, then help them. This idea certainly applies to Central America. We could stem, even reverse, the flow of migrants from Central America by a comprehensive development program which could do for the area what the Marshal Plan did for Europe. And we should, since we have been fucking this region over for what, a century at least, and longer.

Quoting Bitter Crank

One of the lessons here is: If you don't want near by countries to collapse into shit holes, then help them. This idea certainly applies to Central America. We could stem, even reverse, the flow of migrants from Central America by a comprehensive development program which could do for the area what the Marshal Plan did for Europe. And we should, since we have been fucking this region over for what, a century at least, and longer.

That seems very intelligent and moral to me. Good luck getting the conservatives to tax and spend, though.

Reply to Wayfarer “This however doesn’t mean they don’t have the intrinsic rights accorded to individuals.” Here we have run into where classical person and the modern personhood differ. Personhood has also been defined as “An individual worthy of moral consideration.”. However not many like this definition as it leads to potentially defining non-human individuals as persons for we give moral consideration to both fictional characters and animals. Parents start considering their moral obligations to future offspring quite early, sometimes even before conception. Although they don’t fully consider it until pregnancy has been confirmed.

So, in the case of the Greek persona; We need to be cognisant that one can predict some of the aspects of a persona before the bearer of it arrives. Some of it will be predictable by knowing the parents, family history and even by the culture they are born in. For example, it is quite easy for me to be accurate when I say, all children born in Mecca are Muslim, because only Muslims are allowed in Mecca. So any children born in Mecca will identify their persona having Islam in it in some way whether this is lifelong faith or a later life rejection of the faith.

I think this ties into what T Clark was saying earlier
“I've said this many times - babies come out of their mothers already the people they are and will be. So much of temperament and personality is there from the very beginning. Probably before the beginning.
Which brings us to the problem of abortion. I support women's right to choose whether or not to have a child. That doesn't mean I don't recognize that personhood develops sometime between conception and birth. Something important is lost when a pregnancy is ended. Abortion is a bad method of birth control.”

So, if we are defining personhood as someone who is due moral consideration, or as someone who is getting moral consideration regardless of whether it is right that they do so; Does this change the outlook at all?

Side bar: Thank you for all your messages of support and advice. I find this community to be immensely fruitful and helpful when it comes to philosophical questions making an appearance in our personal lives.

I’m against anti-natalism for one reason, impractical and impossible. While I can see the logic in the anti-Natalist view, there is simply no way for a society to enforce this as a prescriptive methodology without overstepping peoples human rights and it would be near impossible to police. Case and point; Apartheid Africa, where despite being illegal at the time, many mixed race children were still born, for example Trevor Noah.

Then we have the issue of downs, there is a professor with Down’s syndrome who spoke about abortion in the instance of downs being detected. I forget his name but it’s probably an easy search away which I’ll do later to satisfy my curiousity then I’ll put a link here to what he says. However the point of what he said, was that people with Down’s syndrome live very happy and meaningful lives despite their shortcomings. Low IQ is only really a good measure of learning rate and they can learn, adapt and overcome some of their shortcomings just like anyone else.

So for me, I agree with the idea that a person is someone who is given moral consideration, even if their identity only exists in the abstract to the parents up until it becomes a physical object where personhood resides.

Quoting Mark Dennis

So for me, I agree with the idea that a person is someone who is given moral consideration, even if their identity only exists in the abstract to the parents up until it becomes a physical object where personhood resides.

First of all, I appreciate this thread. You're digging deeper than the whole "is abortion right or wrong" into what really matters to that debate: personhood.

Also, my condolences to you and your wife. Having been through the same thing recently, I can sympathize with your pain and the uniqueness thereof. It's like grieving, but over what or whom?

As for the where this current discussion stands, I'd like to make a distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic value. (See the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry here for a more detailed explanation, if you're so inclined.)

Briefly, intrinsically valuable is a thing or person who is valuable in and of themselves, regardless of the value judgments of others, while extrinsically valuable is that which is valuable only on the basis of the value we ascribe to it (dollar bills, for example, which other than our agreeing to see them as being so and so valuable, are just fairly gross cotton rags).

I think a person is usually placed in the intrinsic category. You and I are valuable just because we are persons and because we exist. We also can be extrinsically valuable to our friends, family, and society, but that is not the only way in which we matter.

What you describe above is a description of an unborn child being considered a person because of their extrinsic value. I agree that this value exists and that it is important and makes the child matter morally. However, it does not make it a person. It is a potential person, but not yet fully there.

A person is, in my opinion, defined by a list of necessary and sufficient conditions, such as sentience and cognizance. These develop over time in the womb, and it may be hard or even impossible to pin point where the fetus is a full person. However, we can clearly see that an ovum is not a person, a fertilized ovum isn't either, but a 8 and 1/2 month old baby is.

As for the worries about differences between Downs people, low IQ people, and highly intelligent people if we rest personhood on cognizance, I think the analogy of a beach is apt. You can't quite say where the ocean ends and land begins, because of the moving tide and so on. But at some distance away from the beach you know, this is land, and it doesn't matter how far you go inland, it doesn't become more land just because it's further away from the ocean. It's all equally land.

Anywho, just a couple of thoughts.

Reply to NKBJ I really appreciate your contribution to this discussion.

“What you describe above is a description of an unborn child being considered a person because of their extrinsic value. I agree that this value exists and that it is important and makes the child matter morally. However, it does not make it a person. It is a potential person, but not yet fully there.”

I agree with the sentiment that extrinsic value alone cannot grant personhood. However, in the case of whether or not the grief of a lost child is the same as the grief of a lost pregnancy; If we say that the parents have intrinsic value and hold extrinsic value to the unborn child, then can’t we say the unborn child has an anchor of intrinsic value through its parents?

As far as psychology is concerned, the trauma of losing a pregnancy and of losing a child have the same impact on the parents, the difference lies in how we seek support for this. Typically because they know others hold no extrinsic value for their unborn child they keep quiet as miscarriage has an air of taboo in our society. Whereas the grief is generally better understood and supported externally when it was a born child. Yet there is no difference psychologically?

I’m for abortion in the instances of rape, underage, far greater threat to life of the mother than is generally acceptable.

When parents identify with really wanting the child however, I think it might in fact already be a person by this argument.

Would you say animals are persons?

Reply to Noah Te Stroete Conservatives spend plenty, and all they have to do is divert a few billion from weapons systems to Central American Reconstruction (or some such moniker.

And what do you know; at the end of the previous sentence my laptop once again died. Screen went dark and it won’t reboot. So I am using a tablet now, which sucks. That’s twice since May. Perhaps it is time for the old computer to receive its last rites.

Quoting Bitter Crank

Conservatives spend plenty, and all they have to do is divert a few billion from weapons systems to Central American Reconstruction (or some such moniker.

That’s true, but as a Democrat or Democratic-leaning person, I was working under the assumption that we actually had to pay for these things and not just put it on Uncle Sam’s credit card. I seemed to forget how Republican minds work.

Quoting Bitter Crank

It wasn't as if Europe had a lot of choice. The refugees from the Syrian state disaster just "arrived". Hungary was excoriated (or praised) in the press for putting up a fence, and channeling refugees THROUGH, but not TO Hungary.

Germany let in more than 1,000,000. The US wouldn't let in 10,000.

Quoting Bitter Crank

One of the lessons here is: If you don't want near by countries to collapse into shit holes,

Well, we sure turned the whole middle east into a shit hole. Now Bolton and Trump want to do it in Iran too.

Quoting Mark Dennis

I’m against anti-natalism for one reason, impractical and impossible. While I can see the logic in the anti-Natalist view, there is simply no way for a society to enforce this as a prescriptive methodology without overstepping peoples human rights and it would be near impossible to police. Case and point; Apartheid Africa, where despite being illegal at the time, many mixed race children were still born, for example Trevor Noah.

Many anti-natalists, e.g. @schopenhauer1 here on the forum, do not propose legally enforcing their principles.

The greatest experiment in anti-natalism in human history - the one child policy in China - has turned out to be a disaster.

Quoting NKBJ

However, we can clearly see that an ovum is not a person, a fertilized ovum isn't either, but a 8 and 1/2 month old baby is.

I agree that a fertilized ovum is not a person, but many people do not. So, it's clear to you and me, but not to everyone.

Quoting NKBJ

As for the worries about differences between Downs people, low IQ people, and highly intelligent people if we rest personhood on cognizance, I think the analogy of a beach is apt. You can't quite say where the ocean ends and land begins, because of the moving tide and so on. But at some distance away from the beach you know, this is land, and it doesn't matter how far you go inland, it doesn't become more land just because it's further away from the ocean. It's all equally land.

I'm not trying to be cute, but for engineering and legal purposes in the US, land is generally said to begin at the mean high water (MHW) elevation, which varies from location to location. I think MHW is established by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). That's the sort of approach some legislatures are trying to use for the beginning of personhood by restricting abortion after a certain term of pregnancy.

Quoting Mark Dennis

As far as psychology is concerned, the trauma of losing a pregnancy and of losing a child have the same impact on the parents, the difference lies in how we seek support for this.

I think you'll find that many (most?) people will disagree with this. It certainly isn't true for me.

Quoting Bitter Crank

And what do you know; at the end of the previous sentence my laptop once again died. Screen went dark and it won’t reboot. So I am using a tablet now, which sucks. That’s twice since May. Perhaps it is time for the old computer to receive its last rites.

I think there's a pretty good chance that @Baden banned your computer. You should check with him.

First, it's important to realize that there are no true normatives. That is, truth is not a property that a normative can have. (This is with respect to your "should" questions, for example.)

Most takes on personhood have it that sentience is one of the most important aspects. Definitely fetuses are not sentient at the start--they don't even have brains at the start. It would at least require a particular stage of brain development for sentience to obtain (barring a good reason to believe that mentality, subjective experiences, etc. can obtain in other materials, which we'd need to specify). Are newborn babies sentient? That's more difficult to say. So personhood may not really kick in until sometime between late infancy/toddlerhood/being a young kid.

The reason that we consider babies due moral consideration is typically the fact that they'll develop into persons, and eventually into entities that are capable of and due consideration for granting or withholding consent, where that doesn't kick in fully until we consider them adults. So it's a very gradual process to that point--a process with lots of fuzzy boundaries, especially because we're dealing with individuals who don't all develop the same.

Quoting Terrapin Station

Most takes on personhood have it that sentience is one of the most important aspects. Definitely fetuses are not sentient at the start--they don't even have brains at the start. It would at least require a particular stage of brain development for sentience to obtain (barring a good reason to believe that mentality, subjective experiences, etc. can obtain in other materials, which we'd need to specify). Are newborn babies sentient? That's more difficult to say. So personhood may not really kick in until sometime between late infancy/toddlerhood/being a young kid.

A couple of definitions of "sentience:"

• Feeling or sensation as distinguished from perception and thought
• Sentience is the capacity to feel, perceive or experience subjectively.

I don't think you are saying that babies don't feel, perceive, or experience. Or are you? Is "sentience" the right word? Do you mean self-aware or conscious?

Quoting Mark Dennis

If we say that the parents have intrinsic value and hold extrinsic value to the unborn child, then can’t we say the unborn child has an anchor of intrinsic value through its parents?

I don't think it works that way. :) The unborn child is then extrinsically valuable to an intrinsically valuable entity, which makes it very valuable indeed, but not intrinsically so.

Quoting Mark Dennis

Whereas the grief is generally better understood and supported externally when it was a born child. Yet there is no difference psychologically?

Personally, if I ever lost my son, that would be much worse than the grief I've had over a miscarriage. I think most people feel the same way once they actually have a live, born child. But I assume that it's highly individual and I would understand a grieving parent's feelings at any stage in development.

Quoting Mark Dennis

When parents identify with really wanting the child however, I think it might in fact already be a person by this argument.

I just don't see on what basis you're defining personhood here. That would imply that unwanted fetuses are not persons, or fetuses who's existence is yet unknown are not persons. There is no physical difference between a wanted and an unwanted fetus, and from the perspective of the fetus, nothing changes. I think it's important to come up with a definition of personhood that applies equally to all fetuses regardless of their external circumstances.

Quoting Mark Dennis

Would you say animals are persons?

'Animals' is a very large category. It ranges from mollusks to the great apes. I think great apes, dolphins, and dogs (for example) are persons. I think clams mostly likely are not persons. And I'm uncertain about insects and the like, though I have read some interesting articles about the cognitive abilities of spiders, which pushes me toward a strong maybe.

Quoting T Clark

'm not trying to be cute, but for engineering and legal purposes in the US, land is generally said to begin at the mean high water (MHW) elevation, which varies from location to location. I think MHW is established by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). That's the sort of approach some legislatures are trying to use for the beginning of personhood by restricting abortion after a certain term of pregnancy.

Well, okay. But you get my point.
And, yes, I agree with legislation that tries to find a reasonable point within pregnancy to identify fetuses as persons. I realize that makes the laws complicated, but I think it's more accurate and ethical that way.

Quoting T Clark

I agree that a fertilized ovum is not a person, but many people do not. So, it's clear to you and me, but not to everyone.

I assume most people to whom it may not be clear are making those claims on the grounds of what some deity allegedly said or on the basis of ensoulment. Once you have that talk in the mix, the conversation is over--you no longer have enough common ground to stand on.

But, okay, since Mark is making this case on the basis of extrinsic value contributing to personhood, I'll rephrase: we can clearly see that a fertilized ovum has neither the sentience nor the cognizance to be intrinsically valuable to itself. Along the lines of my argument, that makes it a non-person, though a potential one.

Quoting NKBJ

I assume most people to whom it may not be clear are making those claims on the grounds of what some deity allegedly said or on the basis of ensoulment. Once you have that talk in the mix, the conversation is over--you no longer have enough common ground to stand on.

I don't think that's fair. I am not a member of any religion and don't have any beliefs in a specific God, but I don't think saying personhood begins at conception is ridiculous. I don't agree, but there is a legitimate non-religious, non-moralistic case to be made.

Quoting T Clark

I don't agree, but there is a legitimate non-religious, non-moralistic case to be made.

I did go on to entertain Mark's theory about personhood, which would include conception for at least some very wanted blastocysts--so I think your charge of unfairness is unfair :joke: :smile:

Anywho: what is the "legitimate, non-religious, non-moralistic" case you're referring to? (Assuming you're not referring to Mark's theory.)

Reply to NKBJ It is not my theory at all. The post-enlightenment definition of personhood is "an entity who recieves moral consideration." So, if a couple decide they dont want their child then they arent morally considering it. If they do then they are. Therefore their choice to morally consider is what gives it personhood. I mean, even Harry potter has personhood as we give moral consideration to fictional worlds too.

The classical "Persona" is simply not fit for purpose anymore when it comes to defining personhood.

Furthermore, I mentioned the grief a parent in either case from a psychological perspective because that is the empirical basis. Studies after studies into trauma all say the same thing, the grief is the same. All the same stress chemicals released in the same amounts. Your culture dictates your reaction to it though. You can tell youself it isnt the same and consciously feel like it isnt the same, but neurology and endocrinology dont lie.

So, why cant I call my now lost child a person? Why should I listen or believe in the classical interpretation of personhood when it renders my lost child inferior to born ones? It had just as much promise and potential as any newborn and it meant just as much.

What is pragmatically true for our species, is holding future generations dear to us now is the best thing for our species. The potential for any newborn can be intrinsically valuable to humanity in and of itself as is the very idea of offspring.

I'm sorry we dont agree. Pragmatic ethics is all about using non-religious or non-moralistic arguments. Quite frankly if sciences is telling us that nuerologically the grief in either case is the same when the child is wanted, then whenever the child is wanted it is a person.

In an ideal world where all children were wanted and where childcare works the way it should then I'd encourage less people to get abortions simply because they are now persons in my perspective.

You might think this sounds strange or "That's not the way it works" but I ask, how could you possibly know if it works this way or not? It can work either way.

Reply to NKBJ A few questions I have for you; Why do you think personhood can only be granted to intrinsically valuable entities and what argument do you employ to justify that which is intrinsically valuable must physically exist in the present?

Quoting Mark Dennis

what argument do you employ to justify that which is intrinsically valuable must physically exist in the present?

That indeed is the question.

Quoting Mark Dennis

It is not my theory at all. The post-enlightenment definition of personhood is "an entity who recieves moral consideration."

That's really an incomplete definition.

Quoting Mark Dennis

I mean, even Harry potter has personhood as we give moral consideration to fictional worlds too.

No, he doesn't. He doesn't exist.

Quoting Mark Dennis

Studies after studies into trauma all say the same thing, the grief is the same.

That is entirely compatible with either of our positions.

Quoting Mark Dennis

it renders my lost child inferior to born ones?

But it really doesn't. It just says that it's value doesn't come from its personhood. A person derives value intrinsically as well as extrinsically. Many other things only derive it extrinsically. It's not a competition or a point-scale system though of what is most or more or equally valuable. You value the fetus, and therefore the fetus is valuable--this does not mean the fetus is or needs to be a person.

Quoting Mark Dennis

I'm sorry we dont agree.

That's okay. We don't have to. :grin:

Quoting Mark Dennis

"That's not the way it works" but I ask, how could you possibly know if it works this way or not? It can work either way.

I was very specifically saying your attempt to change the application of intrinsic value doesn't work that way. Which it just, by definition, doesn't.

Quoting Mark Dennis

Why do you think personhood can only be granted to intrinsically valuable entities and what argument do you employ to justify that which is intrinsically valuable must physically exist in the present?

To the former: Because I define persons as sentient and cognizant beings, and such beings value their own existence (by and large), which makes them intrinsically valuable.

To the latter: Because if it existed in the past, I'd have to way "it was intrinsically valuable" and if it will exist in the future, I'd say "it will be intrinsically valuable" and if it doesn't exist at all in any space-time continuum, it can't be valuable and it is in fact nonsensical to talk of its value.

I might say that personhood is a legal status granted to certain 'companies' (bunches of people with property?) when they have ritually drawn up and signed certain documents of 'incorporation'.
It is also usually granted to any live birth, and in some places under some conditions to the unborn. There have been recent cases seeking to grant personhood to rivers, and possibly other natural features.
It answers the question of the thread title, but this is more interesting:-

Quoting Mark Dennis

Think back to your earliest memories, then ask yourself, is this the start of me? Or did I begin when I entered this world? When did I enter it? When I remember, when I was born, when my parents first gifted me with moral consideration, or when I was conceived? If I had been lost before I was born, would I have caused my parents the same grief as if I’d died at the age of 1?

I used to have a recurring dream, very frightening, and almost beyond description. I was in a field, and then I was being crushed by an enormous weight that I couldn't escape. Then one day, about eleven yrs, when i learned where babies came from, I realised it was a birth contraction memory, and never had that dream again. I also had another recurring nightmare, that I realised was an actual birth canal journey memory, and I never had that one again after I recognised it as real but past. So what is in the gift of others is certainly vital to any life of a social being, but it is a line of declaration - of passionate declaration, by all means, that is any parents' necessity of love - to say that this bud is a rose, and it is none of anyone's business to measure the loss between one person and another. My sister lost a teenage child, and still every year fifty years later posts his picture on facebook on his birthday.

Mark, I wish that you will have a child and have much joy, and I am sure that you will always have the sadness of your loss too, and they are both immeasurable and incomparable.

Reply to NKBJ I’m sorry but this here is nonsensical. If someone isn’t part of our moral community then they are a person. In philosophy personal identity “persona” and your “personhood” are not the same. One is metaphysical, the other is a purely moral term.

If something that isn’t on the time-space continuum can’t be valuable then why would philosophers ever think thought experiments, fictional literature, movies, TV and art ever be worth discussing through any form of value theory? Ethics is largely the study of value.

You need to understand one thing in particular, the idea that foetus’s don’t have personhood is the very idea that leads to people causing harm to the grieving parents of miscarried children through denying their grief as real or equal to that of losing a child. Does a foetus have a persona or a personal identity as it where? No, is it part of our moral community? Yes. Are it’s parents? Yes. Can we see an allegory to real life racism within the world of Harry Potter? Yes? Does Harry Potter try to prescribe us ways of overcoming prejudice through virtues? Absolutely. So, if Harry Potter is a part of our moral community, by the way philosophy as a field defines it, Harry Potter has Personhood and so does my 10week miscarried child.

Quoting NKBJ

Anywho: what is the "legitimate, non-religious, non-moralistic" case you're referring to? (Assuming you're not referring to Mark's theory.)

The fertilized egg, at the moment of fertilization, has all the material needed to create a fully functioning human being. To me, it's not unreasonable to say that it has some moral standing. I guess that's the same as saying it has some intrinsic value, although I hate the intrinsic vs. extrinsic distinction. Ending it should not be a matter of casual indifference. Using abortion as just another method of birth control, no matter when in the term, devalues human life.

People are hurt when an abortion is performed. I'm sure it's not always true, but it often is. There's a pretty good chance that the potential mother and father will look back sometime in the future, maybe when they finally do have children, and wonder what they have done.

Ok, at the time of conception, we agree that the fetus is not a person. Do we also agree that five minutes before birth, it is? Whatever value life has, it's bullshit to talk about it as having extrinsic value. Whatever value it has is universal, I guess that means intrinsic. It has unalienable rights.

Quoting NKBJ

'Animals' is a very large category. It ranges from mollusks to the great apes. I think great apes, dolphins, and dogs (for example) are persons. I think clams mostly likely are not persons. And I'm uncertain about insects and the like, though I have read some interesting articles about the cognitive abilities of spiders, which pushes me toward a strong maybe.

This seems like a very dangerous idea to me. Saying humans are to be valued in the same manner as spiders may increase the respect paid to animals, but it will devalue the respect due to people.

Quoting Mark Dennis

If something that isn’t on the time-space continuum can’t be valuable then why would philosophers ever think thought experiments, fictional literature, movies, TV and art ever be worth discussing through any form of value theory?

If you really think that fictional characters are persons, i.e. as you said, are worthy of moral consideration, then I think you mean something completely different than I and the other posters on this thread do when you say "personhood." I would say the same thing about @NKBJ's idea that spider's might be persons also. Both trivialize our humanity.

Reply to T Clark “To say that a being deserves moral consideration is to say that there is a moral claim that this being can make on those who can recognize such claims. A morally considerable being is a being who can be wronged. It is often thought that because only humans can recognize moral claims, it is only humans who are morally considerable. However, when we ask why we think humans are the only types of beings that can be morally wronged, we begin to see that the class of beings able to recognize moral claims and the class of beings who can suffer moral wrongs are not co-extensive.”

Quoting Mark Dennis

“To say that a being deserves moral consideration is to say that there is a moral claim that this being can make on those who can recognize such claims. A morally considerable being is a being who can be wronged. It is often thought that because only humans can recognize moral claims, it is only humans who are morally considerable. However, when we ask why we think humans are the only types of beings that can be morally wronged, we begin to see that the class of beings able to recognize moral claims and the class of beings who can suffer moral wrongs are not co-extensive.”

I liked your idea that a person is someone worthy of moral consideration. Now I'm thinking it doesn't really work. Dogs are not persons, but they are worthy of moral consideration. I have a bond with and a responsibility to other people that is greater than that I have for animals.

Reply to T Clark it’s not my idea. This is how personhood is delivered in a philosophy class. As someone part of the moral community worthy of moral consideration. Not my idea at all. While personal Identity has its place in the discussion, it isn’t the same concept or definition as personhood.

Now, if people want to discuss the different levels of personhood I’m all ears. I would never agree that Harry Potter has the same level of personhood as a dog, nor a dog a human. Some philosophers even argue it is possible for a human to lose their personhood by committing extreme violating acts against another person.

Personhood is in itself subjective, however since we can only ever operate from a human universe of discourse and normative relativism doesn’t tell us anything about how we act and think as individuals, the best argument is the pragmatically ethical approach. So, we need to think about the modality of ethics and how we can find an objective truth that works within the human universe of discourse. Morality outside of us has no empirical basis, morality for us does and it’s evidence lies within our bodies and in the world around us through scientific inquiry. If we philosophers ignore new facts and data coming from fields like neuroscience, endocrinology and psychology then we are simply denying the world around us as we are capable of knowing it.

Parents feel grief whether it is an unborn child or a child that has been born. You cannot grieve for something you pay no moral consideration to, without moral consideration we cannot fit the minimum criteria for personhood. If parents give moral consideration to the unborn then the unborn is meeting the minimum criteria for personhood. However, if the mothers personhood is being violated by the baby, due to being unwanted and the father mirrors this lack of consideration, then the unborn child doesn’t have personhood. Even if the father still wants it, he can’t violate the mother by forcing her to carry to term. Now, In this instance it should be noted that the mother is still violating the wishes of the father, which would justify him to terminate the relationship with this woman if he feels he cannot forgive her or doesn’t feel it can work after this for whatever reason, but certainly not justification to violate her body by forcing her to term.

Maybe the way we should be discussing Personhood and Personal identity shouldn’t be based around figuring out when we have it, as figuring out when it starts to form and when it is fully formed and what are the phases of the formation?

We all are aware that our personal identity changes every day and as we age we get varying degrees of moral consideration which means our personhood itself can change.

It remains, that nomatter the level of personhood a being has, it is still a person.

Quoting Mark Dennis

I’m sorry but this here is nonsensical.

Okay...

Quoting Mark Dennis

If someone isn’t part of our moral community then they are a person.

Did you mean to say "aren't"? Cause I'm not sure what you're saying here otherwise.

Quoting Mark Dennis

In philosophy personal identity “persona” and your “personhood” are not the same. One is metaphysical, the other is a purely moral term.

Persona is actually a psychology term, but okay.
Personhood is a metaphysical concept in philosophy that has ethical implications. Like so much in philosophy, the categories overlap here. Like, whenever you debate "murder" in philosophy, you must first define what that means and then what the ethical implications are.

Quoting Mark Dennis

If something that isn’t on the time-space continuum can’t be valuable then why would philosophers ever think thought experiments, fictional literature, movies, TV and art ever be worth discussing through any form of value theory? Ethics is largely the study of value.

I thought I was pretty clear when I said they aren't intrinsically valuable? What you describe are all extrinsic or instrumental values.

Quoting Mark Dennis

You need to understand one thing in particular, the idea that foetus’s don’t have personhood is the very idea that leads to people causing harm to the grieving parents of miscarried children through denying their grief as real or equal to that of losing a child.

I don't know what psycho would deny that grief, but I deny the personhood of unborn babies before a certain gestational age, and yet I also understand (having, might I remind you, recently lived through it myself) that the grief is very much real.

Quoting Mark Dennis

Does a foetus have a persona or a personal identity as it where? No, is it part of our moral community? Yes. Are it’s parents? Yes. Can we see an allegory to real life racism within the world of Harry Potter? Yes? Does Harry Potter try to prescribe us ways of overcoming prejudice through virtues? Absolutely. So, if Harry Potter is a part of our moral community, by the way philosophy as a field defines it, Harry Potter has Personhood and so does my 10week miscarried child.

I was with you until you made the unjustified jump to personhood. Again, Harry Potter is valuable, but not a person just because of that. My gold watch is valuable, my laptop is valuable, heck, even my wedding dress as value to me--none of these things are persons. (Note, I am not equating the amount of value of any of these items with a fetus, merely the kind, and that only in a sense of extrinsic versus intrinsic).

Quoting T Clark

This seems like a very dangerous idea to me. Saying humans are to be valued in the same manner as spiders may increase the respect paid to animals, but it will devalue the respect due to people.

Whether it's dangerous has no bearing on whether it's true.
But I also deny that it's dangerous, because I deny that it could devalue humans. When we recognized the personhood of black people, it did not devalue white people.

Quoting T Clark

Both trivialize our humanity.

That's just silly. We don't need to be at the apex of some silly hierarchy in order to be valued and valuable.

Quoting T Clark

Ok, at the time of conception, we agree that the fetus is not a person. Do we also agree that five minutes before birth, it is?

I've already pointed out that personhood begins sometime between conception and birth.

Reply to NKBJ No personhood is not metaphysical it is purely a moralistic determination of value. I'm done talking about this with you. You arent understanding what I'm saying and you clearly lack the background knowledge of the material on this matter that I have.

Quoting Mark Dennis

I'm done talking about this with you. You arent understanding what I'm saying and you clearly lack the background knowledge of the material on this matter that I have.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I hope you can come back when your feelings about the matter are less raw.

Reply to NKBJ Also, if you were familiar with the history of philosophy, you'd know that psychology used to be a branch of philosophy. If you'd been in any ethics classes you'd know that the definition of personhood always mentions the phrases Moral community and moral considerstion.

So why are you confusing personal identity and personhood as one and the same? They aren't.

Reply to Mark Dennis
I thought you were done talking to me?

I'm really very much open to having this conversation with you. I think it could be cathartic for the both of us. But it won't work if you get angry with me for disagreeing with you.

Reply to NKBJ What gives you any right to deny anyones personhood or deny the definitions generations of philosophers before you have CLEARLY DEFINED?

Ive made every effort to explain to you how the discussion is framed within acadamia. You're not getting it, you're trusting some pet interpretation you have of the Person, personal identity and personhood. If you think people aught not to morally consider certain thing's thats one thing, but the reality is people morally consider non-human beings so they therefore meet the definition within philosophy of personhood. If you want to argue from a new interpretation of those words then I'll have no part of it as I know the history of where these old ideas lead and it isnt pretty.

Reply to Mark Dennis

I guess you're not ready for this conversation right now.

Let me know when you want to be kinder toward a fellow griever. I'm here for you then.

Reply to NKBJ I dont think youre ready for it. Thats why I'm done. My emotions right now are more akin to frustration with a student not taking in what is being spoon fed to them, my grief is detached from this argument and it was my argument before I'd ever conceived a child so I dont really see how my bias is getting in the way as you're inferring. Personhood would have been defined the exact same way whether my fiance miscarried or not.

Quoting Mark Dennis

I dont think youre ready for it. Thats why I'm done.

Okay. You're welcome to feel that way.

Quoting Mark Dennis

It remains, that nomatter the level of personhood a being has, it is still a person.

I recognised something just the other day, while following the discussion on meaning: that when we talking about something being meaningful, it’s not quite the same as having meaning. We have a tendency to constrain what matters within its particular significance, and call the relation ‘meaning’, but in truth it doesn’t really need to have significance or value for me in order to matter.

I have a feeling the same problem is occurring here. Regardless of whether or not the experience of your unborn child had any significance or value as a person to anyone else but you, it matters. But it’s not the same thing. Whether we call it personhood or not is a matter of semantics, but I recognise this is important in terms of ethics because we relate the way in which ‘personhood’ matters so closely to the way in which this ‘personhood’ is then valued - to its significance in relation to more familiar experiences such as loss, abortion, human rights laws and even a normal social conversation.

The reality is that we don’t need to attribute our own sense of value or significance to an experience that isn’t ours in order for it to matter, despite this being a natural reaction. It’s how we interact with your relationship to the experience that counts: ‘It matters to me because it has value for you’. Unfortunately, our language isn’t very effective at making this distinction clear enough at this point.

Reply to Possibility So are you saying whether or not an individual decides to call something a person is irrelevant, so long as it at least matters to them that the being was lost?

I used to think I understood the nature of meaning. Then I read Cohens preface to logic and he confused the issue for me. I can’t even figure out why I’m confused about it now.

Reply to Mark Dennis Yes - and I think you have found that here with most respondents. They acknowledge your grief and that - despite their own value system which in some cases excludes a ten-week old foetus within the significance of ‘personhood’ - your relationship to this experience of personhood and loss has immense value to you, and therefore matters. But you can’t expect them to value it the same way that you do.

Meaning in relation to logic is precisely what I mean by constraining what matters within a particular system of significance. Even Cohen acknowledges that reasoning is not the only way people arrive at beliefs - he just dismisses other methods as illogical: as outside the value system of logic. That doesn’t mean they don’t matter in relation to how we interact with the world and each other as human beings.

Quoting Mark Dennis

Parents feel grief whether it is an unborn child or a child that has been born. You cannot grieve for something you pay no moral consideration to, without moral consideration we cannot fit the minimum criteria for personhood. If parents give moral consideration to the unborn then the unborn is meeting the minimum criteria for personhood.

I agree with this. Your grief is real. I don’t think any of us are denying that or that we don’t sympathize. That said, I personally wouldn’t engage in a philosophical discussion on personhood here when the feelings are still so raw. Hearing opposing views on the matter only serves to pour salt in the wound. Whatever people may say about the personhood of your lost child doesn’t change the fact that something really shitty happened. It’s understandable to take what some here have said personally... but grieving is necessary to heal. I hope the pain doesn’t sting as bad as it does now for too long, and it will get better. You will always think about what could have been, and when these thoughts come up it will hurt. But as time passes it won’t hurt as much.

But I’m sure you know all of this. Nothing anyone says here or there is going to make the shittiness go away. Grief is necessary, and it takes time.

Quoting Mark Dennis

if we are defining personhood as someone who is due moral consideration, or as someone who is getting moral consideration regardless of whether it is right that they do so; Does this change the outlook at all?

Sorry - didn't see your response until just now. In answer to your question - it is a vexed question as it is central to the abortion debate, which I personally don't want to get into. Suffice to say I don't think an unequivocal definition is possible, but I will reiterate that I equate person-hood with self-awareness.

On the other hand, you're asking why you can't consider an unborn child as 'a person' - to which I suppose I could respond, s/he was potentially a person, 'the person that might have been'. But I must confess I don't feel the need to consider the issue that way.

Reply to Wayfarer Yeah, the abortion issue causes extreme emotions in some. Usually I stay away from it.

Reply to Wayfarer “Suffice to say I don't think an unequivocal definition is possible, but I will reiterate that I equate person-hood with self-awareness.” There is a very specific reason that I would say self-awareness might not be the best place to go in regards to justifying personhood. Deadpool and Rick of Rick and Morty. Both Deadpool and Rick are fictional characters, yet both are entirely aware of their existence as such and both are considered Mad within their own worlds for this. Now, when we enter into debates about fiction and we say things like “Deadpool is a person” normally what we are really saying is “He is a person within the marvel universe of discourse.” Yet if we are saying Self-Awareness is vital for personhood within our universe of discourse then don’t we have to grant personhood to Deadpool and Rick? Should we not all come down on the writers of these franchises and demand they write better lives for these two?

Then, we have the fact that not every human has a solid sense of self-awareness. Is someone with dementia or Alzheimer’s not a person or less of a person?

Reply to Noah Te Stroete

For two who claim to stay away from the abortion debate, you both do a good job of it I feel. Although I’d ask why you both stay away from it? Is it just the uncomfortable taboo nature of it or to avoid potentially heated debates?

Quoting NKBJ

Whether it's dangerous has no bearing on whether it's true.
But I also deny that it's dangerous, because I deny that it could devalue humans. When we recognized the personhood of black people, it did not devalue white people.

This whole issue is one of human value, not truth. It is only true that all humans are persons in the sense we are talking about because we have decided that it is. We've agreed that it is.

As for the danger of the idea - I like spiders, but I've killed them when they were someplace I didn't want them to be with little thought or concern. I can't do that with people, but if spiders and people are somehow equal in this regard, it makes it easier to treat people badly.

Quoting NKBJ

That's just silly. We don't need to be at the apex of some silly hierarchy in order to be valued and valuable.

Well, there is a hierarchy, one we've established. It's not silly to say that human life is more valuable than animal's lives to other humans. People who call their dogs or cats their children make me angry. It shows I can't trust them to understand the true value of other people.

Riddle me how these two statements are compatible:

Quoting T Clark

This whole issue is one of human value, not truth.

Quoting T Clark

I can't trust them to understand the true value of other people.

Quoting NKBJ

Riddle me how these two statements are compatible:

This whole issue is one of human value, not truth.
— T Clark

I can't trust them to understand the true value of other people.
— T Clark

Ok, ok. Rewrite. "I can't trust them to understand the value of other people." or "I can't trust them to understand what I consider the true value of other people." !@#$% nitpicking philosophers.

Reply to NKBJ Reply to T Clark I think you are both engaging in the topic of truth without realizing that there is not a single uniform truth definition within philosophy. Pragmatism defines truth very differently than the rest of philosophy.

NKBJ You are talking and describing or at least framing it thusly, as Pure Truth. T Clark you are framing your interpretation as pragmatic truth.

Discussing pure truth is fun, invigorating and stimulating... but little of what is talked about has much practical utility or scientific basis. The reason for this is simple, one might happen to conclude a pure truth, but you'll never be able to verify that you really know it is the truth. If you cannot verify you know it, then others have no reason to believe it. Now, the search for pure truth can certainly guide scientific inquiry but so far, every time science comes up with answers, new questions come up. So, pragmatism works to find the best truth we have from the available collaborative knowledge acquired by us over time. The pursuit of pure knowledge can sometimes make people fall prey to self serving tendencies based upon attaining merit within the field of philosophy. The pursuit of practical knowledge is purely meant to help humanity by giving ethics a function. Modality of ethics is its very core. Without a functional ethical ecosystem our species descends into dark ages of anarchistic chaos.

So in ethics, this can take many forms. If I argue that allowing parents to bestow personhood on the unborn gives us room to alleviate parents of the potential suffering of self-blame in the case of abortion, and solace to grieving parents in the instance of miscarriage in knowing their grief is just as grief compared to a living person.

Outside of a human universe of discourse non of us have intrinsic value to the universe because we have created value and meaning. To the universe, none of us is a person. None of us is being morally considered by the universe, except by each other. So ethics lies solely in the realm of a human universe of discourse and so it must have a function for humans.

NKBJ, the pure truth is that none of us are persons. The human truth is that humans define personhood. This isn’t a case of what should be, it’s a case of how it is. Humans define personhood in beings and entities around them. Some have even argued for rivers to be classed as persons to afford them the rights of persons to be free of pollution. Self-awareness isn’t what grants personhood, self aware beings define personhood. That isn’t the same as saying personhood requires self awareness in the person being considered by a self aware entity.

Quoting Mark Dennis

Yet if we are saying Self-Awareness is vital for personhood within our universe of discourse then don’t we have to grant personhood to Deadpool and Rick?

Fictional characters self-awareness is likewise fictional whereas that of sentient beings is fundamental.

Reply to NKBJ Apologies for some of the things I said yesterday. Your grief matters to me, my grief matters to you. This should be enough common ground to keep a reasonable discussion on my part from now on.

Reply to Wayfarer Ahhh, but if I ask you to prove your existence to me, there is a logical argument I could make that you are as much a part of an elaborate simulation as deadpool is. Claiming to have self awareness is one thing, proving it to others in a way they can definitively KNOW the truth of your self is another thing entirely. So for pragmatism’s sake, the self awareness argument doesn’t work.

“NKBJ, the pure truth is that none of us are persons. The human truth is that humans define personhood. This isn’t a case of what should be, it’s a case of how it is. Humans define personhood in beings and entities around them. Some have even argued for rivers to be classed as persons to afford them the rights of persons to be free of pollution. Self-awareness isn’t what grants personhood, self aware beings define personhood. That isn’t the same as saying personhood requires self awareness in the person being considered by a self aware entity.” - Mark Dennis

If you’ll scroll up and see my reply to T Clark and NKBJ perhaps you’d like to weigh in on this argument.

Quoting Mark Dennis

if I ask you to prove your existence to me, there is a logical argument I could make that you are as much a part of an elaborate simulation as deadpool is

But that is empty sophistry. There are a lot of people who join here and ask questions like 'how do we know reality exists?' Unfortunately life is too short to re-invent the whole of philosophy from first principles. . We have to acknowledge the reality of at least suffering, even to begin to philosophise. And the question, 'how do you know you're suffering?', is pointless, as the fact of suffering is apodictic - it's not something we can argue away.

Quoting Mark Dennis

there is not a single uniform truth definition within philosophy.

That's because the more general a term, the harder to define. It's easy to define hammers, oranges, or rain-drops, but fiendishly hard to define consciousness, love or God.

In any case, in the grand traditions of philosophy, there is a conception of Truth with a capital T, which is noticeably absent from modern analytical philosophy - it's first victim, you might say. And that's because it sounds suspiciously religious to modern ears. In Indian philosophy, it's 'Sat' (???), meaning 'what truly is', and furthermore, it is not generally known by the hoi polloi, the uneducated worldling, due to their attachment to the illusory domain of sensuality and self-hood.

Quoting Mark Dennis

I think you are both engaging in the topic of truth without realizing that there is not a single uniform truth definition within philosophy. Pragmatism defines truth very differently than the rest of philosophy.

NKBJ You are talking and describing or at least framing it thusly, as Pure Truth. T Clark you are framing your interpretation as pragmatic truth.

I have been called a Pragmatist. I have called myself a small-p pragmatist. What I am is a T Clarkist. I calls em like I sees em. I don't reject other philosophers out of hand, but I don't grant them any authority just because they've been around for 2,500 years. I pick and choose the ones I find helpful. To the extent possible, I express my thoughts and beliefs in everyday language.

Quoting Mark Dennis

Outside of a human universe of discourse non of us have intrinsic value to the universe because we have created value and meaning. To the universe, none of us is a person. None of us is being morally considered by the universe, except by each other. So ethics lies solely in the realm of a human universe of discourse and so it must have a function for humans.

I agree with this.

Reply to T Clark "What I am is a T Clarkist." Great Response! Very in line with this "The rule of the animal kingdom is Kill or be killed, the rule of the human kingdom is define or be defined." - Thomas Szasz

I don't call that small p pragmatism, I'd call it Adaptive Pragmatism. That however is for a different discussion entirely and one I'm still trying to work out how to format.

Quoting Mark Dennis

I don't call that small p pragmatism

That's because you're not one. Those of us who are, do.

Reply to T Clark “That's because you're not one. Those of us who are, do.” not quite sure I understand what you mean by this?

Reply to Mark Dennis

You’re not a small-p pragmatist. If you were, you would call it small-p pragmatism.

Reply to T Clark I guess I’m just confused as to how small p pragmatism is any different than just Pragmatism in your eyes.

Quoting T Clark

I don't think you are saying that babies don't feel, perceive, or experience. Or are you? Is "sentience" the right word? Do you mean self-aware or conscious?

To feel, perceive or experience subjectively requires a mentality that babies may not have.

We know that people do not recall much prior to at least the toddler period--and then memories are pretty spotty until we're talking about, say, a five or six year-old.

We don't know if that's because mentality in general isn't sufficiently developed until then, or if it's just something inadequate about memory prior to that point.