On 10/29/2013 8:30 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
I´m not atacking you. I simply I like to talk with people, and for this purpose is necessary to share a clear definition of concepts. However, Telmo, If you don´t think so, then of course I´m attacking your position. But not for much time because even attacking with words becomes impossible with people that defend that lousy point of view.

2013/10/29 Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com 

    On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 2:35 PM, Alberto G. Corona <agocor...@gmail.com
    <mailto:agocor...@gmail.com>> wrote:
    > The problem with modernity is precisely the confusion and madness (and I 
    > say lack of intellectual strenght)  of this fluidity, ever depending on
    > audiences and personal interest that makes today amoebas to have rights 
    > and tomorrow morning we can massacrate people because at last, they are 
    > amoebas.

    Talk about a slippery slope...

    You seem to believe that things would be better given some past state
    of clear-headed rationality -- I would like you to identify the
    pre-modernity time period you allude to. A few practical questions

    - Should I be allowed to torture dogs for fun?

That a question that has nothing to do with the question of either if a dog or an amoeba is a person. The fallacy of changing the conversation in a way that you climb a hill of moral superiority and then shoth down wth an unrelated moral question is not good, to say the least, and I´m not interested in to continue in this way. I say so from the beginning.

By the way, I´m not being moral in my previous response. I was just consequentialist: Relativism , lack of clear concepts ends up in imposibility of civilized discussion and the only remaining language is ,,,, violence. So let´s try to keep concepts clear. That is the whole point of my thesis. What do you think about that?

I think personhood is not a clear concept, at least not the sense of sharply defined and independent of other concepts as you seem to want. It's a social concept and societies make up different rules defining personhood and the definitions admit of degrees. So arbitrary killing of dogs and cats may be prohibited but not cows and pigs; but killing the later must be done "humanely". Personhood may be denied the mentally retarded or blacks or homosexuals. So the better question is what concept of personhood makes for a good society. And that's not a question just to be answered by considering Lobianity or consciousness; there's lots of empirical data as there have been many different societies.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to