What is human?

Jordan:

Several animals have passed Piaget's stages as much as many human kids have...

     Could you give me some bibliographed citations or refs (books or Web) re who gave which Piagetian tests, when, and on whom or how many? --- Strictly speaking, I never referred to 'tests,' just studies (longtitudinal). Anyhoo, after reading such, I'll get back to your 'if' questions.
     Thanx for the...data.

Sarah:
     Re

"Holy lack of white space, Batman,"

I added some paragraph-separating 'white-spacing;' just for you, Clarise...er, Sarah.

"John, it'll take some time to get through your post, if I ever decide to try."

     O-o-kay.
      Then I'll 'think twice' about trying to answer any of your questions in the future...until you 'try'. ("There is no 'try.' You do, or do not."-Yoda)   :)
     You expected an answer to the three questions "What is human?" -"Is it ok to eat brain-dead grandma?"-"What's wrong with cannibalism?"....in a simple 3-line response?
     You silly thing.
     I presumed that you wanted 'reasons' for the answers, and not just a dogmatic 'answer.' My mistake, I guess.
     You DID read ALL of Atlas Shrugged, I presume?...or...?

J-D

(Edited by John Dailey on 8/21, 12:33pm)

Post 61

Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 12:59pm

John,

Ahh. John's post 57 ver. 12.5. Now with white space goodness. :)

After looking over your post, I wonder how much you've actually thought about my posts. You seem to have missed the point of this thread, which I tried to state as explicitly as possible here. You DID read ALL of my posts, didn't you? You were right to presume that I wanted reasons, but you're answering all the wrong questions. Yes, that's partially my fault since it took me several tries to get out what I was trying to ask, but after post 57 one might think that you'd stopped reading my posts after post 3.

Then your little "....cognitive abilities...are...arbitrary." Ooh! I can do it too:

John D. writes:

... I ... have ... an ... IQ ... of ... 10 ...

Alas, I fear this post will drive you further away. Just remember that you started the insinuation game, I'm just playing along. :)

Sarah

Post 62

Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 1:22pm

Sarah:
Re your post-52 --- My post-57 DOES include a relevent response, if not what you prefer as a satisfactory 'answer'; sorry you don't see it.
I guess little point in continuing, what with our not reading enough of ALL (or any?)posts after the 1st one, combined with insinuations.

'Till next subject...
J-D

Post 63

Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 2:00pm

John,

Oh don't run away so easily. I'll go into more detail as to how you've missed the mark (Michael, please forgive the zebraness!).

As far as I'm concerned, the 1st question (my only concern here) is properly re-phrased as "What (for my knowledge-context) should I define as 'human'?"

As I clarified in post 16, my thread title and wording of original post were very very poor. A definition of human is not what I'm after. Since this is all you've concerned yourself with, no amount of typing will save you.

[Objectivism] never tackled any questions on those in a coma, even, nor those asleep, much less those who never had a civilized education

That's exactly what I'm saying! So close and then you spin off by saying that because they are biologically human they are defined as a rational animal and therefore are rational and that's the end of the story.

"Is it ethically allowable to kill (by 'eat,' I presume that you don't mean 'alive') those who have what's presently measurable as a less-than-a-'100'-IQ?" (due to brain-dysfunction from-whatever-cause, disease/accident/genetic.)

You've gotten closer here, although taking the example a bit too seriously. I'm obviously not trying to justify the slaughter of everyone with sub-100 IQ (I'm not sure why you came to that number). I'm asking about ethics in general. More precisely, what is the moral course of action when interacting with those who lack volitional rationality (ever see Awakenings with Robin Williams and Robert De Niro?) Obviously I am not talking about nonsapient humans as moral agents, to use Jordans term, but moral patients. We protect their lives and wellbeing regardless of their awareness of such protection. As I understand it, we do this simply because they are human. Those who don't preach moral obligation to care for such people usually give a "just 'cause" response. "Just 'cause" will work if one is using his own resources to care for these nonsapients, but would it not be a logical extension of Objectivist ethics to be against any publicly owned care center?

Sarah

Post 64

Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 2:47pm

Hi John,

The easiest reference I can give is Steven Wise's Drawing the Line. Wise is a lawyer who handles cases involving animals. I commend the book to you not because of his politics but because he discusses lots of handy studies on animal cognition, and discusses many of them through a Piagetian model. If nothing else, the book is a handy bibliography. I'll take Sarah's posts to mean we're off topic here, so if you'd like to discuss this further, let's make a new thread.

Jordan

Post 65

Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 10:44pm

Jordan:
     Re your ref (Steven Wise's Drawing the Line [: Science and the Case for Animal Rights]), as your argument re some animals having their 'rights' recognized/respected due to my view of 'rationality' in terms of Piagetian perspectives: next time I'm in B&N I'll search for it.
     Should I agree with your interpretation that he discusses "many" animal cognition studies "through a Piagetian model," I'll definitely get back to you on this...probably in another thread.
     Don't bother getting back to me in this one.
     Again, thanx for the data.

Sarah:
     Sarah, Sarah, Sarah.

     Really, this post was mainly for Jordan, but, here's your part.
     You may have the 'last word,' but, have for others to read; I really shan't.

I'll go into more detail as to how you've missed the mark.

I'm not really interested in trying to hit anyone's 'mark.' If they, themselves, can't make-their-'mark' clearly by their (if not their 1st), 3rd (never mind 12th-or-so, by post #52, for Allah's sakes) post, thereby causing others to waste their time in making 'explanations' that don't hit the poster's chronically-shifting bulls-eye, and then the responder/explainer gets castigated by the original 'questioner' for not accomplishing such mind-reading...well, you get my drift?

Nm, I'm sure most readers here do.

As I clarified in post 16, my thread title and wording of original post were very very poor. A definition of human is not what I'm after. Since this is all you've concerned yourself with, no amount of typing will save you.

     You're absolutely right.

     I should have ignored your ill-thought thread-named-AND-starting 1st post, or, I should have searched through ALL later posts for where yours were, for me to know what you were 'really' intending to sorta kinda more-or-less 'mean,' and then...maybe ignore that last one too?

     You're right. With the responses you've given to *my* energy/time-consuming attempt to respond to what I (silly me) presumed was a 'thoughtful' thread-beginning, but find it was a mere 'off-the-top-o'-me-random-passing-thoughts-o'-the-moment' finger-typing exercise from you, and THEN my finding that "...this is all you've concerned yourself with..." is what stupid me is told, which actually stresses that I really should have ignored ALL, then, definitely, you're absolutely correct that "...no amount of typing will save you" applies to me

     ...re responding to anything you post again, anywhere

     ...Clarise.

J-D

P.S: the ref to "100" IQ was, necessarily, a guess...as all responses to you clearly have to be; it seemed safer than the "90, 80, 70...?" another asked about re who can be 'lunch' (Which I notice you had no question re numbers about.) I presume you read that one, hence, my guess at "100" shouldn't be all that surprising.

P.P.S: Re your 'insinuations' accusation of me, your curt "...if I ever decide to try." response to my original explanation to your pointless original thread-name-post, certainly 'insinuated' that what I answered wasn't worth reading. You may not call that insulting...but that's only because you didn't spend...waste...the time trying to answer. Such is why I asked if you read ALL of Atlas Shrugged (it was a mite...longer...than my post.)

(Edited by John Dailey on 8/24, 10:59pm)

Post 66

Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 11:37pm