Freedomain Radio

I'm relatively new to philosophy (unless you count 30 years of fundamentalist christian theology), and I'm finding the learning curve fairly steep.  I'm looking for some commentary about what the definition of 'person' is and how this relates to libertarian philosophy.  Peter Singer defines persons as beings that feel, reason, have self-awareness, and look forward to a future. Thus, fetuses, infants and some very impaired human beings are not persons in his view and have a lesser moral status than, say, adult gorillas and chimpanzees.  Seems to me that a libertarian might view many animals as property/resources. Using Singers definition then it would seem that 'lesser' humans might be viewed as property instead of persons.  What is the distinction between property and personhood?  How does a libertarian resolve this dilemma?

I'm interested to understand more about what Peter Singer says about the moral rights of adult gorillas and chimpanzees, that seems like a very interesting approach -- can you tell us more?

Singer seems to place moral rights on a continuum based on a spectrum of ability to experience suffering in terms of pain, loss of expected future, psychological trauma etc.  His personal position seems to be to take actions that result in the least amount of harm and suffering.  He advocates vegetarianism in developed countries where protein sources are available from non-animal sources, but, acknowledges that in developing countries it may ethical to eat non-human animals where it will relieves suffering in terms of the malnourished.  

If animal meat is necessary for survival he advocates eating animals in a preference continuum that might look something like; a shrimp, a fish, a cow, a dog, a chimp, a human infant, a human adult.  So I think he acknowledges the right of all things living to continue living, but, that there is a hierarchy of rights in that an adult human has a higher moral right to live than a shrimp.  I think he would also argue that an adult gorilla may have a higher right to live than a newborn human in that they have a better understanding of loss of expected future.  I guess I was just trying to figure out how this might fit into a libertarian society, where those that have the capacity to enter into contracts essentially have the power.  Human infants and other animals are therefore essentially nothing more than property to those that can enter into contracts.  I'm not sure that this is a bad thing, I just wanted to know what another perspective might be.

How does he account for the difference in valuing of life between cows and dogs?

He may not.  I'm not quoting him directly. I was just trying to illustrate his general proposition, so I guess I biased it with my preference in the case of cows and dogs... if I were Korean this may be reversed.  I think Singer would look at the complexity of the organisms nervous system and its behavioral traits as evidence of relative moral status.  In the case of cows and dogs I'm not sure if there would be a difference in Singers view.   

While those are certainly very interesting questions - it is clear that an adult normal male is a person, and a dandelion is not. In the middle, around the area of low IQ or brain damage, there are some gray areas which are I believe impossible to define with scientific precision. That does not signify endless relativism, of course -- any more than the reality that some biological creatures are hard to classify means that there is no difference between a whale and a beetle, or that the science of biology is invalid.

I am sure that the negotiation around personhood should take place in a voluntary society, rather than being imposed by force by the state, if that makes any sense...

i dont think you can 'define' words per se. you can only teach a person how to you use it, and as they you use it more and more, in different environments, etc, they will get better at using it.

like as a few comedy tips, i would not use the word 'person' about a horse, although i might use it about a pet dog. i would obviously use it about people (coma or not, lol) but not about foetuses..hope that helps your search.

(ps: Singer is a utilitarian. which to me is like the moral equivelant of totalitarian democracy - uncool).

in conclusion, the meaning of a word is not in some magical definition, it is in your straightforward use of the word. this means that all you need do is ask a few practical questions about its use, and these questions will no doubt differ, depending on the word in question.

im sure everyone will hate me for this, lol.

peas n glove.

 Can you explain to me what you mean when you say a utilitarian is morally equivelant to totalitarian democracy?

Maybe I have a different defintion than you here are mine:

Utilitarianism = Universally Preferable Behaviour

Totalitarian Democracy = Mob Rule

They seem to be opposites to me.

I guess I seek a definition of the word 'person' because I see this word along with 'individual' being used a lot in libertarian dialogue.  I'm not always clear who they are talking about because it seems to me that there are many grey areas about who, or, what constitutes a person when it comes to a  UPB such as the NAP.  Adult normally functioning human seems universally accepted, but, what about children.  Do adults have the right to use force on children misbehaving?  What about children that are being a danger to themselves?  It would seem to me that there is a continuum where the NAP becomes less universal and I'm trying to figure out if this is the case or not.  Because if it is the case all sorts of slippery slope arguments start emerging about when the NAP applies versus when it doesn't and you have to start applying all sorts of caveats and clauses in order to ensure it universiality.

well im sure i will differ in explanation than most people. utilitarianism has no way of saying catagorically what 'the good' IS, so it usually comes down to a group of people deciding what it is and trying to push the idea on others. like the good might be public welfare, individual welfare, happiness, alsorts could go in this 'slot', and there is no necessary/sufficient reason why it has to be any one of these things. as Moore states, it will always be an open question as to what the good is. this is why i likened it to totalitarian democracy, because it has no objective justification for what it consideres good and  thus just comes down to numbers, i.e. well more of us say that X is good.

and to be honest im a little worriedd about the sounds of this UPB business, ill look into it tonight so i can make comments (iv got all kinds of comments to make but they all revolve around what im guessing Universally Prefferable Behaviour means, sounds like awful awful dogma by the title ut ill take a look, im sure it'll be a good mental stroll anyway :) )

in my view there is no way to define away these gray areas, and language was never designed to work like that anyway (i dont think it was designed like top down-stylee atall). also the desire to define away these grey areas i believe is also misplaced because the definitions of words do not matter, or rather they do not contribute to it's 'meaning'....