Comment on Philosophy has peaked. Checkmate atheists
Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 2 weeks agoYeah. Personally, I don’t believe in personhood, it seems poorly defined. Actually, there’s this game I really like the way it tackles personhood. You play as a robot, and you get to debate philosophy with a computer. The computer probes you on your beliefs, and at one point tries to ad absurdum you into agreeing that frogs are people. I forget exactly what the arguments are, especially since you can choose a few different things to argue. But it’s really neat, because you’re a robot debating what it means to be a person; who we as a society should extend personhood to. Personally, I said that frogs are people in My first playthrough. And in the sequel, there’s this throwaway joke about how the “are frogs people” debate topic has been banned from the online forums. And I think that’s great! Evidently, the NPCs really got into the weeds on that one!
So yeah, I think personhood is an iffy construct and I don’t personally identify with it. I’m no person. I reject the very system that would grant Me special status for conforming to its notions of political life. So I don’t think murder has much to do with personhood.
Vespair@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
I understand your philosophical argument, but imo the moment you compare running over a frog to hitting a child with your car, personhood becomes real obvious.
And frankly, I don’t feel the need for some air-tight philosophical package to claim it. Species-based tribalism is, in fact, sufficient cause to me.
Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 2 weeks ago
I think preventability is a big factor. We don’t run over children, because we have the power to prevent their deaths. We can tell them to be careful around cars. Frogs don’t listen the same way.