Fallacy help, if you can.

Boyish-Tigerlilly · Post by **Boyish-Tigerlilly** » 2006-08-01 10:55pm

I am discussing the issue of abortion and personhood with someone, and the ethics of the issue, as well as the notion of "what makes a human being a person" seems like a philosphical question to me--specficially, part of meta and normative ethics.

Now, I made an argument based on ethics, primarily utilitarianism and the concept of a person based on higher level mental functioning--rational attributes.

Now, is there a specific type of fallacies in which the opponent dismisses any argument he claims is "philosophical dancing" and "theory" as opposed to cold, hard, fact?

I don't really get it, because it's not as if the two are mutually exclusive. Apparently, appealing to whether or not the fetus/embryo are sentient and sapient is held to be irrelvant to whether or not it's a person. It's a person automatically if it's human. Anything else is dismissed as philosophy.

Edit: It really doesn't make sense to me to say every Human is a person or that person is strictly synonomous with Human (and thus deserving of equal rights and status as a person). That leads to literally absurd conclusions in which embryo's are equal to normal, sapient children and adults, since all are "human's" biologically. As well, such a position strictly denies personhood to anything other than humans. It's not the mental capacity or self-awareness/ability to form preferences (especially for continued life), but mere membership in the species. Then again, this is dismissed as ethereal "philosophy," and not reality.

Is that valid?

Post by **Surlethe** » 2006-08-01 11:12pm

The specific argument you mentioned is an equivocation between two definitions of "person":

dictionary.com wrote:sn)
n.

1. A living human. Often used in combination: chairperson; spokesperson; salesperson.
2. An individual of specified character: a person of importance.
3. The composite of characteristics that make up an individual personality; the self.
4. The living body of a human: searched the prisoner's person.
5. Physique and general appearance.
6. Law. A human or organization with legal rights and duties.
7. Christianity. Any of the three separate individualities of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as distinguished from the essence of the Godhead that unites them.
8. Grammar.
1. Any of three groups of pronoun forms with corresponding verb inflections that distinguish the speaker (first person), the individual addressed (second person), and the individual or thing spoken of (third person).
2. Any of the different forms or inflections expressing these distinctions.
9. A character or role, as in a play; a guise: “Well, in her person, I say I will not have you” (Shakespeare).

I don't know that dismissing an argument as "philosophical dancing, rather than cold, hard fact" qualifies as anything other than evasive bullshit.

Feil · Post by **Feil** » 2006-08-01 11:27pm

Ask him if a human who has no cognitive function whatsoever (no brainwaves), and is connected to a life-support machine that performs the jobs of all major organs to keep the cells alive holds personhood. If he says 'no', ask him why a foetus which has no cognitive function and is connected to a bological life-support machine is different.

If he says 'yes' ask him if he thinks we should rush all still-warm corpses to the nearest hospital if CPR fails, that they may be connected to such a life-support machine. After all, human life must be preserved, damn the expense, pending a decision by the spouse or family to let it end.

At this point, he should have backpedaled fureously to the concept of future value. At this point, you may either accuse him of 'philosophical dancing' and point and laugh, or continue the debate in a more reasoned manner.

Boyish-Tigerlilly · Post by **Boyish-Tigerlilly** » 2006-08-01 11:29pm

So which definition do you think is valid in this sense?

Boyish-Tigerlilly · Post by **Boyish-Tigerlilly** » 2006-08-01 11:30pm

Edit: Oops. The last reply of mine was direct at Surleth.

Post by **Surlethe** » 2006-08-01 11:35pm

Boyish-Tigerlilly wrote:So which definition do you think is valid in this sense?

The sense he's using it in -- "It's a person automatically if it's human. Anything else is dismissed as philosophy." -- is the first definition; the sense you're using it in -- "appealing to whether or not the fetus/embryo are sentient and sapient" -- is the third definition. So, when he dismisses your arguments based on the third definition by appealing to the first one, he's equivocating on the word "person".

I think the third definition is the valid one, because you can't construct a meaningful distinction between embryos and postnatal humans based on the first one, when some distinction clearly exists (would you take five petri dishes of embryos, or a toddler, from a burning building?).

Feil · Post by **Feil** » 2006-08-01 11:38pm

Edit:

As to the particular flaw in his argument, it seems to be this.

Your argument is based, in part, on philosophy.
Suppose philosophy is invalid.
Ergo, your argument is invalid.

Which is an example of Begging the Question. He is saying nothing more than 'your argument is wrong because I say it is'. He must demonstrate that philosophy is not a valid tool for determining the truth about the subject, or attack your argument; he may not deny your argument on the basis of his baseless decision that philosophy is invalid.

Boyish-Tigerlilly · Post by **Boyish-Tigerlilly** » 2006-08-01 11:40pm

Thank you Surlethe and Feil. I appreciate your help.

Zero · Post by **Zero** » 2006-08-02 06:36am

It sounds like he's just being an evasive bitch. He's essentially saying your argument is invalid because philosophy is invalid, but the whole notion of what a person is is a philosophical concept itself. You can't really base it on hard facts, since if you go just by the notion of if it's human cells or if it's not, surgically removing cancer cells is evil too, since they're human cells.

Calling it "philosophical dancing" is just his way of saying that he doesn't want to address your argument. It's fucking stupid, because all such debates on based in some way on personal philosophy.

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2006-08-02 10:49am

Technically, cancer cells posess a different genetic code than the rest of our cells, and could be dismissed from personhood on those grounds.

A better analogy would be the classic sperm argument.[/nitpick]

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2006-08-02 02:32pm

Scrape a few skin cells off your arm. According to the rabid pro-lifer fundie thinking, you've just committed murder.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-08-02 02:35pm

Zero wrote:It sounds like he's just being an evasive bitch. He's essentially saying your argument is invalid because philosophy is invalid

This is a common technique among fundies. They literally deny that logic itself is a valid constraint in a debate, so you can't refute their arguments by pointing out that they don't make any sense.

They are, in essence, denying the very concept of rational discussion. If we were to adopt their method of thought, we might as well argue by flinging feces at each other.

Alferd Packer · Post by **Alferd Packer** » 2006-08-02 03:34pm

Darth Wong wrote:This is a common technique among fundies. They literally deny that logic itself is a valid constraint in a debate, so you can't refute their arguments by pointing out that they don't make any sense.

They are, in essence, denying the very concept of rational discussion. If we were to adopt their method of thought, we might as well argue by flinging feces at each other.

And, at that point in a debate, when you realize that your opponent is refusing to be rational, you might as well start flinging shit at them. Figuratively speaking, of course. While it may not get much done, it'll probably lower your blood pressure a few points and be worth a laugh or two later.

Then again, if it's a face to face debate...