Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lux" data-source="post: 55888" data-attributes="member: 105">This just doesn&#039;t really work formally. I know your probably not familiar with PL, maybe run this though chat so it can break it down.Let:H(x): x is HumanC(x): x is ConsciousS(x): x is SentientV(x): x has Moral ValueYour claim as I understand it:1. Being human gives inherent value.H(x)→V(x)2. Moral value exists in conjunction with consciousness/sentience.V(x)↔(H(x)∧(C(x)∨S(x)))The problem arrises when: Take an embryo a where H(a) is true and C(a), S(a) are false.From (1): V(a) (since H(a))From (2): V(a)→(C(a)∨S(a))Contradiction, because ¬C(a), ¬S(a).∴ The argument is inconsistent. mainly because of your use of conjunction.If you wanted to make the arguement work formally you would have to say something like “Being human gives you inherent value, alongside consciousness and sentience,” which separates their relationships a bit but formally simplifies your assertion to a large degree.Then the following problem is if I can find an example of a human being without inherent value (which may be a matter of interpretation to some degree) the whole argument crumbles. Such an example could be a hypothetical cloned human shell for the purposes of organ harvesting without a brain or consciousness.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lux, post: 55888, member: 105"] This just doesn't really work formally. I know your probably not familiar with PL, maybe run this though chat so it can break it down. Let: H(x): x is Human C(x): x is Conscious S(x): x is Sentient V(x): x has Moral Value Your claim as I understand it: 1. Being human gives inherent value. H(x)→V(x) 2. Moral value exists [I]in conjunction[/I] with consciousness/sentience. V(x)↔(H(x)∧(C(x)∨S(x))) The problem arrises when: Take an embryo [B]a[/B] where H(a) is true and C(a), S(a) are false. From (1): V(a) (since H(a)) From (2): V(a)→(C(a)∨S(a)) Contradiction, because ¬C(a), ¬S(a). ∴ The argument is inconsistent. mainly because of your use of conjunction. If you wanted to make the arguement work formally you would have to say something like “Being human gives you inherent value, [B]alongside[/B] consciousness and sentience,” which separates their relationships a bit but formally simplifies your assertion to a large degree. Then the following problem is if I can find an example of a human being without inherent value (which may be a matter of interpretation to some degree) the whole argument crumbles. Such an example could be a hypothetical cloned human shell for the purposes of organ harvesting without a brain or consciousness. [/QUOTE]

Name

Verification

Layout Options

Color Schemes

Reply to thread