Quote:
|
Originally Posted by theapportioner
All this just illustrates my point. You cannot have a neat and tidy definition of what is human -- because "humanness" in ordinary language is much more than what biology can describe. You have different perspectives from which one can describe what is human, and all of them contribute to some degree in our understanding of the concept. The perspectives are distinct however, and blindly mixing them up creates confusion. By interpreting a scientific event in a moral or metaphysical context you are always going to have contradiction and untidiness. Why this is so unobvious to so many of you is beyond me. To say, "science tells you that humanness begins here" is utterly wrong because it is nonsensical.
|
But discovering the humanness of something doesn't actually tell you if its human. As humanness is nothing more than the state of being human. Of which is completely and utterly relative to the observor. Of which is no basis to produce laws. As such it creates far to many flexible boundries.
Threaded Mode
