4 ms·

>"People tend to instinctively anthropomorphize, and this instinct is particularly strong when it comes to our offspring." I don't want to come across as snide

>"People tend to instinctively anthropomorphize, and this instinct is particularly strong when it comes to our offspring." I don't want to come across as snide when I ask this, but why would it be wrong to anthropomorphize a fellow human being?

ibejoeb 4y ago
It doesn't even make sense. What would it mean to anthropomorphize a human? It is a given and can't be fairly characterized like that. The only way to characterize it otherwise is to dehumanize.
- drpyser22 4y ago
  I guess the word "anthropomorphise" here is conflating many understanding of "human" and humanity. In the same way, is a bunch of cells, an embryon or just a tissue sample, a human? Is an organ a human? Is a developing fetus a human? How many properties do each share with a typical example of a human? There's a spectrum of biological complexity and other attributes we associate with the idea of "human". The question then is where does a baby fit on that spectrum. The general idea of anthropomorphising, here, is to attribute characteristics and experience that we only know from our own experience as conscious, self-aware creatures capable of complex cognition and complex communication of that experience.
  - thatjoeoverthr 4y ago
    Babies get upset when you hurt them, and they communicate it bluntly. Conversely, they are unable to demonstrate “complex” communication. Behold, I have placed the babies ;)
lisper 4y ago
That's a fair question. And I'm not saying it is wrong, only that it might be. Let me give a slightly less fraught example: we have an instinct to "honor our dead" and not to "desecrate their bodies." Does that make sense? The dead person doesn't care. Does it even make sense to talk about a dead "person"? One might argue that no dead thing can be a person, it's just a (dead) thing that was once a person and still happens to look like a person but isn't actually a person any more. Likewise, a baby may look like a person, may even behave in some ways like a person, but not yet actually be one. Again I have to emphasize: I am not saying this is the case, only that it is a possibility that needs to be taken into account when doing the moral calculus.
- prometheus76 4y ago
  The identity of someone is not just their body, and, while they may not be aware of how their body is being treated, an assault on their body can still be quite traumatic for those who do remember the person and in whom their identity still lives.
  - lisper 4y ago
    Yes, indeed, and I don't want to diminish in any way the value of mourning the dead. My point is just that that value accrues to the living, not to the dead. So there may well be value in minimizing the pain of infants even if they don't actually experience pain. The policy decisions do not turn exclusively on the answer to the philosophical question. But it's not a no-op either, because if you are going to (say) administer anesthetic to a baby you'd better be sure that the net benefits outweigh the costs to the baby.
- bobthechef 4y ago
  This borders on solipsism. The same argument can be made about any human being. At the very least, we presume there is pain by observing the behavior of animals in response to stimuli and interpreting what we see analogically. An in light of certain reasonable assumptions (like "natura nihil frustra facit"), we can quickly rule out a host of preposterous interpretations to conclude that the sensation felt is painful. That We don't need to factor into the moral calculus the possibility that no pain is felt since the most reasonable and rational conclusion is that infants do feel pain. What reason could there possibly be to believe that they don't that isn't some stretched exersize in special pleading and evasion? The baby is human!
  - Morgawr 4y ago
    I think you're misunderstanding what the OP is talking about. They aren't defending the practice, just that it's not necessarily an obvious answer to a question that should not be asked. > the most reasonable and rational conclusion is that In the context of science, this statement is a very dangerous one to make. There's many many many many things that people thought were "reasonable and rational conclusions" that turned out to be completely wrong after some actual rational experimentation and application of the scientific method.

ibejoeb 4y ago

It doesn't even make sense. What would it mean to anthropomorphize a human? It is a given and can't be fairly characterized like that. The only way to characterize it otherwise is to dehumanize.

drpyser22 4y ago
I guess the word "anthropomorphise" here is conflating many understanding of "human" and humanity. In the same way, is a bunch of cells, an embryon or just a tissue sample, a human? Is an organ a human? Is a developing fetus a human? How many properties do each share with a typical example of a human? There's a spectrum of biological complexity and other attributes we associate with the idea of "human". The question then is where does a baby fit on that spectrum. The general idea of anthropomorphising, here, is to attribute characteristics and experience that we only know from our own experience as conscious, self-aware creatures capable of complex cognition and complex communication of that experience.
- thatjoeoverthr 4y ago
  Babies get upset when you hurt them, and they communicate it bluntly. Conversely, they are unable to demonstrate “complex” communication. Behold, I have placed the babies ;)

lisper 4y ago

That's a fair question. And I'm not saying it is wrong, only that it might be. Let me give a slightly less fraught example: we have an instinct to "honor our dead" and not to "desecrate their bodies." Does that make sense? The dead person doesn't care. Does it even make sense to talk about a dead "person"? One might argue that no dead thing can be a person, it's just a (dead) thing that was once a person and still happens to look like a person but isn't actually a person any more. Likewise, a baby may look like a person, may even behave in some ways like a person, but not yet actually be one. Again I have to emphasize: I am not saying this is the case, only that it is a possibility that needs to be taken into account when doing the moral calculus.

prometheus76 4y ago
The identity of someone is not just their body, and, while they may not be aware of how their body is being treated, an assault on their body can still be quite traumatic for those who do remember the person and in whom their identity still lives.
- lisper 4y ago
  Yes, indeed, and I don't want to diminish in any way the value of mourning the dead. My point is just that that value accrues to the living, not to the dead. So there may well be value in minimizing the pain of infants even if they don't actually experience pain. The policy decisions do not turn exclusively on the answer to the philosophical question. But it's not a no-op either, because if you are going to (say) administer anesthetic to a baby you'd better be sure that the net benefits outweigh the costs to the baby.
bobthechef 4y ago
This borders on solipsism. The same argument can be made about any human being. At the very least, we presume there is pain by observing the behavior of animals in response to stimuli and interpreting what we see analogically. An in light of certain reasonable assumptions (like "natura nihil frustra facit"), we can quickly rule out a host of preposterous interpretations to conclude that the sensation felt is painful. That We don't need to factor into the moral calculus the possibility that no pain is felt since the most reasonable and rational conclusion is that infants do feel pain. What reason could there possibly be to believe that they don't that isn't some stretched exersize in special pleading and evasion? The baby is human!
- Morgawr 4y ago
  I think you're misunderstanding what the OP is talking about. They aren't defending the practice, just that it's not necessarily an obvious answer to a question that should not be asked. > the most reasonable and rational conclusion is that In the context of science, this statement is a very dangerous one to make. There's many many many many things that people thought were "reasonable and rational conclusions" that turned out to be completely wrong after some actual rational experimentation and application of the scientific method.