I think a fetus is a human being, biologically. I do not think she is a person (a moral agent). But a fetus holds the inalienable rights of a person, (like right of life and autonomy) out of eventuality. (just like infants or coma patients).
The discussion between us was never about abortion. You brought that up. The discussion was about personhood and what are the criteria that define an object as a person, giving them personhood rights. You said brain function is this criteria, but if this was the case, then animals would be given...
Good to see you too :)
Haha sure, I remember that discussion we had before. So we won't continue here. Your points are well noted.
\
Yeah I have to agree with you here. I think different sects have different opinions on when the soul actually enters the body (either during conception or some...
You are moving the goalpost. Our laws are based upon moral ones. Just because something is lawful does not mean it is correct. The definition that most philosophers use for murder is "immoral or unjustified killing of human being". In Nazi Germany, the law made it possible to lawfully kill Jews...
My point is, brain function does not make someone a "person". Otherwise animals would be "persons" and be granted inalienable human rights like autonomy and right of property and right of life. If mere brain function was enough to grant personhood, then animals should be given all the rights...
It seems to me that mere brain function is not sufficient to grant any object, 'personhood' rights. Animals also have developed brain functions yet the law does not provide them with inalienable rights like we do with humans. This definition of personhood seems to be at odds with our considered...
Jaya Nitai!
Pranam.
Here is a link of resources and books online:
Thread for links for textbooks and online courses to learn Sanskrit • r/sanskrit
Um, for an english speaker I would recommend number 3. Its a really nice intro to sanskrit. I'm learning from number 8.
Science tells us nothing about legality (if we define murder as unlawful killing) or morality (if we define it as unjustified killing). It doesn't make value judgement, we humans do that.
Science can help us provide non-moral infomation, but it actually can't form moral (hence legal) principles.
It was just a rough translation from the sanskrit. Actually, this can also apply to some plants and even cellular organisms. A better one would be:
eating: animals seek out resources and process them for energy so that life is prolonged.
sleeping: All animals have some period of inactivity...
Yes and No.
Yes because we share four basic instincts with animals (eating,sleeping,mating and defending)
No because we have the capacity for moral understanding, while animals don't (and this grants us certain rights not awarded to other animals).
I got Plato 100% and 92% Aquinas. Sad I'm not as close to dear Kant. I generally agree with most of St Aquinas's points though:
All life has a purpose
Meeting this purpose allows one to be happy.
Happiness is to be found in the love of God.
God's grace providing entrance into heaven...
Interesting discussion on the Koshas and Shariras. This is how we understand it.
The Koshas do not form the Shariras themselves, but rather envelop them and each others. These Koshas are parts of the Linga Sharira only and cause the Jiva's mind to be orientated towards different objects. When...
On the contrary, there is a very deep philosophical and scriptural understanding that underpins Kirtan. Everything, from the order of progression, the realisations that should come, are all documented in Vaishnav scripture. All rules and regulations are there in order to support Kirtan. Even...
Our temples our built around the concept of Kirtan (because it is the Yuga Dharma). In Mayapur, Kirtan goes on for 24 hrs continuous. On special dates, we sing special bhajans associated with the days. It's a very complex tradition.