>Reflectorites (but primarily Glenn, Jim, and Brian):
>
>If I'm grasping this thread correctly, it seems there are many separate
>but related questions being asked/debated here. Conceptualize them
>(correctly or incorrectly) as concentric circles, with the largest listed
>first:
>
>Q1: What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for a group
>to be considered human?
>
I don't think any objective criteria can be given for deciding if a
being is human. I've tried in my last post to give my reasons
for saying this. I'm not going to repeat those but instead approach
it from a different, theological, angle. This is risky for me, since
I'm no theologian.
As I mentioned previously our criteria for human involves an element
(spirituality) which is not contained in the biological definition of
species. I think we could make a case from scripture that the spiritual
side of man is dead on account of sin. It comes alive again through
faith in Christ. This being the case, how are we going to establish
a criteria for measuring something that is inactive?
>Q2: Is one of those conditions "civilization?"
>
No.
>Q3: What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for a group to
>be considered as constitutive of "civilization?"
>
I don't know.
>Q4: Is one of the conditions of civilization "innovation?"
>
No.
>Q5: What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for an artifact to
>be considered "shaman art?"
>
No idea.
>Q6: Given that agreement on the answer to Q5 is reached, If the answer
>to Q2 and Q4 is "yes," is "shaman art" a
>necessary and sufficient condition for a group to be considered "human?"
>
No.
>Q7: If the answer to Q2 or Q4 is "no," is the value of "shaman art" merely
>inconclusive as a necessary and sufficient condition of a group's being
>considered "human?"
>
What does it mean to say a group is human? It seems to me that
most of the criteria we are talking about apply to individuals.
But most individuals in a society are not innovative. Does it make
sense to say the society is innovative when in fact only a few of
its members are? Does it make sense to say a society is artistic
when in fact only a few of its members are? Wouldn't the proper
conclusion of these criteria be then that only a few members of
a society are human? How can one say that the whole group is
human when our criteria apply only to individuals? I think Glenn
also has alluded to the dangerous conclusions one might draw
from this sort of thinking. Conclusions that have in fact been
drawn in the past with disatrous consequences.
Let's turn this around and suppose we do have a criteria which
applies to groups. Is concluding that a group is human the
same as concluding every memeber of the group is human?
If so, then how? It certainly doesn't follow from the criteria
since the criteria applies to groups not individuals.
Brian Harper
Associate Professor
Applied Mechanics
Ohio State University