Talk:Potential person

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:Philosophy: Ethics Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Associated task forces: /  Ethics
	This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

Discrete vs analog personhood

On the matter of "beginning" of personhood, this article really should mention the discrete vs. continuous options. (i.e. personhood may be regarded as a continuous scale, from total potentiality to various levels of achievement of personhood.). Or it may be regarded as having discrete steps - either one step (person/non-person), or many steps (ladder/different levels fertilization, viability, birth, spoken language, self-sufficiency, recognition of rights of others, ...). I am not up on the various philosophical/religious idiologies here, but there are a pastle of them. Should be mentioned and/or linked to them.

Might also be relevant to consider/relate to different levels/types of causation. Zodon (talk) 06:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Article style, isolation

I tagged the article as essay, since it deals with a bunch of philosophical ideas/views as if they were real, and without any relation to the rich fabric of views on this mater. Looking at the links to and from this article it has almost no connection to philosophy and general conceptions of time, potential vs. actual, etc. (Basically Natalism, antinatalism and personhood were the only philosophy articles linked.)

The topic of this article appears to be how such ideas have been or are applied to a particular entity (a person). As such, this article should acknowledge and cite the various schools of thought on these matters (and note the various prominent views on such). It also needs to have links from those articles to this one. (It is highly unlikely that there are no other articles in philosophy that mention application of these ideas to man; if there are such articles, there may be potentials for merging, in any case the relevant links should be established to improve the articles and prevent duplication.)

I have tried to improve the article by adding see also to a few aspects of philosophy which should be relevant. Not an area I know well, so also tagged as need input from expert in philosophy (especially needed to establish links from similar articles in philosophy).

Another thing that would improve the article along these lines is to acknowledge the particular ideas of causation/time/etc. that are being used in the various examples. (i.e., according to this or that school of thought/person/etc.)

Article also lacks balance - it doesn't say anything about views/schools which would discount the whole concept, or have radically different views. (For instance, presentism and physicalism might be expected to present different views of something that only exists in potentia). Zodon (talk) 20:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Mention these questions

1. babies don't meet all the (self-awareness, high consciousness

of the self, other intellectual capacities) criteria of personhood; rightists baptize babies and are strict about it; is it ethical to baptized a future fully fledged person? The answer "cancel it afterwards" isn't ethical. I can use a profane expletive against you, and you will not die. No physical damage doesn't constitute something ethical. Thus the question remains.

1. leftists claim that persons have the right to kill future persons; if they are inside their body, and small enough in order to have less brain; thus intellect; thus the embryo meets less criteria of personhood. Is that ethical?
2. Jesus Christ became a person; initially he has a potential person. Do non-pre-existing potential persons, have the right to be called gods? Is this ethical?
3. God is a cosmological personocratic belief. Does the universe itself has the potentiality of being called a person? It doesn't meet the criteria of personhood as a whole. If it does, mention your specific link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4105:1400:F12D:937F:2722:16F3 (talk) 23:31, 4 July 2019 (UTC)