Much of the recent debate over the moral permissibility of abortion focuses on the question of whether the foetus is or is not a person, i.e. the only entity endowed with moral rights including the right to life. The article traces this line of thought in several key figures in the debate (Thomson, Tooley, Warren and Brody). However, I consider this way of argumentation as both inappropriate and misleading; in the second half of the article I offer arguments against using the concept of person in this debate., Jakub Jirsa., and Obsahuje poznámky a bibliografii
Článok sa zaoberá tematikou filozofického problému ja. Konfrontuje rôzne teórie za cieľom prísť s alternatívou, ktorá ich v istom zmysle zároveň vyťažuje i prekonáva. Najskôr je predstavená koncepcia Colina McGinna, ktorý poukazuje na vzdorovitosť ja voči bežným teoretickým prístupom a dospieva k "transcendentálnemu naturalizmu". Tento postoj spočíva v tvrdení, že existuje skrytá objektívna štruktúra ja, ktorú však kvôli svojim kognitívnym obmedzeniam nie sme schopní nahliadnuť. Ďalej prichádzajú na radu na psychologických výskumoch založené úvahy Daniela Wegnera a Daniela Dennetta. Ja podľa nich nie je ničím objektívne uchopiteľným, ale len užitočnou konštrukciu našich myslí. Následne sú oba pohľady zhodnotené skrze optiku „anomálneho monizmu“ Donalda Davidsona: dospievame k názoru, že ja je na fyzikálnej realite závislá, no zároveň prísnym vedeckým popisom a zákonom unikajúca entita – podobne, ako Davidsonove „mentálne udalosti“. Filozofický problém ja nespočíva v obmedzenosti našej poznávacej schopnosti, ale v tom, že sme bytosti schopné žiť v dvoch navzájom nezlučiteľných konceptuálnych ríšach – vo svete prísnej vedy a vo svete slobodných a zodpovedných osôb. Ja nemá skrytú objektívnu štruktúru; je to mentálny konštrukt, ktorý má však v rámci autonómnej mentálnej ríše nesmierny význam. and This paper is concerned with the philosophical problem of the self. It confronts different theoretical approaches in order to find an alternative view which would both integrate and transcend them. First, it introduces Colin McGinn's ideas about the recalcitrance of the self and his critique of the usual attempts to domesticate the self by reducing it to familiar concepts, to deem it irreducible or mysterious, or to eliminate it altogether. Based on the refusal of these conceptions McGinn proposes a view called "transcendental naturalism": the hidden objective structure of the self exists which makes everything fall into place but we are unable to grasp it because of our cognitive limitations. Secondly, we turn to Daniel Wegner and Daniel Dennett who base their ideas on psychological research and come to the conclusion that the self (minimal and narrative) is a useful construction necessary for our functioning as complex social beings in the world of responsible agents. Finally, we confront the two theories while getting inspiration from Donald Davidson's "anomalous monism". The usual approaches, criticised by McGinn, are indeed unsatisfactory but if we consider Wegner's and Dennett's ideas and understand the self as an important mental concept, we don't have to resign to transcendental naturalism. Similarly to Davidson's "mental events", the self (being a mental concept) is completely natural and dependent on the physical events (certain brain functions) while at the same time it escapes strict scientific descriptions and laws. My conclusion is that the philosophical problem of the self dwells not in the fact that we are cognitively limited but rather in the fact that we are able to conceptualise the world in two mutually incompatible ways – on the one hand, we are scientists viewing the whole reality as purely physical, on the other hand (and perhaps primarily), we are complex beings who need to interact with others in the realm of mental events such as propositional attitudes belonging to free responsible persons.
Strawson developed his descriptive metaphysics in close relation to Kant’s metaphysics of experience which can be understood as a particular version of descriptive metaphysics. At the same time, Strawson rejects the foundations of Kant’s version of descriptive metaphysics which, according to him, is a species of psychology. His argument against Kant’s conception of subject, or of the ''I'', can be found in his conception of person. A closer scrutiny of this conception of Strawson can, however, reveal that it is not comprehensive enough compared with that of Kant. Speaking with Kant, Strawson understands the part of being ''I'' which can be known via self-knowledge but he fails to appreciate the second part of being ''I'', namely self-consciousness. A comparison of Strawson’s conception with Kant’s conception of being ''I'' reveals its systematic shortcomings that rather support, against Strawson’s purpose, Kant’s version of descriptive metaphysics as a theory of subjectivity., Strawson vyvinul svou deskriptivní metafyziku v úzkém vztahu s Kantovou metafyzikou zkušenosti, kterou lze chápat jako konkrétní verzi popisné metafyziky. Současně Strawson odmítá základy Kantovy verze popisné metafyziky, která je podle něj druhem psychologie. Jeho argument proti Kantově pojetí předmětu nebo ,,já'' lze nalézt v jeho pojetí člověka. Bližší zkoumání této koncepce společnosti Strawson však může odhalit, že není dostatečně komplexní ve srovnání s Kantem. Když mluvíme s Kantem, Strawson chápe, že je to část ,,já'', kterou lze poznat skrze sebepoznání, ale nedokáže ocenit druhou část bytí ,,Já'', totiž sebeuvědomění., and Jan Kuneš
The person as a legal term is traditionally derived from a human being, either from an individual or a group of people. Hans Kelsen maintains that no such substance really exists. “The person exists only insofaras he “has” duties and rights; apart from them the person has no existence whatsoever.” This is why a human being is construed as an abstract holder of subjective rights rather than the person in a legal sense. This conception results in the normative construction of a person. The person is considered to be a mere point, an ideal and never real fact. Kelsen designates this point as “personification of the set of norms” regulating the conduct of a human being. However, such an entity as the personification of legal norms does not exist in the outer, real world. The legal order may attach legal personality to any segment of the outer world, even to an imagination of something non-existent in the outer world. The relationship between this abstract point and the addressee of duties is called “assignability”. This is why the person in a legal sense is, in the normativist perspective, considered to be “a point of assignability”. The aim of this article is to describe the approach of pure legal science to a person as a personified set of legal norms or as a point of assignability.