So, we are expected to believe that because he believes this is true – an advocate of “specism” as described above? – that is all the proof we need to make it true. This is the only rational – necessary – conclusion that philosophers and scientists can come to. And, of course, many religionists have already weighed in on it. They merely quote from the Bible:
“And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.”
Well, if this God is his God.
No, the personal agent here is encompassed only in the manner in which he insist that others must encompass it in turn: as he does.
Maybe, in crucial respects, the genetic material of women may be different from the genetic material of men. And maybe the experiences of a particular pregnant woman burdened with an unwanted pregnancy might have been vastly different from the experiences of the man who raped her.
But the “personal agent” here is still only as he sees it.
Linked somehow “in his head” to God.
Huh? The argument is that “without freedom”, the two behaviors are interchangeable. Why? Because without actual free-will there is no actual personal responsibility involved in either context. If you could not have opted to not play ball with the child or could not have opted to not beat the child to death with the baseball bat, where does a “personal agent” fit in?
AGAIN: Unless he is making a very good point here that I keep missing. I do not deny that possibility.
As for this…
…he’ll have to bring this particular intellectual contraption down to earth and explain to us how it would be applicable to him were he to come into contact with a child and a ball and baseball bat.