Phil's latest reply was in two halves for me. The second half was well argued and reasoned and gives Joe something to respond to. But, IMO, the first half was not so good. There is still a problem with referring to 'potential to use' and 'potential to develop' under the catch-all label of potential. Joe has now suggested the alternative word 'capacity' and explained his reasons for doing this. Phil still insists on using them the same way so I think he could fairly be said to be using the fallacy of equivocation.
The weird thing is even if Phil does concede that his 'sleeping person' objection is not adequate there are still other objections he could launch against Joe's definition of personhood. The more he continues with this particular line of argument the stronger Joe's case looks. But that's my opinion
The weird thing is even if Phil does concede that his 'sleeping person' objection is not adequate there are still other objections he could launch against Joe's definition of personhood. The more he continues with this particular line of argument the stronger Joe's case looks. But that's my opinion