Aren't "human" and "person" and "life" interchangeable terms?

[alitaptap]

The very fact that these things are different is exactly why abortion can be allowed anywhere in Western civilizations despite the existence of legislation that prohibits unlawful killing.

It is actually becoming clear that the distinction between the three (when “life” is preceded by the adjective “human” to identify a particular species) is arbitrary and not scientifically derived. They seem to be terms of convenience constructed allow people to rationalize behaviors that would otherwise raise questions differing of ethics. It is a fact that some people choose to define them differently, to rationalize killing while others choose to define them as the equals to support a different viewpoint.

Many people claim science is dispassionate and is capable of providing objective distinctions as to what something is or is not, unencumbered by metaphysical viewpoint. It seems this is not as straightforward as some would like to believe. It appears that science can generally identify when the life of an organism begins, but it seems impotent at defining human or person-hood with any objective clarity once these terms are given definitions different from the organism.

What are your thoughts on this?

 

[Damase]

The very fact that these things are different is exactly why abortion can be allowed anywhere in Western civilizations despite the existence of legislation that prohibits unlawful killing.

It is actually becoming clear that the distinction between the three (when “life” is preceded by the adjective “human” to identify a particular species) is arbitrary and not scientifically derived. They seem to be terms of convenience constructed allow people to rationalize behaviors that would otherwise raise questions differing of ethics. It is a fact that some people choose to define them differently, to rationalize killing while others choose to define them as the equals to support a different viewpoint.

Many people claim science is dispassionate and is capable of providing objective distinctions as to what something is or is not, unencumbered by metaphysical viewpoint. It seems this is not as straightforward as some would like to believe. It appears that science can generally identify when the life of an organism begins, but it seems impotent at defining human or person-hood with any objective clarity once these terms are given definitions different from the organism.

What are your thoughts on this?

Science is not equipped with anything like the ability to determine the metaphysical question of what it means to be a human being. The suggestion that it could be, in fact, is baffling. Science deals with the material world: its standard of “proof” is the derivation of empirical data (i.e., inductive conclusions, which are, really, just very highly educated guesses based on experience). Once you get beyond sensible data, science is useless.

And defining what it means to be a human person has nothing to do with the application of our senses. Science can’t perform an experiment to determine when human life begins unless it is provided with some sort of viable definition of what “human” or “life” means beforehand. Is “life” the same as the capacity for will? The presence of neural activity? The potential for flourishing? Science lacks the equipment to answer these abstract questions; the most it can do is adopt one of the criteria and apply it to specific cases.

 

[GEddie]

The very fact that these things are different is exactly why abortion can be allowed anywhere in Western civilizations despite the existence of legislation that prohibits unlawful killing.

It is actually becoming clear that the distinction between the three (when “life” is preceded by the adjective “human” to identify a particular species) is arbitrary and not scientifically derived.

???

There is a distinction, at least in part. All human persons are alive; if life is gone, so is the human person. But not all life is human, or “personal.” Cows are alive, but not human, so it is perfectly moral to eat cheeseburgers. Cancer cells are alive, and have human DNA; but they are not “persons”, and can be destroyed to save a “human person” from death. To have a moral baseline at all, we need the distinction of “human life.”

Likewise, “human” and “person” are not the same, as there are 3 “persons” in GOD, and 2 of them are wholly non-human. Only within the realm of embodiedness do “human” and “person” necessarily go together.

God Bless and ICXC NIKA.

 

[Joe_5859]

From a philisophical point of view, we do not want to conflate these terms. There are important distinctions. I think the problems you are observing are those people who draw the distinctions in the wrong places.

Lots of things have “life”. Animals have life, too, but they are not human or persons.

As GEddie said, God is 3 persons, but only one of those persons is human. Angels are also persons, but they are not human either. The whole concept of “person” arose from Christians attempt to articulate the doctrine of the Trinity.

From a Christian point of view, though, all humans are persons, even though not all persons are human. Many modern philosophers get this backward and say that all persons are human, but not all humans are persons. This is how they morally justify what is unarguably the killing of a human being through abortion. They would say, “Yes, that fetus is undoubtedly human, but it’s not yet a person.” At least, that’s the explanation I’ve heard from some atheist philosophers.

 

[CharlesDarwin]

also human being and person can be divided in that there are legal and everyday separations between a dead human body and living breathing person

 

[GEddie]

also human being and person can be divided in that there are legal and everyday separations between a dead human body and living breathing person

Except that a dead human body is not a human being or a human person. Human Being = Soul + Body, Psyche + Soma; the breath has gotta be there The dead body is the remnant of a human being.

In essence, human being and human person are synonyms, except, I was told, our LORD is a human being not a “human person.” I’m not sure how. I am a nonphilosopher and proud of it

ICXC NIKA

 

[5tunate]

“Life” is often thought of in terms of forms, and rarely in terms of the investment of Creation/God in simply experiencing all its own possibilities everywhere and everywhen. Life IS. Forms appear to come and go.

“Human” in its adjectival senses covers a spectrum of ideas from sperm and egg through cadaver, and includes all aspects of being, activity and products relative to “humanity.” Even beasts in human bodies whose acts we call “inhuman,” feral children incapable of higher awareness functions, and those with serious deformities physical and mental, are called “human,” as are all people categorizable by any criteria of form, awareness, intellect, or ability.

“Person” essential means “mask.” It is the outward appearance of what animates form according to the structure of its awareness patterns at whatever level of comprehension of inclusive maturity. While the lower of these is comprehensible by the higher, the higher are opaque to the lower and appear to be gobbledygook, no matter how much simpler and more inclusive they are. These patterns can be organized as well according to the appearance of consensus reality or matter, or subjective inner reality as Mysticism which is capable of intersecting the Divine, or, extremely rarely, a functional and mature amalgam of those seeming two. “Person” is a development to whatever physical, mental, and spiritual maturity that encompasses and transcends all of the stages and forms preceding it.