Is it Correct to Say That People Like This Aren't "Persons"?

[ehira]

Why is it that philosophy does not consider as “persons” who do not have the following?

rational nature
self-conscious
autonomy
(for example)

For instance, using the Baby Theresa example, they argue that she was not a “person” philosophically speaking (She was biologically). I would like some clarification on this. Is it correct to state something like this?

It has been claimed that if you are a person in the philosophical sense, then you are considered worthy to be treated as such morally speaking. If you don’t meet those standards, then you are not a “person” and do not get the “privileges” that a person in the philosophical sense would receive.

 

[ynotzap]

AsI see it;The human soul of a person (individual) is infused into the body directly by God.
so a human being is considered body and soul, matter and spirit. It is the spiritual part of a human that give the person autonomous individuality, a self awareness and operating mind, and will, a person who can direct his activities, make his own choices. Because of these qualities a human being has his own personality, that distinguishes him for other humans. Personhood is given by God who created the individual soul that establishes one’s individuality. If it is a baby human, it has an immortal soul with all of its faculties. But since it’s body lacks some critical physical necessity eg. a wholly developed brain, then the person can not function naturally. This does not affect the soul of the person, but it does affect the intellectual function of the person, since the mind operates with an extrinsic dependence upon the brain. This does not diminish in any way the fact that the baby is still a human person with it’s individual personality, even though it is impaired physically.

the rational nature comes from the spiritual soul with the faculty of intelligence
self conscious comes from the same source, rational intelligence, and awareness
autonomy comes from the freedom to think, act, and make choices individually and this again comes from the spiritual soul which also sustains and gives activity to the body because it is the source of activity of the human being. When the body can no longer support the activity of the soul it separates at death, but continues to exist, and act as an individual person, a disembodies spirit.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Why is it that philosophy does not consider as “persons” who do not have the following?

rational nature
self-conscious
autonomy
(for example)

For instance, using the Baby Theresa example, they argue that she was not a “person” philosophically speaking (She was biologically). I would like some clarification on this. Is it correct to state something like this?

It has been claimed that if you are a person in the philosophical sense, then you are considered worthy to be treated as such morally speaking. If you don’t meet those standards, then you are not a “person” and do not get the “privileges” that a person in the philosophical sense would receive.

If you are alive you are a person. It does not matter whether you are conscious or not. Period. That is the teaching of the Catholic Church and of all its faithful philosophers and theologians.

Linus2nd

Linus2nd

 

[GEddie]

Philosophers assign personhood based on a defined level of cognitive capacity. That is why they want to grant it to apes and cetaceans, and at the same time, deny it to human beings who for gestational or other reasons don’t meet that mark. The two (extreme) positions are the sides of the same coin.

But personhood is based on who one is (divine, angelic, or human being).

Not on how well one can think.

Those who want to deny personhood based on cognitive function better pray they never hit their head!

ICXC NIKA.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Philosophers assign personhood based on a defined level of cognitive capacity. That is why they want to grant it to apes and cetaceans, and at the same time, deny it to human beings who for gestational or other reasons don’t meet that mark. The two (extreme) positions are the sides of the same coin.

But personhood is based on who one is (divine, angelic, or human being).

Not on how well one can think.

Those who want to deny personhood based on cognitive function better pray they never hit their head!

ICXC NIKA.

Please don’t put all philosophers in that cesspool! You are condemning some of the greatest minds of history, even Aristotle and Aquinas.

Linus2nd

 

[ehira]

My apologies! I should have instead stated “many modern-day philosophers”