Personhood and Potentiality

[ReapReason]

God has an essential ideal of what a true person insofar as moral truth is concerned. The human being Jesus is a true person. Is it therefore Catholic teaching that if a human being doesn’t express his or her full moral potentiality as a person as defined by God, that therefore they lack a true expression of person-hood? In fact we become less than a true person?

When we sin we are not acting according to the intended nature that God gave us. This is why i raise the question. I have heard priests say similar things.

What are we If we are less than persons when in a state of sin? Is person-hood and conformity to moral law inextricably linked?

When we call somebody a person are we only describing what they are potentially?

 

[Sair]

God has an essential ideal of what a true person insofar as moral truth is concerned. The human being Jesus is a true person. Is it therefore Catholic teaching that if a human being doesn’t express his or her full moral potentiality as a person as defined by God, that therefore they lack a true expression of person-hood? In fact we become less than a true person?

When we sin we are not acting according to the intended nature that God gave us. This is why i raise the question. I have heard priests say similar things.

What are we If we are less than persons when in a state of sin? Is person-hood and conformity to moral law inextricably linked?

If such is the case, why would a perfect god create beings that had the choice to be imperfect? That is an imperfection, regardless of how much some theologians insist that moral perfection, at least, requires the ability to choose. This has been argued for millennia, but frankly, I think most people accept that to be human means to be flawed. I don’t think anyone, Christian or otherwise, could base their notion of personhood upon the attainment of moral perfection. The human population of the earth, if the right to life is conferred upon persons alone, would be considerably smaller than it currently is if such were the case.

When we call somebody a person are we only describing what they are potentially?

Only if you talk to someone from the political Pro-Life lobby…

 

[ReapReason]

If such is the case, why would a perfect god create beings that had the choice to be imperfect? That is an imperfection, regardless of how much some theologians insist that moral perfection, at least, requires the ability to choose. This has been argued for millennia, but frankly, I think most people accept that to be human means to be flawed. I don’t think anyone, Christian or otherwise, could base their notion of personhood upon the attainment of moral perfection. The human population of the earth, if the right to life is conferred upon persons alone, would be considerably smaller than it currently is if such were the case.

.

But don’t people say it all the time, regardless of being an atheist or theist, the words
“he has lost his humanity”? We always hear people say things like “be a real man”, and these words always have a moral agenda. They presuppose that there is a way men or humans “ought to be”.

It seems to me that the prevalent intuition of people is that a true person acts in a very moral and specific way. Otherwise where do our comparative and moral notions of “Civilized” or “humanity” come from if not from the feeling that as humans we ought to act in a very specific manner that transcends us above the nature of mere animals?

 

[Sair]

But don’t people say it all the time, regardless of being an atheist or theist, the words
“he has lost his humanity”? We always hear people say things like “be a real man”, and these words always have a moral agenda. They presuppose that there is a way men or humans “ought to be”.

It seems to me that the prevalent intuition of people is that a true person acts in a very moral and specific way. Otherwise where do our comparative and moral notions of “Civilized” or “humanity” come from if not from the feeling that as humans we ought to act in a very specific manner that transcends us above the nature of mere animals?

Quite often, other animals behave better than humans in what we might conceive as a moral sense. My impression is that “loss of humanity”, as it is meant, means loss of fellow-feeling, loss of compassion - these are fundamentally subjective qualities, not the result of cold, rational thought. Consider the classic movie scenario of the cold-hearted villain being moved by the plight of a victim and thus revealing his/her underlying “humanity” - this is not a matter of rational choice, but of emotive effect.

 

[ReapReason]

Quite often, other animals behave better than humans in what we might conceive as a moral sense. My impression is that “loss of humanity”, as it is meant, means loss of fellow-feeling, loss of compassion - these are fundamentally subjective qualities, not the result of cold, rational thought. Consider the classic movie scenario of the cold-hearted villain being moved by the plight of a victim and thus revealing his/her underlying “humanity” - this is not a matter of rational choice, but of emotive effect.

Yet when an animal does something, its purely instinctual, at least we have no reason to think otherwise. There is no reason to think that animals actually have an abstract ideal of compassion in their minds. They sometimes act in a way that is analogous to compassion and empathy, but to think that they truly have a moral concern about other beings is just what you would like to believe. Humans often Humanize animals; Anthropomorphism.

In humans, we rationally acknowledge certain actions as reflecting “Humanity”, since we clearly distinguish certain actions as having qualities that are essentially more virtuous than other kinds of behavior. And we freely choose to act out these things. Whether or not these actions represent an objective moral law is besides the point.

The point of what i was saying is that people often speak of humanity as that which we potentially are. We are expressing are humanity when we behave a particular way, and yet when we don’t express such actions or empathy humans are considered as lacking something that ought to be there.

It is not just Christians who think like this.

 

[Sair]

Yet when an animal does something, its purely instinctual, at least we have no reason to think otherwise. There is no reason to think that animals actually have an abstract ideal of compassion in their minds. They sometimes act in a way that is analogous to compassion and empathy, but to think that they truly have a moral concern about other beings is just what you would like to believe. Humans often Humanize animals; Anthropomorphism.

So at some point in the evolution of humans, there must be a point at which a particular lineage started to recognise “compassion” as an ideal, rather than just something that they instinctively felt? Who are we to say that other animals - particularly other social species - don’t feel compassion and empathy, don’t exercise judgement and choice in particular situations? Anthropomorphism works in reverse as well, to the point where we are so reluctant to suppose other animals might have any possible similarity to humans that we simply assume their behaviours have different origins and mechanisms, regardless of all evidence to the contrary.

In humans, we rationally acknowledge it as “Humanity”, since we clearly distinguish it as having qualities that are essentially more virtuous than other kinds of behavior. And we freely choose to act out these things. Whether or not these actions represent an objective moral law is besides the point.

But isn’t the whole point of religious morality to claim the existence of objective moral law, as played out in human behaviour? And the argument as to whether we “freely” choose any of our behaviours is far from resolved.

The point of what i was saying is that people often speak of humanity as that which we potentially are. We are expressing are humanity when we behave a particular way, and yet when we don’t express such actions or empathy humans are considered as lacking something that ought to be there.

It is not just Christians who think like this.

Realistically, the entire spectrum of human behaviour is expressing “humanity” - we are what we are. But as the old saying goes, “To err is human, to forgive, divine” - suggesting that humanity is, in fact, a debased form, in need of divine intervention in order to realise any higher ideals. It seems odd to derive perfection in potentia for humans from a theology that actually denigrates the “human condition”, unless you are claiming that “personhood” is a state beyond mere “humanity”. That’s fine if you wish to believe it, but there’s then no reason to suppose that pefectibility is open only to members of the human species!

 

[Iron_Donkey]

Personhood is not something that you gain and lose. A sinner is a as much a person as a saint. Our personhood comes from the fact that we are created in God’s image and nothing else.

ReapReason:

It seems to me that the prevalent intuition of people is that a true person acts in a very moral and specific way. Otherwise where do our comparative and moral notions of “Civilized” or “humanity” come from if not from the feeling that as humans we ought to act in a very specific manner that transcends us above the nature of mere animals?

It would be better to say that a true person should act in a certain way - that is the fact he is a person places him under certain moral obligation.

When we say that a person has become an animal (although many of us would be uncomfortable actually saying this, but when it said anyway), we do not mean this in the sense that he has lost his personhood, only that he has failed to live up to the obligations it imparts. We can see this because when an animal kills a human, we think of it as unfortunate but little more, since animals aren’t bound by any sort of morality. But when a human, even one whom we have previously accused of not living up to what it means to be human, does so, we think of it as a horrible crime, call it murder, and inflict punishment - not just preventive measures to make sure it doesn’t happen again, but actual punishment for doing what was wrong.

 

[Peter_Plato]

If such is the case, why would a perfect god create beings that had the choice to be imperfect? That is an imperfection, regardless of how much some theologians insist that moral perfection, at least, requires the ability to choose. This has been argued for millennia, but frankly, I think most people accept that to be human means to be flawed. I don’t think anyone, Christian or otherwise, could base their notion of personhood upon the attainment of moral perfection. The human population of the earth, if the right to life is conferred upon persons alone, would be considerably smaller than it currently is if such were the case.

Only if you talk to someone from the political Pro-Life lobby…

Actually, it is more likely that pro-choice adherents will point to something like personhood or consciousness as the “performance” criterion for conferring human rights. Most knowledgeable pro-life supporters view a human being as an entity that persists through time from conception to death. In other words, it is the fact of someone’s human origin that confers a right to life, not achieving a somewhat arbitrary standard along a performance spectrum.

 

[Joe_5859]

Our personhood is who we are, not what we do.

 

[jeannetherese]

Actually, it is more likely that pro-choice adherents will point to something like personhood or consciousness as the “performance” criterion for conferring human rights. Most knowledgeable pro-life supporters view a human being as an entity that persists through time from conception to death. In other words, it is the fact of someone’s human origin that confers a right to life, not achieving a somewhat arbitrary standard along a performance spectrum.

 

[markeverett49]

The human being Jesus is a true person.

I remember Msgr. Tekippe telling my Christology class at seminary, “If you put ‘Jesus was a human person’ anywhere on your final, you will fail this course!”

 

[markeverett49]

What are we If we are less than persons when in a state of sin? Is person-hood and conformity to moral law inextricably linked?

This is confused. Only a person CAN sin! We do not cease being persons when we sin any more than we cease being rational animals when we say something silly.

 

[ReapReason]

I remember Msgr. Tekippe telling my Christology class at seminary, “If you put ‘Jesus was a human person’ anywhere on your final, you will fail this course!”

Jesus was both fully human and fully divine. There is no error in saying that Jesus was a human person.

 

[markeverett49]

Jesus was both fully human and fully divine. There is no error in saying that Jesus was a human person.

Yes there is. Jesus was not a human person. He was a divine person.

 

[ReapReason]

This is confused. Only a person CAN sin! We do not cease being persons when we sin any more than we cease being rational animals when we say something silly.

So you would say that the objective standard of person-hood is not defined by Jesus Christ, and that there are actually persons in hell, as opposed to something that is a shell of a what person is supposed to be?

 

[ReapReason]

Yes there is. Jesus was not a human person. He was a divine person.

Are you saying that Jesus was not both fully human and fully divine?

 

[markeverett49]

So you would say that the objective standard of person-hood is not defined by Jesus Christ, and that there are actually persons in hell, as opposed to something that is a shell of a what person is supposed to be?

I’m not sure what the first part of this statement means. Before the incarnation of Jesus, the person / thing distinction was commonplace. As for the occupancy of hell, I don’t know—I’ve never been there and hope to keep it that way!

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Are you saying that Jesus was not both fully human and fully divine?

Jesus had a fully human nature, a human body and a human soul with the same attributes as you and I. He also had a Divine Nature, that of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. His human nature was subsumed in the Divine Nature, yet both functioned fully and completely. So while Jesus was on earth Jesus functioned like any ordinary man, except He knew he was the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity and His Divine Nature was more apparant in His actions at one time than at another,but always communing with His human nature, except at rare moments like Jesus’ death on the Cross. And in Heaven we will see Him physically as Jesus, we will not see the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity as He exists in the Godhead, nor will see the Father, nor the Holy Spirit. Each of the Persons will manifest themselves to us spiritually and intellectually. Of course in seeing Jesus we do see the Father, just not as he is in his Divine Nature.

Don’t expect to understand this, no one can, it is a Revealed Mystery.

 

[Portofino]

God has an essential ideal of what a true person insofar as moral truth is concerned. The human being Jesus is a true person. Is it therefore Catholic teaching that if a human being doesn’t express his or her full moral potentiality as a person as defined by God, that therefore they lack a true expression of person-hood? In fact we become less than a true person?

When we sin we are not acting according to the intended nature that God gave us. This is why i raise the question. I have heard priests say similar things.

What are we If we are less than persons when in a state of sin? Is person-hood and conformity to moral law inextricably linked?

When we call somebody a person are we only describing what they are potentially?

Catholic personhood, as I’ve understood it, has to do with being a human being (“created in the image and likeness of God”); therefore, having an immoral soul; therefore, having the gift of free will (though this certainly can be compromised, if the body or mind is not functioning).

I think one of the worst fears for a Catholic is that someone who is severely impaired, physically or mentally, would be deemed “no longer a person.”

On that fundamental level, one cannot lose one’s personhood. It is an unconditional gift and cannot be revoked. In a figurative sense, however, one can indeed “not be leading a fully human existence” or “exist as an emotionally or morally or intellectually or spiritually undeveloped person.”

It seems the same regard sinfulness: a sinful human being is still a human being. Sinfulness – an ironic proof of free will – is actually evidence of that humanity.

Also, ironically, the sinfulness in us would more fully correspond with the part of us that is human; the righteousness, that part of us which is oriented towards the divine (divine grace and the free will that assents to it).

 

[Portofino]

But don’t people say it all the time, regardless of being an atheist or theist, the words
“he has lost his humanity”? We always hear people say things like “be a real man”, and these words always have a moral agenda. They presuppose that there is a way men or humans “ought to be”.

It seems to me that the prevalent intuition of people is that a true person acts in a very moral and specific way. Otherwise where do our comparative and moral notions of “Civilized” or “humanity” come from if not from the feeling that as humans we ought to act in a very specific manner that transcends us above the nature of mere animals?

I think what many human beings see – religious and non-religious alike – is that it is those things that separate us from animals that make us “fully human.” Of course, we can flatter ourselves in this – in some ways, human beings are the cruelest of animals (using intelligence for purposes of premeditated malice). I don’t think I would ever meet a “malicious” tiger, or one who took revenge not on the spot (in the heat of the moment) but a significant time later, in cold-blood, calculated revenge.

In general, though, appreciation for what “separates” us from animals tends to take a few forms, among which are appreciation for extraordinary human intelligence and for extraordinary kindness and compassion. Human beings, through their intelligence, seem to have an elevated capacity for empathy; other mammals probably can empathize with a fellow creature that is suffering before their eyes, but other mammals seemingly do not have the wherewithal to say, “I have compassion towards all that suffer, anywhere in the world – or for those who may suffer, a hundred years after I am gone.”

Altruism is also valued, in a sense, because it is more difficult. It is easy and natural to be selfish, whereas altruism is more of a challenge. It separate us not only from the animals (though again, this may be greatly exaggerated), but also from the common stock of our fellow human beings. It is rarer; thus, more highly prized.

And, of course, society has a vested interest in praising it… If I am your neighbor, your altruism is my gain