Personhood - Definition

  • Thread starter Thread starter dominikus28
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

dominikus28

Guest
Hello, I am discussing the value of human life, persons and animals with an atheist friend of mine. I’m trying to give explanations which are secular so that they can be something he can accept as an atheist.

1. How do you define personhood?
I read an article by Peter Kreeft where he argues that human is a subgroup of person. So all human beings, at all stages of development are persons. My atheist friend favors the definition of a person that takes into account their sentience and ability to reason. To all the more-philosophy minded people out there, can you say a human being is not sentience during sleep? So, can you argue that by his definition, a sleeping person, or unconscious human being is not a person?
He also asked me about intelligent aliens. Suppose we found an intelligent race of aliens, should they be considered persons, and why? Perhaps they should seeing as they are rational.

2. Does non-person life have value?
If a dog, for example, is not a person, then is killing a dog an immoral act?
On the one hand, we do kill other animals for food and there is nothing wrong with that. I myself lean towards the view that “Animals have no rights, but humans have responsibilities”. So if a person needlessly kills an animal, then it is immoral because the person has committed an act which is basically a waste of animal life. Animals die all the time in nature and that’s not an evil, but if a human being is killed by an animal, then it is (right?)
 
I define a person as a human being from the moment of conception onwards.
 
anon67074017 said:
I define a person as a human being from the moment of conception onwards.
Click to expand...
Alright. So what if we discover some species somewhere that is ever bit as sentient as us, who are individuals like us, who have hopes dreams and fears like us, etc.
 
A human being is a person, even if owing to sleep, infancy, senility or head trauma they are incapable at the moment of cognitive thought, because they are genetically capable of it.

Because space travel at the very least requires cognitive thought, any aliens who could do it, would be persons.

Wanton killing of animal life is arguably wrong, but not on the basis of personhood.

ICXC NIKA.
 
Rhubarb said:
Alright. So what if we discover some species somewhere that is ever bit as sentient as us, who are individuals like us, who have hopes dreams and fears like us, etc.
Click to expand...
I do not think they could be a person.
 
anon67074017 said:
I do not think they could be a person.
Click to expand...
Then these hypothetical creatures that are like us in every way ways, except they are not homo sapiens sapiens, could be experimented upon, used for food and clothing, etc?

I personally would feel very uncomfortable treating sentient conscious things. You wouldn’t? Perhaps a Neanderthal man found frozen in ice that we someone revive. Is that entity not a person? Or, perhaps, some alien species.

You suggested a necessary condition of personhood - that they be human. Clearly being human is a B]sufficient condition. But must it be necessary? And if so, why?
 
Until aliens arrive from space using their own technology, I would oppose extending the idea of “personhood”. I definitely reject that other earthly beings – whales, dolphins, or apes – qualify for personhood.

ICXC NIKA
 
Rhubarb said:
Then these hypothetical creatures that are like us in every way ways, except they are not homo sapiens sapiens, could be experimented upon, used for food and clothing, etc?

I personally would feel very uncomfortable treating sentient conscious things. You wouldn’t? Perhaps a Neanderthal man found frozen in ice that we someone revive. Is that entity not a person? Or, perhaps, some alien species.

You suggested a necessary condition of personhood - that they be human. Clearly being human is a B]sufficient
Click to expand...
condition. But must it be necessary? And if so, why?
I may feel uncomfortable treating them that way. A Neanderthal is just an early primitive person. Aliens are not people though. Being human is necessary to personhood because only humans were created in the image of God.
Micosil said:
How so?
Click to expand...
They are simply not humans.
 
anon67074017 said:
I may feel uncomfortable treating them that way. A Neanderthal is just an early primitive person. Aliens are not people though. Being human is necessary to personhood because only humans were created in the image of God.

They are simply not humans.
Click to expand...
You may be confusing having a rational and immortal soul created in the image and likeness of God, with personhood. That would be humans.

Perhaps other beings, that may or may not exist, have rational but not immortal souls, and this rational nature may be enough for “personhood”.
 
What a person is not may be helpful in determining what is a person. We don’t usually think of a rock as a person. A rock is not alive. Rocks and minerals may be good, but something that is alive is even better. Animals are alive but we don’t normally think of them as persons. Animals can move and reproduce, but they are driven by instinct and are lacking the ability to reason as humans can. They lack a certain quality. What is this quality? I posit that it is they lack an intellect and a will. These 2 qualities separate us from the animals. I would also posit that these qualities are God given powers of the human soul, that do not correspond completely to the body or the brain. Thus, no amount of evolution could produce them. Since they are not physically or materially derived. This means that any alien species would also lack these qualities unless they were given these powers from God as humans were. And, if they had these powers they would be considered persons.

Now as far as when a human becomes a person it would seem to me there would be no reason to think that a human should not be considered a person and protected from its inception. Especially if you don’t know when it becomes a human you should not kill it because it could be. Better to error on the side of caution then to find out later you were actually killing a human person. There is really no good reason not to protect a human from its inception. There are lots of bad reasons not to protect them. However, they simply do not hold water. The people who advocate for say fetal infanticide do so to serve their own agenda, and not considering moral and philosophical issues. In other words they have something to gain from it and can not be considered an advocate for human rights. You wouldn’t for instance consider a thief’s opinion on whether to legalize stealing from blind people.

This talk by Fr. Spitzer addresses some of your concerns
youtu.be/yc5E9lEMuKg
 
dominikus28 said:
I read an article by Peter Kreeft where he argues that human is a subgroup of person. So all human beings, at all stages of development are persons. My atheist friend favors the definition of a person that takes into account their sentience and ability to reason. To all the more-philosophy minded people out there, can you say a human being is not sentience during sleep? So, can you argue that by his definition, a sleeping person, or unconscious human being is not a person?
He also asked me about intelligent aliens. Suppose we found an intelligent race of aliens, should they be considered persons, and why? Perhaps they should seeing as they are rational.
Click to expand...
I can understand human being a subgroup of person. As artificial intelligence continues to expand personhood may someday be granted to autonomous androids.

I would say a human is still a person during sleep or in an unconscious state because while they are unable to interact with the external world they continue to be in a state of sentience and are able to reason subconsciously. In other words, while we are dreaming we continue to perceive, feel, and experience subjectively and while our dreams may become bizarre our we try to make sense of the situations.

There are lots of intelligent aliens in this world, unless you are referring to extraterrestrials. Aliens are people who move into another area and do not assimilate to the dominant culture. Extraterrestrials are beings from another planet. If there were intelligent extraterrestrials we would most likely extend some form of personhood to them. We would protect them from radicals who might want to kill them.
 
dominikus28 said:
Hello, I am discussing the value of human life, persons and animals with an atheist friend of mine. I’m trying to give explanations which are secular so that they can be something he can accept as an atheist.

1. How do you define personhood?
Click to expand...
Unique to humans is an intellectual life characterized by reason, imagination and, most importantly, free will. These unvarying properties may exist as only potentialities at various stages of actualization (as in the unborn, catatonic, or demented) and, even if only pure potentialities, still constitute a human person at all times.

2. Does non-person life have value?
dominikus28 said:
So if a person needlessly kills an animal, then it is immoral because the person has committed an act which is basically a waste of animal life. Animals die all the time in nature and that’s not an evil, but if a human being is killed by an animal, then it is (right?)[/INDENT]
Click to expand...
A human killed by an animal is a physical, not moral, evil.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top