Personhood- Trent Horn 8-20-14

[clem456]

Last night Trent Horn took a question about personhood from a caller on the “pro choice call-in program”.
Mr Horn said something to this effect, (and I hope I am accurately representing what he said):
A person is a being of a rational kind…
Rationality is not of a potential nature, but specific to the kind of being. So the degree of rationality of a person is secondary to the kind of being he/she is. Even though an infant is not fully rational as an adult, because an infant is of the same kind of being as an adult, he/she is a person.

I believe the caller was challenging him on that, but the caller did not respond with his own POV. The obvious rebuttal to Trent’s position is this:
An ape has a degree of rationality which could almost be said to exceed that of an infant, yet we do not consider apes persons. Therefore an infant is not necessarily meeting the definition of personhood.

It seems to me that personhood cannot be adequately explained using logic alone, outside of faith, which Trent was trying to do in order to appeal to this nonbeliever’s conscience without throwing faith statements at him. It seems to me the value of personhood is foundationally based on God’s statements about it, and the Christian philosophy surrounding the Incarnation.
“God made them in his image…”
“The Word became flesh”
Etc…many biblical statements and Catholic teaching can be used to justify the dignity of personhood, but it seems to me that outside of faith, the rationality argument can be effectively picked apart and only flirts with the full truth.

 

[grannymh]

Last night Trent Horn took a question about personhood from a caller on the “pro choice call-in program”.
Mr Horn said something to this effect, (and I hope I am accurately representing what he said):
A person is a being of a rational kind…
Rationality is not of a potential nature, but specific to the kind of being. So the degree of rationality of a person is secondary to the kind of being he/she is. Even though an infant is not fully rational as an adult, because an infant is of the same kind of being as an adult, he/she is a person.

I believe the caller was challenging him on that, but the caller did not respond with his own POV. The obvious rebuttal to Trent’s position is this:
An ape has a degree of rationality which could almost be said to exceed that of an infant, yet we do not consider apes persons. Therefore an infant is not necessarily meeting the definition of personhood.

It seems to me that personhood cannot be adequately explained using logic alone, outside of faith, which Trent was trying to do in order to appeal to this nonbeliever’s conscience without throwing faith statements at him. It seems to me the value of personhood is foundationally based on God’s statements about it, and the Christian philosophy surrounding the Incarnation.
“God made them in his image…”
“The Word became flesh”
Etc…many biblical statements and Catholic teaching can be used to justify the dignity of personhood, but it seems to me that outside of faith, the rationality argument can be effectively picked apart and only flirts with the full truth.

In the recent past, the word “kind” in scientific circles referred to species. The words “different in kind” is still being used along with differences in species. If you would kindly substitute the word species for Trent’s word kind, then it is possible to look at different species such as apes and humans. This would invalidate the possible rebuttal in post 1.
An ape has a degree of rationality which could almost be said to exceed that of an infant, yet we do not consider apes persons. Therefore an infant is not necessarily meeting the definition of personhood.

Now, interpreters of natural science might use the words “degrees of rationality”. However, when referring to the marvelous apes, one would say that the ape is highly sentient. One could even refer to the ape’s intellectual abilities because apes can learn behaviors. While learning is considered part of rationality, it cannot be considered rationality per se. This is because true human rationality includes the ability to build on previous information, instinctive or learned. A rather simple example is that baby birds “learn” how to fly; but they do not go on to build airports.

Also from post 1.
Rationality is not of a potential nature, but specific to the kind of being. So the degree of rationality of a person is secondary to the kind of being he/she is.

I did not hear Trent speak so I do not know the full context of his reference of a degree of rationality being secondary to the species [kind] he/she is.

My guess is that we first need to fully understand the complete nature of the human person. Human’s fully-complete nature is an unique unification of both the material world and the spiritual world. Practically speaking, anyone, including non-theists, can see differences between eagles and humans or better yet, the differences between our cousin chimps and ourselves. It is not the degree of sentience or of rationality which demonstrates the human species from other species; it is the fact that rationality is inherent in the human species.

 

[Peter_Plato]

The obvious rebuttal to Trent’s position is this:
An ape has a degree of rationality which could almost be said to exceed that of an infant, yet we do not consider apes persons. Therefore an infant is not necessarily meeting the definition of personhood.

I don’t think this rebuttal works as effectively as you think it does.

An infant has the capacity for rationality that far exceeds that of the ape.

You might just as well claim that an awake ape is more rational than a sleeping Einstein, therefore it would be okay to kill Einstein as he slept, though not if he is awake because when asleep Einstein is not effectively “meeting the definition of personhood.”

Take another example: the classic “acorn is not an oak tree” refrain.

The problem here is that if all oak trees had gone extinct and all that remained were a handful of acorns, those acorns would essentially be “oak trees” because only they would have the essential capacity of “being oak trees” contained within them. Time would be irrelevant and anyone who crushed those acorns would effectively be causing the extinction of oak trees from the planet even if all existent, fully formed oaks had been gone prior to his act. The potential to be an “oak tree” would count as much as actually being one, just as the potential to be a human being counts as much as actually being one regarding the fetus.

 

[clem456]

In the recent past, the word “kind” in scientific circles referred to species. The words “different in kind” is still being used along with differences in species. If you would kindly substitute the word species for Trent’s word kind, then it is possible to look at different species such as apes and humans. This would invalidate the possible rebuttal in post 1.
An ape has a degree of rationality which could almost be said to exceed that of an infant, yet we do not consider apes persons. Therefore an infant is not necessarily meeting the definition of personhood.

Now, interpreters of natural science might use the words “degrees of rationality”. However, when referring to the marvelous apes, one would say that the ape is highly sentient. One could even refer to the ape’s intellectual abilities because apes can learn behaviors. While learning is considered part of rationality, it cannot be considered rationality per se. This is because true human rationality includes the ability to build on previous information, instinctive or learned. A rather simple example is that baby birds “learn” how to fly; but they do not go on to build airports.

Also from post 1.
Rationality is not of a potential nature, but specific to the kind of being. So the degree of rationality of a person is secondary to the kind of being he/she is.

I did not hear Trent speak so I do not know the full context of his reference of a degree of rationality being secondary to the species [kind] he/she is.

My guess is that we first need to fully understand the complete nature of the human person. Human’s fully-complete nature is an unique unification of both the material world and the spiritual world. Practically speaking, anyone, including non-theists, can see differences between eagles and humans or better yet, the differences between our cousin chimps and ourselves. It is not the degree of sentience or of rationality which demonstrates the human species from other species; it is the fact that rationality is inherent in the human species.

Thanks both posters, and I believe that Trent may have explained it as above on the show. Rationality is unique to? humanity. And apes cannot be considered to be rational beings.
I’m sure some would argue that when they see humans behave

Of course there’s still the dispute over whether and why human persons are worth protecting at all stages.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Of course there’s still the dispute over whether and why human persons are worth protecting at all stages.

If you have love, they are worth protecting at all stages, but not necessarily under all conditions.

We have to protect an elderly criminal who is incarcerated.

But if the elderly criminal is not incarcerated, and is about to commit a heinous crime, we not only should not protect him, we should, all other options impossible, wound or kill him.

 

[polytropos]

A person is a being of a rational kind…
Rationality is not of a potential nature, but specific to the kind of being. So the degree of rationality of a person is secondary to the kind of being he/she is. Even though an infant is not fully rational as an adult, because an infant is of the same kind of being as an adult, he/she is a person.

I believe the caller was challenging him on that, but the caller did not respond with his own POV. The obvious rebuttal to Trent’s position is this:
An ape has a degree of rationality which could almost be said to exceed that of an infant, yet we do not consider apes persons. Therefore an infant is not necessarily meeting the definition of personhood.

It seems to me that personhood cannot be adequately explained using logic alone, outside of faith, which Trent was trying to do in order to appeal to this nonbeliever’s conscience without throwing faith statements at him. It seems to me the value of personhood is foundationally based on God’s statements about it, and the Christian philosophy surrounding the Incarnation.
“God made them in his image…”
“The Word became flesh”
Etc…many biblical statements and Catholic teaching can be used to justify the dignity of personhood, but it seems to me that outside of faith, the rationality argument can be effectively picked apart and only flirts with the full truth.

I would disagree with you.

The point Horn appears to be making is that rationality is specific. I don’t have to be behaving rationally in order to be rational; I have to be of a rational nature, of a rational species. Surely this is the case: When I sleep, I am still rational. When I am in a coma, I am rational. As Alzheimer’s sets in, I am still rational. Before I learned how to talk, I was rational. Before I had a brain, I was rational. It has to do with the type of being that I am, not the exercise of my capacity at a certain time.

An ape may behave “intelligently” in the sense, for example, that it might develop a sign-language vocabulary of a couple hundred words, etc. So an ape may be doing something that manifests more intelligence than do I when I am asleep or when I am in a coma. But because an ape is of a species that is not rational (not capable of abstract thought), the ape is not rational even when it behaves in a way that is mentally “superior” to the behavior of a rational person.