What constitutes a human being?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Doc_Keele
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
o_mlly said:
A beating heart outside the body is not living as in its natural state and place.
Click to expand...
The cells are living cells in the biological sense, so your definition of living must be something other than the biological definition. I think it might be better to change your position that all living human tissue is a human being. This, I think, confuses the parts with the whole. Your position could be, for example, that all living human tissue, when it is together ordered towards genetic independence and rationality, is a human being. This would solve the problem, of course, of people we’d like to call “human,” but who are not “rational,” because their body, biologically, is still “ordered towards rationality,” its just that something is not working properly or they are not fully developed.
 
CatofAlexandria said:
The cells are living cells in the biological sense, so your definition of living must be something other than the biological definition. I think it might be better to change your position that all living human tissue is a human being. This, I think, confuses the parts with the whole. Your position could be, for example, that all living human tissue, when it is together ordered towards genetic independence and rationality, is a human being. This would solve the problem, of course, of people we’d like to call “human,” but who are not “rational,” because their body, biologically, is still “ordered towards rationality,” its just that something is not working properly or they are not fully developed.
Click to expand...
The living plant, animal or human replaces its dead cells. Does the beating heart outside its host replace its dying cells? If not, is it living?
 
Doc_Keele said:
wsp - so someone who can’t exercise free will is not a human being, and everything that can express free will is?
Click to expand...
the ontological status of free will doesnt change under restraint, it no more disappears if restricted from being actualized, than a dog does when put on a leash.
 
warpspeedpetey said:
the ontological status of free will doesnt change under restraint, it no more disappears if restricted from being actualized, than a dog does when put on a leash.
Click to expand...
I don’t mean someone who is stopped from acting, but somone who is incapable of exercising free will due to lack of mental capacity.
 
o_mlly said:
The living plant, animal or human replaces its dead cells. Does the beating heart outside its host replace its dying cells? If not, is it living?
Click to expand...
Yes, it could given the right conditions or scientific advancements. Human cells exist and regenerate outside of the human body all of the time. I just don’t understand the point of expanding the definition of “human being” to include all “human tissue.” Again, I think it’s a category mistake. Even if we consider a human heart as part of a fully functional human person (let’s call the person “Sally”), I would still say, “the heart is human tissue, and Sally is a human being.” Sally’s foot is human tissue and sally is a human being. What makes it human tissue is that it belongs to (or once belonged to) a human being. What makes someone a human being is that they have all of the right human tissue, that is genetically independent and ordered towards rationality, whether or not that rationality exists or is ever realized.
 
Doc_Keele said:
What structure, capacity, function or anything else constitutes a human being rather than a human animal?

I’ll explain.
If conjoined twins are joined together at the hip, nearly everyone would say that’s two people. What about when there’s two heads sharing one body? Is that two people?

Does everyone here accept that brain stem death is death? That the person is dead?
Click to expand...
Wow, that’s a confused OP. Human beings are a species of animal. It’s nonsense to talk about an opposition between “human being” and “human animal.” And the follow-up question, which is said to “explain” the first question, does nothing of the sort.
 
CatofAlexandria said:
Yes, it could given the right conditions or scientific advancements. Human cells exist and regenerate outside of the human body all of the time. I just don’t understand the point of expanding the definition of “human being” to include all “human tissue.” Again, I think it’s a category mistake. Even if we consider a human heart as part of a fully functional human person (let’s call the person “Sally”), I would still say, “the heart is human tissue, and Sally is a human being.” Sally’s foot is human tissue and sally is a human being. What makes it human tissue is that it belongs to (or once belonged to) a human being. What makes someone a human being is that they have all of the right human tissue, that is genetically independent and ordered towards rationality, whether or not that rationality exists or is ever realized.
Click to expand...
I’m not a doctor, don’t play one on TV and didn’t stay at a Holiday Inn Express last nignt but I have never read that a separated organ sponateously on its own replaces its dying cells. Do you have a reference?
 
Doc_Keele said:
I don’t mean someone who is stopped from acting, but somone who is incapable of exercising free will due to lack of mental capacity.
Click to expand...
is the exercise of free will diminished by a lack of mental capacity? i dont think so. ive known people with various levels of developmental problems, all of which were capable of exercising their free will. even if it were only a nod of the head, or spitting out food they didnt like.
 
o_mlly said:
I’m not a doctor, don’t play one on TV and didn’t stay at a Holiday Inn Express last nignt but I have never read that a separated organ sponateously on its own replaces its dying cells. Do you have a reference?
Click to expand...
🙂 Biologists have been maintaining immortal cell lines since the 1950’s (smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/Henrietta-Lacks-Immortal-Cells.html). It doesn’t matter if it’s currently biologically possible, anyway. What matters (in philosophical discourse) is whether it’s metaphysically possible. Do you agree with my distinction above between human tissue and a human being? Even a heart inside of a body is not a human being, but it is (most certainly) human tissue.
 
=Doc Keele;6388623]Sorry, just to clarify - your “yes” is agreeing that brain stem death is death?
Click to expand...
No 😃

A “brain” is physical matter; while a “mind” is Spiritual.

Quantify your mind for us. Size, weight, shape, color… see what I mean?

Love and prayers,
Pat
 
Doc_Keele said:
What structure, capacity, function or anything else constitutes a human being rather than a human animal?
Click to expand...
You mean, “what is the difference between a human animal and a human person”?
None, according to Aquinas. When the soul departs from the body, the body is no longer a human body, but just dead matter.

Though I don’t exactly endorse everything Aquinas says, he certainly has a methodoligical framework to answer these questions.
Doc_Keele said:
I’ll explain.
If conjoined twins are joined together at the hip, nearly everyone would say that’s two people. What about when there’s two heads sharing one body? Is that two people?
Click to expand...
I don’t see how this is logically problematic. There are various possibilities. Two souls can occupy the same numerically identical tissue. Two souls can occupy two different overlapping structural organizations of the physical matter. Or perhaps both twins have a head, but only one of them has the actual body.
Doc_Keele said:
Does everyone here accept that brain stem death is death? That the person is dead?
Click to expand...
Whether or not the soul has left the body might be difficult to determine, but that won’t change the metaphysics of the human person being a hylomorphic composite of body and soul (in Aquinas’ terms).
 
Doc_Keele said:
What about conjoined twins that share a cerebral connection? So that their brains are not completely separate but have a neural connection?
Click to expand...
It is certainly possible that there is one person there…but this is something that only God would determine without error…so, for example, to save one and destroy the “other” would not be a choice that we should be able to make. However, I’m speaking of a very rare case where it would be difficult to determine. That these realities exist at all are a result of the fall, where death, disease etc came into the equation. This is not to say that these people are a result of some specific sin committed by their parents or anything like that…but all of creation, including human persons, suffer the effects. So we must, at times, make these determinations. When sharing a cerebral connection I would guess (only a guess) that there would only be one person considered to be there…but don’t quote me on that. Did you read the “Apple argument?”
 
robdaddyf said:
It is certainly possible that there is one person there…but this is something that only God would determine without error…so, for example, to save one and destroy the “other” would not be a choice that we should be able to make.
Click to expand...
Ditto. I agree that hard to determine cases should make us pause before deciding to go through with some kind of operation.

Although, it is interesting that this would be a classic “fission case” of personal identity–and it does present difficulties.

It’s no different than the question of whether or not you are actually killing someone by severing his brain hemisphere’s and letting them coexist in two different bodies.

Call the original person before the operation AB, and the two persons after the operation A and B.

Clearly AB is not numerically identical to A. Nor is AB numerically identical to B. And A is not identical to B. But if AB is one person, and not two, then when you do in fact sever the brain, you kill AB. But if AB is actually two persons, and not one, then you make the lives of both A and B so much easier. So this is the gamble. What should we do? I don’t know:)

But this is no more a problem for a Catholic than anyone else, right?.🤷
 
PJM said:
No 😃

A “brain” is physical matter; while a “mind” is Spiritual.

Quantify your mind for us. Size, weight, shape, color… see what I mean?

Love and prayers,
Pat
Click to expand...
Is the mind “spiritual”? Animals have minds too. Higher primates can communicate in sign language after all.
 
warpspeedpetey said:
is the exercise of free will diminished by a lack of mental capacity? i dont think so. ive known people with various levels of developmental problems, all of which were capable of exercising their free will. even if it were only a nod of the head, or spitting out food they didnt like.
Click to expand...
Right - in the same way that an animal does. But the point about free will that was being made was that it distinguished a human being?
 
o_mlly said:
The human being is a unique animal
Click to expand...
What’s unique about the human animal?
Does the potential for rational thought exist? Then they are human
Click to expand...
What do you mean by the potential for rational thought? Anencephalic babies have no potential for rational thought.
Long enough to be reasonably certain the soul has departed.
Click to expand...
which is how long? how do we ascertain that the soul has departed? does EEG tell us? CT scan? vital signs?
 
CatofAlexandria said:
Yes, it could given the right conditions or scientific advancements. Human cells exist and regenerate outside of the human body all of the time. I just don’t understand the point of expanding the definition of “human being” to include all “human tissue.” Again, I think it’s a category mistake. Even if we consider a human heart as part of a fully functional human person (let’s call the person “Sally”), I would still say, “the heart is human tissue, and Sally is a human being.” Sally’s foot is human tissue and sally is a human being. What makes it human tissue is that it belongs to (or once belonged to) a human being. What makes someone a human being is that they have all of the right human tissue, that is genetically independent and ordered towards rationality, whether or not that rationality exists or is ever realized.
Click to expand...
Transplanted lungs are perfused and treated outside the body for 24 hours to optimise them for the recipient. There’s certainly metabolic activity going on for that 24 hours. Are the pair of lungs a human being o mlly?
 
o_mlly said:
Part of but not constitutive of the complex human being.
Click to expand...
So does a human being have to be complete to be a human being?
How many parts can be removed/damaged/destroyed and it’s still a human being left?
Which bits have to be intact and functioning for it to be a human being?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top