What is a person?

[ydoaPs]

Is that any different than Hitler, Stalin, or serial killers?

 

It's still the same question, Sisyphus: when do we decide that another species qualifies as being sentient, technological, and having the same rights and obligations we humans have toward each other? Sentience and technological does not = peaceful among individual humans.

 

Self-defense against fellow humans is accepted as ethical. Therefore why would not self-defense against orcs or balrogs be accepted as ethical if we extend "personhood" to cover them?

 

 

 

lucaspa, why does it have to be all or nothing? From your post here and in other threads, you seem to think you are either a person to the extent that most humans are, or you are as much of a person as a rock. That plainly is not so. It is merely a product of a discontinuous mind.

 

"'Human' to the discontinuous mind, is an absolute concept. There can be no half measures. And from this flows much evil."-Richard Dawkins

[ydoaPs]

You forgot to mention the most important one: if you really use Locke's definition, then you exclude quite a few members of H. sapiens: mentally retarded, babies less than 6 months old (who live only in the present and can't think of themselves in different times and places), those suffering from traumatic brain injury, those in a coma, etc.

And they aren't. Species membership is not morally relevant characteristics. Despite how poetic it sounds, not all humans are equal. Not all humans are people and not all people are humans.

 

I think what you need to do is look at the group, not individuals. Because humans as a species demonstrate Locke's criteria, Locke considers all humans to be "people", whether specific individuals meet the criteria or not -- they are included as "people" because the group qualifies.

Where do we cut off our species? Again, you are thinking discontinuously. Consider the following quote from Dawkins.

You stand on the shore of the Indian Ocean in southern Somalia' date=' facing north, and in your left hand you hold the right hand of your mother. In turn she holds the hand of her mother, your grandmother. Your grandmother holds her hand, and so on. The chain wends its way up the beach, into the arid scrubland and westwards on towards the Kenya border.

 

How far do we have to go until we reach our common ancestor with the chimpanzees? It's a surprisingly short way. Allowing one yard per person, we arrive at the ancestor we share with the chimpanzees in under 300 miles. We've hardly started to cross the continent; we're still not half way to the great Rift Valley. The ancestor is standing well to the east of Mount Kenya, and holing her hand an entire chain of her lineal descendants, culminating in your standing on the Somali beach.

 

The daughter that she is holing in her right hand is the one from whom we are descended. Now the arch-ancestress turns eastward to face the coast, and with her left hand grasps the other daughter, the one from whom the chimpanzees are descended (or son, of course, but let's stick with females for convenience). The two sisters are facing one another, and each holding their mother by the hand. Now the second daughter, the chimpanzee ancestress, holds her daughter's hand, and a new chain is formed, proceeding back towards the coast. First cousin faces first cousin, second cousin faces second cousin, and so on. By the time the folded-back chain has reached the coast again, it consists of modern chimpanzees. You are face to face with your chimpanzee cousin, and you are joined to her by an unbroken chain of mothers holding the hands of their daughters. ... Daughters would resemble their mothers as much (or as little) as they always do. Mothers would love their daughters, and feel affinity for them as they always do.[/quote']

 

And you do the same thing -- look at the group. As we said, not every white, black, etc. can meet Locke's criteria, but the overwhelming majority can, so you take the group[/b'] -- race -- as being people.

Thus we should not take the organs from a breathing Anencephalic baby to give to one who would actually stand a chance at surviving had they had an implant.

 

A problem comes when we get to AI. Here there isn't going to be a "group", at least initially. It will be one computer. When we get to a group -- a production run of AIs, then we would have a group. But is the first AI going to be considered a person? Or are we going to have to wait for thousands of AIs?

People are individuals, not groups. Why define them by groups?

 

 

Where's IMM when you need her. She's far better at explaining these sort of things than I am.

[lucaspa]

I think the concept of personhood is well indicated by the following passages from Rethinking Life and Death by Peter Singer.

 

Ah yes, the animal rights guru. Look at the premises of arguments, yourdad. For instance, Singer says "In 325 the Council of Nicea settled the issue by saying that the trinity is one substance and three persons. But what was a person?"

 

The words in Greek are 1 ousia and 3 personas. In the context, persona is NOT "person", but rather is more accurately rendered "personality". There is still only one "ousia", or individual, in Trinity.

 

Singer also misses something else we associate with humans and "persons" -- the ability to have a technological society. This goes beyond making and using tools -- it means making tools to make tools. Chimps can't do this. This is why they can use branch as a "ladder" but not make one.

 

The problem Singer overlooks is that EVERY animal species MUST exploit other species to stay alive. Singer doesn't want us to kill chickens, cows, and pigs for food, but even Singer must kill SOME animals in order to survive. Farming involves killing animals second hand by depriving them of their habitat and having them starve to death. If he lived just 100 years ago, he would have to kill animals either for their hides for clothing or the tools to process plants to make clothing. I presume Singer has no qualms about harvesting blood from horses to make insulin for human diabetics. Or maybe he does, and would be content to watch the humans die rather than hurt the horses.

 

"Whether or not dogs and pigs are persons, they can certainly feel pain and suffer in a variety of ways, and our concern for their suffering should not depend on how rational and self-aware they might be." Singer has just made his ethical position untenable. Singer can't limit his concern to dogs and pigs; he must extend them to all mammals and perhaps all vertebrates.

 

As I said, farming involves plowing up fields and displacing the animals who lived there. It involves destroying the ecosystem on which the animals depend and substituting the human-desired ecosystem -- the farm. So it condemns animals to starvation or other nasty deaths. Yet Singer doesn't advocate giving up farming and just going to what we can glean from naturally-growing plants. That would, of course, condemn 99% of the human species to death by starvation.

[ydoaPs]

Ah yes, the animal rights guru. Look at the premises of arguments, yourdad. For instance, Singer says "In 325 the Council of Nicea settled the issue by saying that the trinity is one substance and three persons. But what was a person?"

 

The words in Greek are 1 ousia and 3 personas. In the context, persona is NOT "person", but rather is more accurately rendered "personality". There is still only one "ousia", or individual, in Trinity.

Wow, you completely ignored the point of every post I made. Congratulations.

 

Singer also misses something else we associate with humans and "persons" -- the ability to have a technological society. This goes beyond making and using tools -- it means making tools to make tools. Chimps can't do this. This is why they can use branch as a "ladder" but not make one.

But using one rock to make another one sharper doesn't count?

 

"Whether or not dogs and pigs are persons, they can certainly feel pain and suffer in a variety of ways, and our concern for their suffering should not depend on how rational and self-aware they might be." Singer has just made his ethical position untenable. Singer can't limit his concern to dogs and pigs; he must extend them to all mammals and perhaps all vertebrates.

Perhaps you should read the whole book. You would see that he does, but not in the same amount as they don't feel pain the same way we do. Again, your discontinuous mind fails you. It isn't all or nothing.

 

As I said, farming involves plowing up fields and displacing the animals who lived there. It involves destroying the ecosystem on which the animals depend and substituting the human-desired ecosystem -- the farm. So it condemns animals to starvation or other nasty deaths. Yet Singer doesn't advocate giving up farming and just going to what we can glean from naturally-growing plants. That would, of course, condemn 99% of the human species to death by starvation.

Now, what does any of this have to do with personhood?

[lucaspa]

Despite how poetic it sounds, not all humans are equal.

 

I didn't say they were "equal", just that members of H. sapiens are all people with the rights/obligations attached to that.

 

Not all humans are people

 

Which ones are not and how do you decide? Think carefully. Remember, it was thinking that blacks were not people that led to racism. Look at the list I provided of individuals that would be excluded by Locke.

 

and not all people are humans.

 

That's what we are trying to decide. Therefore you can't state it like you did -- as "fact".

 

Where do we cut off our species? Again, you are thinking discontinuously. Consider the following quote from Dawkins.

 

The Dawkins quote does not apply. What Dawkins is doing is getting to the common ancestor, not to the species Pan troglodytes. The biological species concept applies: a species is a population that freely interbreeds to produce fertile offspring. Chimps and humans do not interbreed; we are separate species.

 

And yes, there are discontinuities in nature. Darwin talked about them. They arise because the intervening species from the common ancestor to us and from the common ancestor to chimps have all gone extinct.

 

Thus we should not take the organs from a breathing Anencephalic baby to give to one who would actually stand a chance at surviving had they had an implant.

 

Why not? By Locke's definition, the anencephalic baby is not human! The baby is human only because she/he belongs to the group!

 

People are individuals, not groups. Why define them by groups?

 

See above. Not all members of the group meet Locke's definition of "person" as an individual. But as you stated, the ancephalic baby is still considered a person. For that matter, YOU are still considered a person if you go into a coma, yet you wouldn't meet Locke's criteria.

 

This is not limiting the definition of "person", yourdad, but expanding it and making sure it covers everyone who we agree should be covered.

 

As I said, AI is going to present a problem. Notice that Singer is trying to get a group -- chimps -- accepted as people, not trying to get a single chimp accepted as one. And, in fact, if there were only one chimp in the Arnhem Zoo, most of the behavior Singer points to in order to argue for "personhood" would not be observable, would it?

 

So, when we have a single computer that passes a Turing test, would we consider that one computer as a "person", or would we wait until there were hundreds or thousands of such computers?

 

Let me ask you this: did the 14th Amendment apply to just individuals or a group? In order for equal rights to apply, do we have to test every individual to see if they fit Locke's definition of "person", or did we extend rights to all blacks at the same time?

[lucaspa]

Wow, you completely ignored the point of every post I made.

 

Yourdad, the rest of your post indicates that I did not ignore the points of the post.

 

What this did was show an example of faulty premise on Singer's part. He got "persona" wrong -- and attributed the origin to the Romans instead of the Greeks to boot!

 

Now,I know that not every post you have made is about Singer, animal rights, or even Trinity. So your comment is patently false.

 

 

But using one rock to make another one sharper doesn't count?

 

Nope. That's making a tool. Now, if you used the sharp rock to cut a strip of skin from an animal to attach the sharp rock to the end of stick to make a spear, then you would be making a tool to make a tool. Humans do that. As far as I know, no other known species does.

 

You would see that he does, but not in the same amount as they don't feel pain the same way we do. Again, your discontinuous mind fails you. It isn't all or nothing.

 

Are you saying that Singer advocates some exploitation of some animals, based on a sliding scale on whether they feel pain like we do? (How does he know they do or not?) If so, can you please find the quote where he says that? Because, so far, all you've quoted is an absolute, not a sliding scale.

 

Even in a sliding scale, Singer must say "we can do X to species A, but not to species B: So even here we have a discontinuity. Yourdad, this whole thread is about being discontinuous! It's about saying "this species is a person with all the rights/obligations of humans but this species is not." Or saying, "this individual is a person but this individual is not." You did that when you said "not all humans are people". That is discontinuous! It's an either/or choice with no middle ground.

 

Now, what does any of this have to do with personhood?

 

This is a way you argue, isn't it yourdad? When you can't answer the arugment, you play stupid and pretent you don't understand how the argument applies. I explained the chain of reasoning. I'll do it again. Please pay attention; there will be a test.

 

Singer's extension of "personhood" to other animal species and the fact that his criteria become meaningless because even Singer can't and doesn't meet them. Singer hasn't thought it thru as to the ethical and contradictory consequences of his attempt to define "person" and his statement "our concern for their suffering should not depend on how rational and self-aware they might be." If we take that to its logical conclusion, our "concern" forces us to starve to death, because our life must come at the expense of suffering of other animal species!

 

Mice and voles are not as "rational and self-aware" as chimps. BUT, according to Singer we must have the same concern for their suffering as we would have for chimps and humans.

 

So ... it's almost time for spring plowing, isn't it? In the time since harvest, mice and voles have moved into fields, mated, and had litters. Now the plow moves thru the field and the nests of the mice and voles, either killing them and their kids outright, or burying the kids to suffocate to death!

 

Try to follow Singer's logic here: we are concerned for such suffering in humans and would not allow such suffering. Presumably Singer would not allow us to go smother a chimp baby, either. Well then, if "our concern" is not limited by the self-awareness of the species, then think about it. Shouldn't we be so concerned about killing mouse babies that we do not plow the field? Then how do we grow enough crops to feed everyone?

 

You see the absurdity if we follow Singer's line of reasoning to its logical conclusion? Singer doesn't accept these conclusions.

 

If you are going to argue for animal rights, you have to use a different argument from Singer's.

[lucaspa]

lucaspa, why does it have to be all or nothing? ... "'Human' to the discontinuous mind, is an absolute concept. There can be no half measures. And from this flows much evil."-Richard Dawkins

 

From an ethical and legal standpoint, it does have to be all or nothing. Dawkins in this case (as in many others) is in error. Look at 2 examples: slaveryand race relations in America and Hitler's attitude toward the "subraces".

 

In the Constitution, blacks are deemed to count as part human in determining the number of people in a state to determine the number of representatives. In the end, slaves were three-fifths a person. Under that non-discontinuous system, much evil was done.

 

Move forward to the 20th century and segregation. Blacks were no longer slaves but were not considered full people, either, were they? They had inferior schools, separate drinking fountains, etc. All this was based on the idea that they were not "full" people equal to whites. Even evolution was co-opted for this. The idea was that whites were more "fully evolved" than blacks or mongoloids (Asians). So here there is a continuous system -- evolution -- but much evil done.

 

Hitler used both a discontinuous system -- special creation -- and a continuous system -- evolution -- to justify his idea that some groups of people were not full people. Aryans, of course, were at the top. But then there is a gradation of "personhood" to the Latins, Slavs, blacks, and Jews. And a difference in treatment. Slavs are just dispossesed from their land in the Ukraine while Jews are to be exteriminated. So you have your "continuous" system, and great evil is done under it.

 

Now, the choice is not personhood or a "rock". I think you can apply a universal standard: no unnecessary or gratuitous pain and suffering. Yes, you can raise animals for food, but killing them should be as painless as possible and you don't slaughter without using all you can of the animal. Thus, under this system, the slaughter of buffalo by white hunters for their hides and tongues only would be unethical. Torture of pets would be unethical. Medical research where analgesics could be given but are not is unethical. All because there is unnecessary or gratuitous pain and suffering.

[lucaspa]

"'Human' to the discontinuous mind, is an absolute concept. There can be no half measures. And from this flows much evil."-Richard Dawkins

 

In the future, yourdad, you need to provide the full citation. Where did Dawkins write this? Are you taking it out of context?

 

I did find a case where Dawkins discusses this: http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Articles/1993gaps_in_the_mind.shtml

 

The problem is that Dawkins tries to make apples into oranges. Yes, Dawkins is correct that in the transformation of one species to another, there is no discontinuity where you can say "at this generation, you have a new species". The process is so gradual and continuous that this is not possible.

 

But that is evolution. Dawkins tries to export that to legal/ethical issues. The lawyer and anti-abortion groups have a point: in terms of laws and ethics, there must come a point where all the laws we apply to humans come into force, but they don't apply before that point. Laws and ethics do work on discontinuities.

 

We see this in our laws applying to teenagers. Yes, growing from child to functioning adult is a continuous process, but at some point we make a discontinuity because we must. We decide whether the individual should be tried as a child or adult. We decide when the individual can drive a car or legally drink or vote. It's a discontinuity. Turn 16 and boom! you can get your driver's license! Turn 21 and you can legally drink alcohol. There is no slow, continuous change here. It's all or nothing. When I was growing up, the legal drinking age was 18. My generation demonstrated that we were not mature enough -- as a group -- to handle that.

 

Driving speed of a car is continuous. You can drive any speed between 0 and 120 mph. BUT, in all conditions we have a discontinuity on what constitutes a legal speed and an illegal one. In a school zone 20.0000 mph is legal, but > 20.0000 is illegal.

 

The problem is not having a continuous or discontinuous mind, but trying to impose continuity on a discontinuous situation or trying to impose discontinuity on a continuous system. Dawkins cannot impose continuity on the law or ethics anymore than the lawyer can impose discontinuity on evolution.

 

Even Dawkins can't avoid discontinuities. At the end of the article, we see this: "Nevertheless, it must be conceded that this book's proposal to admit great apes to the charmed circle of human privilege stands square in the discontinuous tradition. "

[CDarwin]

The Ethics of Star Trek (of all books) layed down something I think was interesting. It gave three seperate definitions for 'person'. A. Biological - Any member of the genus Homo; B. Psychological- Anything with the ability to form long term hopes and aspirations and to feel loss at the dashing of these (as in death, for example); and C. Ethical- Whatever combination of the first two that should be considered the beings with the greatest rights as a species and as individuals.

 

That perhaps doesn't answer the fundemental question of 'what is a person', but I think it lays down a good framework for a debate on the matter.

[lucaspa]

The Ethics of Star Trek (of all books) layed down something I think was interesting. It gave three seperate definitions for 'person'. A. Biological - Any member of the genus Homo; B. Psychological- Anything with the ability to form long term hopes and aspirations and to feel loss at the dashing of these (as in death, for example); and C. Ethical- Whatever combination of the first two that should be considered the beings with the greatest rights as a species and as individuals.

 

That perhaps doesn't answer the fundemental question of 'what is a person', but I think it lays down a good framework for a debate on the matter.

 

The various Star Trek series did an excellent job, IMO, in exploring the concept of what it is to be a "person". From Spock as an alien member of a human crew to Data to Odo to the Doctor, the show pushed the boundaries and made us think about the subject.

 

However, I think the book has done a disservice to the complex thought and issues raised by the Star Trek series. The criteria are too simple and vague.

 

Right now the term "human" is applied by anthropologists to all the past species in the genus "Homo". However, I'm not sure we would consider H. habilis as "persons". Maybe we would. However, we need to consider this since, if present trends continue, there will be more than one species of Homo on the planet at one time -- again.

 

B is, IMO, trying to look at "sentience". And not doing a very good job of it. It's a nice try, of course, but it omits communication and verbilization. After all, "the ability to form long term hopes and aspirations and to feel loss at the dashing of these" depends on the ability to communicate and verbalize these thoughts, at least to itself. All the "persons" in Star Trek had sentience and the ability to communicate abstract thoughts. So, this begs the question whether a creature can feel loss at impending death without being sentient. Could a rat, say, feel loss at impending death? How would we know? If we can't know, how can we say that the species qualifies as "person".

 

Also, as individuals, members of a species can lose the ability to form long term hopes and feel loss. Do those members lose their status as persons?

 

C is just restating the problem. After all, why are we trying to decide what a "person" is? In order to extend "the greatest rights as a species and as individuals"! So C is simply circular reasoning: Persons are those with rights; those beings we consider should (ethically) have rights are persons.

[bascule]

A person is a self-modeling entity that can also identify and communicate with other self-modeling entities.

 

By that definition, my cat is a person. Wow.

[Donnie Darko]

I agree with Bascule.

[vampares]

Clearly this is an intangible concept. Discussions arguing intangibles is not acceptable in polite society. Most of the time this subject persists because no has answered:

 

"What are you doing and why are you doing it?"

 

If the intangible concept of what a person is comes up then the question has not been answered.

 

As far as the animal thing goes, lean with the flakiness of chicken but tastes like pork, slightly salty. Don't ask.

[Realitycheck]

First thing that came to mind was the legal definition of person. For the purposes of the law, the term "person" used to describe a business with the same rights and duties of a person, shows up quite often in the law.

 

person

n. 1) a human being. 2) a corporation treated as having the rights and obligations of a person. Counties and cities can be treated as a person in the same manner as a corporation. However, corporations, counties and cities cannot have the emotions of humans such as malice, and therefore are not liable for punitive damages unless there is a statute authorizing the award of punitive damages.

http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=1516&bold=||||

 

 

person

 

1: "natural person"

 

2: the body of a human being

 

also

: the body and clothing of a human being

Example: had drugs on his person

 

3: one (as a human being or corporation) that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties

(see also juridical person legal person personality)

http://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/results.pl?co=dictionary.lp.findlaw.com&topic=e4/e4b1efffd2c970a94531d44ee63d3d3b

[Mr Skeptic]

Dictionaries and laws are notoriously bad at definitions.

[Livingstone]

A dolphin

[KelseyTanpopo]

A person in biblical perspective is someone which is made in the image and likeness of God...

A person is also the highest form animal...

[Phi for All]

A person in biblical perspective is someone which is made in the image and likeness of God...

Which is completely worthless as a definition since God, by His choice, is unavailable for comparison. This may be a more ethical than strictly scientific discussion, but claiming God looks like us because we were made in His image is a tautology, and quite illogical.

A person is also the highest form animal...

"Highest form" is a nebulous concept. We have vast intelligence but no real instincts. We can form large societies with individual freedoms and flexible strictures that guide our development but we also wage war on each other for pretty abstract reasons. We can build and operate complex machinery but without training and materials we freeze to death in weather that any animal with fur could easily survive.

 

As a definition, "highest form" is too subjective.

[Sisyphus]

without training and materials we freeze to death in weather that any animal with fur could easily survive.

 

I agree with everything else you say, so I'm reluctant to nitpick, but, well, not that reluctant. That's not really being fair to humans, since we evolved in tropical environments, where we can survive just fine walking around naked. I'm pretty sure most tropical animals would freeze to death if you plopped them down in the middle of the Canadian wilderness. Not to say that we aren't quite vulnerable even by those standards, but we're not unique - even in our vulnerability.

[Phi for All]

I agree with everything else you say, so I'm reluctant to nitpick, but, well, not that reluctant. That's not really being fair to humans, since we evolved in tropical environments, where we can survive just fine walking around naked. I'm pretty sure most tropical animals would freeze to death if you plopped them down in the middle of the Canadian wilderness. Not to say that we aren't quite vulnerable even by those standards, but we're not unique - even in our vulnerability.

I see your point, and I agree. You are *not* a reluctant nitpicker.

 

I do see what you are saying. I was trying to point out that "highest form" should be applied to a situation, and not all situations favor humans as the epitome of development.