What does it mean to be a person? (1 Viewer)

[John McCain]

To describe a being as 'human' is to use a term that straddles two distinct notions: membership of the species Homo sapiens, and being a person, in the sense of a rational or self-conscious being.

Is it enough to say a person is simply an organism that is genetically a member of the species homo sapiens, and thus grant them all the rights and protections of all other homo sapiens?

Or do you have to possess higher qualities and faculties to be considered eligible for personhood and part of humanity?

Why do we value all human life above all other life? I would argue the higher reasoning qualities and self-awareness of humans is what justifies them being given their special, protected status. If an individual exists that shares only a genetic similarity with other homo sapiens, but none of these higher qualities, why are they deserving of the same protection?

If an organism is genetically human, but possesses less mental ability than say, a pig, as is the case for a foetus or an individual with severe mental disability, why should they be afforded more rights and protections than that animal?

 

[Silver Persian]

To put the issue another way, we would usually argue that because children have lower metal capacities than adults, they deserve more protection as they are unable to fend for themselves. Can a similar argument be used to justify animal rights?

 

[KFunk]

A few test cases:

- Fetuses
- Children
- The severely cognitively impaired
- Psychopaths
- The braindead
- An indivual in deep sleep
- The comatose
- A brain in a vat (with a computer interface, perhaps)
- Clones
- Rational extraterrestrials
- Advanced forms of articificial intelligence
- An animal capable of basic sign language
- Apes and dolphins
- Reptiles
- Bacteria

 

[John McCain]

To put the issue another way, we would usually argue that because children have lower metal capacities than adults, they deserve more protection as they are unable to fend for themselves. Can a similar argument be used to justify animal rights?

I think that children have fundamentally the same legal and moral protection as adults, but less rights than adults, and are in ways effectively treated as property, giving the adult 'owner' responsibility to prevent neglect, very similar to the legal and moral responsibilities for many animals kept and raised by humans.

To clarify, I don't believe anyone would argue an adult is more 'deserving' of suffering misfortune due a lack of available options for protection, or that it is ever acceptable for an adult to not have sufficient means to protect themselves from abuse and misfortune, but we grant them more liberties to take risks that put themselves in potentially dangerous situations.

 

[chelsea girl]

A few test cases:

- Fetuses
- Children
- The severely cognitively impaired
- Psychopaths
- The braindead
- An indivual in deep sleep
- The comatose
- Clones

these, yes.

- A brain in a vat (with a computer interface, perhaps)
- Rational extraterrestrials
- Advanced forms of articificial intelligence
- An animal capable of basic sign language
- Apes and dolphins
- Reptiles
- Bacteria

no, they may have human-like qualities but they are not humans. life forms, yes, not humans.

a human can learn how to behave like an ape, perhaps, but will always be a human, and vice versa.

 

[KFunk]

^ I find it interesting that you included the braindead individual on the first list. Certainly I would want to treat their body with dignity and respect, in conjunction with observation of death ceremonies that they may have deemed important, but I would tend to give more moral consideration to a living ape (as an intelligent, emotional being).

 

[John McCain]

no, they may have human-like qualities but they are not humans. life forms, yes, not humans.

Obviously they're not biologically human.

But are they deserving of more or less rights than some of the examples of genetically human, yet functionally impaired organisms provided. Are they more or less valuable and in need of protection?

is the topic of this thread.


I find it interesting that you wouldn't call a hypothetical brain in a vat a person. Why does a body matter if the mind is all there?

 

[chelsea girl]

I would give everything on both lists equal moral consideration (within my own moral spectrum), regardless of whether I consider them human or not.

 

[chelsea girl]

Obviously they're not biologically human.

But are they deserving of more or less rights than some of the examples of genetically human, yet functionally impaired organisms provided. Are they more or less valuable and in need of protection?

is the topic of this thread.


I find it interesting that you wouldn't call a hypothetical brain in a vat a person. Why does a body matter if the mind is all there?

I just don't see why it's a point that needs to be discussed. Why does someone have to be deemed "human" to be considered of a certain value?

I suppose I kind of think it's a moot point because scientific definition of a living thing should really have no bearing on certain morals and standards.

Obviously we can decide that, for example, a dolphin doesn't need a right such as voting like a human does, nor does a braindead person, but the absence of cruelty and a degree of respect are universally applicable in all the examples mentioned above.

 

[KFunk]

I would give everything on both lists equal moral consideration (within my own moral spectrum), regardless of whether I consider them human or not.

Typo on my part - I should have written that I would consider apes and dolphins persons before the braindead.

 

[Silver Persian]

I think that children have fundamentally the same legal and moral protection as adults, but less rights than adults, and are in ways effectively treated as property, giving the adult 'owner' responsibility to prevent neglect, very similar to the legal and moral responsibilities for many animals kept and raised by humans.

To clarify, I don't believe anyone would argue an adult is more 'deserving' of suffering misfortune due a lack of available options for protection, or that it is ever acceptable for an adult to not have sufficient means to protect themselves from abuse and misfortune, but we grant them more liberties to take risks that put themselves in potentially dangerous situations.

But do children deserve this protection, if they do not have the same reasoning faculties or self-awareness as adults?

I'm just not sure why being intelligent should make someone or something worthy of moral consideration. I would say that the capacity to suffer is more important.

 

[John McCain]

But do children deserve this protection, if they do not have the same reasoning faculties or self-awareness as adults?

I'm just not sure why being intelligent should make someone or something worthy of moral consideration. I would say that the capacity to suffer is more important.

As an example, if you had to perform medical research that could potentially save lives for adult humans, but this research is dangerous and performing it on a chimp was a viable substitute for human experimentation, and this research will potentially save thousands of human lives at the expense of a dozen chimp lives, wouldn't you consider the experiment on a chimp justified, and a much better option for experimentation than a healthy adult human?

Of course, other alternatives like braindead humans should be better than a healthy chimp if that is an option for this particular experiment. And if you could find braindead chimps...

I'm not saying relative intelligence makes any other organism unworthy of moral consideration, but in instances of ethical questions where one animal must be sacrificed if you are to save the life of another, relative intelligence should be taken into account.