Personhood

[Earatha]

So this is a philosophical question but I thought it might fit here.

What makes a person a person? Let's say for example you meet superman. Superman is from planet krypton, he is not human. But is he a person? Why or why not? Can a sentient robot be a person?

Is personhood limited to the species Homo sapiens, or is it something else? Is it the capacity for higher thought and consciousness? And if we grant that other non-human entities are persons do we grant them the same rights as humans?

 

[CrystalDragon]

I think in general, a "person" is a human or human-like being with consciousness, will, and intelligence.

 

[Sammy-San]

I think in general, a "person" is a human or human-like being with consciousness, will, and intelligence.

Do you think calling spirits persons is improper?

 

[St_Worm2]

The Bible refers to both God the Father and God the Holy Spirit as "Persons", and they are both "spirits". Jesus Christ/God the Son, is also referred to as a Person, but He has/had a body, both before and after His Incarnation, at and following His Resurrection, as well in Heaven even now (and while there is much more to describe about the Godhead, I think I'll stop with this ).

So God is a Person, and everyone made in His image is considered to be a person as well (that would be all of us, BTW ).

--David

 

[GrowingSmaller]

IMO one needs a self concept (idea) and self percept (actual factual embodied self). For normal self awareness at least.

 

[Strathos]

Do you think calling spirits persons is improper?

Well going by many of the definitions given here, they would be. But of course that doesn't make them good people by default.

 

[Dave-W]

IMO one needs a self concept (idea) and self percept (actual factual embodied self). For normal self awareness at least.

Why?

 

[Earatha]

The Bible refers to both God the Father and God the Holy Spirit as "Persons", and they are both "spirits". Jesus Christ/God the Son, is also referred to as a Person, but He has/had a body, both before and after His Incarnation, at and following His Resurrection, as well in Heaven even now (and while there is much more to describe about the Godhead, I think I'll stop with this ).

So God is a Person, and everyone made in His image is considered to be a person as well (that would be all of us, BTW ).

--David

So is personhood synonymous with soul in your opinion? Or do you consider them different?

IMO one needs a self concept (idea) and self percept (actual factual embodied self). For normal self awareness at least.

Do you think non-humans can be considered persons? Let's say we discovered that dolphins have a sense of self and can understand higher order thought. Would you consider a dolphin to be a person?

 

[jayem]

To me, a person is any human being (Homo sapiens) who is a part of human society. And my only criterion for being a part of human society is to be born. So any human being who has been born, no matter how mentally or physically impaired, is a person.

But that's just my opinion.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

IMO one needs a self concept (idea) and self percept (actual factual embodied self). For normal self awareness at least

Why?

Not sure. I think a concept is needed to refer ones intellection to something. And an concrete embodied self is the object of attention. Then again I am when I am typing, but my mind is not focused on self awareness explicitly.

 

[Greg J.]

A human is anyone descended from Adam & Eve. One can use "person" to refer to other creatures, such as those to whom one might attribute "personhood," but I think such assignments are arbitrary. It's like asking when a fetus becomes a person. To say it is when brainwaves start is an arbitrary belief. It could just as well be when their hearts start, when they are viable outside the womb, when the parent's chromosomes are first joined, when they become self-aware, can be creative, can use tools, etc.

To me it's a much more interesting task to look for Bible verses that say something concrete about it. I suspect a "person" is a being from a race that generally has the ability to choose or reject God in such a way as to be accountable to God for their choice.

 

[Strathos]

To me it's a much more interesting task to look for Bible verses that say something concrete about it. I suspect a "person" is a being from a race that generally has the ability to choose or reject God in such a way as to be accountable to God for their choice.

Then is God a person by that definition?

 

[Armoured]

Well going by many of the definitions given here, they would be. But of course that doesn't make them good people by default.

depending on how one defines "human-like"

 

[Greg J.]

Then is God a person by that definition?

Yes, but not human.

 

[ExodusMe]

I like Alvin Plantinga's definition
According to classical theistic belief — classical Muslim and Jewish as well as Christian belief — first of all there is God, the chief being of the universe, who has neither beginning nor end. Most important, God is personal. That is, God is the kind of being who is conscious and enjoys some kind of awareness of his surroundings (in God’s case, that would be everything). Second (though not second in importance), a person has loves and hates, wishes and desires; she approves of some things and disapproves of others; she wants things to be a certain way. We might put this by saying that persons have affections. A person, third, is a being who has beliefs and, if fortunate, knowledge. We human beings, for example, believe a host of things… Persons, therefore, have beliefs and affections. Further, a person is a being who has aims and intentions; a person aims to bring it about that things should be a certain way, intends to act so that things will be the way he wants them to be… Finally, persons can often act to fulfill their intentions; they can bring it about that things are a certain way; they can cause things to happen. To be more technical (though not more insightful or more clear), we might say that a person is a being who can actualize states of affairs. Persons can often act on the basis of what they believe in order to bring about states of affairs whose actuality they desire. So a person is conscious, has affections, beliefs, and intentions, and can act… First, therefore, God is a person. But second, unlike human persons, God is a person without a body. He acts, and acts in the world, as human beings do, but, unlike human beings, not by way of a body. Rather, God acts just by willing: he wills that things be a certain way, and they are that way. (God said “Let there be light”; and there was light.)

 

[FireDragon76]

I don't like Plantinga's definition at all. For one thing it would render someone in who was severely disabled a non-person, and the Christian tradition is against that.

 

[Strathos]

Yes, but not human.

But you defined it as the ability to choose or reject God and be accountable to Him. Can God choose or reject Himself and be accountable to Himself?

 

[Dave-W]

But you defined it as the ability to choose or reject God and be accountable to Him.

That definition would leave out all of our 5 point Calvinist brothers.

 

[ExodusMe]

I don't like Plantinga's definition at all. For one thing it would render someone in who was severely disabled a non-person, and the Christian tradition is against that.

You didn't really say why you think that. You just made a statement about what you think is wrong. To better serve the discussion I think it would help if you explicitly stated why you think that. Otherwise, the person replying is just left to assume things about your statement. Just an FYI for future posts/replies.

Plantinga and most Christians are mind/body dualist interactionists. I like William Lane Craigs example he uses as a pianist & a piano.

A dualist-interactionist does not take the soul to operate independently of the brain like a ghost in a machine. Rather, as the Nobel Prize-winning neurologist Sir John Eccles emphasizes, the soul uses the brain as an instrument to think, just as a musician uses a piano as an instrument to make music. If his piano is out of tune or damaged, then the pianist’s ability to produce music will be impaired or even nullified. In the same way, says Eccles, if the soul’s instrument of thought, the brain, is damaged or adversely affected, then the soul’s ability to think will be impaired or nullified.

The point here is that just because someones body does not function appropriately does not mean they cannot experience personhood as Plantinga describes.

I think if anything your post is more offensive, because you are essentially saying that a mentally disabled person isn't conscious/ have affections/beliefs/intentions/action or some combination.

Think of it this way. The pianist plays a piano. If the piano is broken, does that have anything to do with the function of the pianist? His piano may play bad sounds, but that doesn't mean there is something wrong with the pianist. The same is true with the soul & body interaction. The mental challenges of a handicapped person say nothing about the quality of their soul.

This is commonly how WLC says it.

Thanks

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Think of it this way. The pianist plays a piano. If the piano is broken, does that have anything to do with the function of the pianist? His piano may play bad sounds, but that doesn't mean there is something wrong with the pianist. The same is true with the soul & body interaction. The mental challenges of a handicapped person say nothing about the quality of their soul.

I think that first you have to demonstrate that a soul exists...