What is a human being?

[nuclear zoo]

Hello, gentle readers.

Do any of you have a good principle determining what makes something a human being?

I would post this under the abortion thread, but it seems bogged down in political matters. I am interested in this one principle, not the ramifications of legislation etc. Now, I admit I am interested in it because of biomedical ethics considerations, primarily abortion. But perhaps this issue, this single principle is of paramount importance before political questions can be raised.

Plus this is a philosophy and morality forum, and I would like to exercise my analytic philosophy muscles.

Perhaps I can get us started. It seems to be the case that a human being can feel pain. Sentiency seems to be a necessary, though not sufficient, condition for being a human being.

What (else) makes us human?
NZ

 

[morningstar2651]

Hmmm...yet another question to be asked -- What is life?

 

[Gracchus]

Hmmm...yet another question to be asked -- What is life?

Life is a subset of chemistry, characterized by the replication of DNA.

 

[Madcoil]

Life is the fulfilment of these:

Reproduce
Obtain and use energy
Grow, develop, and die
Respond to the environment

 

[Allister]

Compassion makes us Human

 

[Moncubus Gwazz III]

Curiousity and inquisitiveness is a defining trait of humanity, in my view.

 

[Eudaimonist]

What (else) makes us human?

I tend to agree with Aristotle's definition of humans as the "rational animal". He didn't mean that rationality is the only feature human beings have, but it is an essential, defining feature.

 

[kedaman]

speaking about rational animals, what is rationality?

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Hello, gentle readers.

Do any of you have a good principle determining what makes something a human being?

I would post this under the abortion thread, but it seems bogged down in political matters. I am interested in this one principle, not the ramifications of legislation etc. Now, I admit I am interested in it because of biomedical ethics considerations, primarily abortion. But perhaps this issue, this single principle is of paramount importance before political questions can be raised.

Plus this is a philosophy and morality forum, and I would like to exercise my analytic philosophy muscles.

Perhaps I can get us started. It seems to be the case that a human being can feel pain. Sentiency seems to be a necessary, though not sufficient, condition for being a human being.

What (else) makes us human?
NZ

Not to get into a fallacy of accent, but I think it would be important to define what you mean by "being" in the human being question.
Are we asking in the sense that something exists?
Or are we asking in the sense that something is recognized to exist?

There is the rub.

 

[nuclear zoo]

Ked-
For Aristotle, rationality is calculative ability and being able to reason and think about principles, which is what we're doing now.
But of course that rules out infants, the severely retarded, the old and demented, etc. They are not rational animals. So if Eudaimonist is right, the fetus is certainly not a human..
Is there a principle that does not rule out those who we like to think of as human?

Let me throw out another principle I like: for something to be a human it must possess the full genetic code of a human (must have 26 chromosomes etc.)

CC-
Im a little rusty on my Heidegger, and I am not sure if asking what is "being" in itself is necessary. But let me try- a being is something that is alive. Even if that includes protazoa. That's the kind of "being" I mean to talk about.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

CC-
Im a little rusty on my Heidegger, and I am not sure if asking what is "being" in itself is necessary. But let me try- a being is something that is alive. Even if that includes protazoa. That's the kind of "being" I mean to talk about.

OK, I just wanted to make clear since this IS the Philosophy & Morality arena.
I hope that you see my point...
It comes back to that old saying, "If a tree falls in the woods and there is no one to hear it, does it make a noise?"
Whether we as a people or a person acknowledge a human being (i.e. fetus), does not make it not human nor not being.

 

[nuclear zoo]

OK, I just wanted to make clear since this IS the Philosophy & Morality arena.
I hope that you see my point...
It comes back to that old saying, "If a tree falls in the woods and there is no one to hear it, does it make a noise?"
Whether we as a people or a person acknowledge a human being (i.e. fetus), does not make it not human nor not being.

CC-
That old vignette is debatable, depending on whether youre a realist or idealist. I just don't want to get bogged down in any secondary matter. In my view, "What is 'being'" is secondary--what is 'human' is primary. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe a Heideggerian or Augustinian analysis of being is necessary (I hope not, I'm no scholar of being).

So far we have (according to me):
A human being has:
-rationality (debatable?)
-sentiency
-human genome

Anything to be added/removed?

 

[kedaman]

Ked-
For Aristotle, rationality is calculative ability and being able to reason and think about principles, which is what we're doing now.
But of course that rules out infants, the severely retarded, the old and demented, etc. They are not rational animals. So if Eudaimonist is right, the fetus is certainly not a human..
Is there a principle that does not rule out those who we like to think of as human?

Let me throw out another principle I like: for something to be a human it must possess the full genetic code of a human (must have 26 chromosomes etc.)

CC-
Im a little rusty on my Heidegger, and I am not sure if asking what is "being" in itself is necessary. But let me try- a being is something that is alive. Even if that includes protazoa. That's the kind of "being" I mean to talk about.

Thanks for the answer. Do I know you?

 

[ChristianCenturion]

CC-
That old vignette is debatable, depending on whether youre a realist or idealist. I just don't want to get bogged down in any secondary matter. In my view, "What is 'being'" is secondary--what is 'human' is primary. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe a Heideggerian or Augustinian analysis of being is necessary (I hope not, I'm no scholar of being).

So far we have (according to me):
A human being has:
-rationality (debatable?)
-sentiency
-human genome

Anything to be added/removed?

This may get tricky... but how about originating from the necessary requirements from existing, human sources?

And I disagree with the sentiency and rationality; that is not a permanent requirement and are probable components, but not all inclusive or deciding factors. A person could temporarily be non-sentient and later be sentient (i.e. coma)

 

[nuclear zoo]

Kedaman-
Nope, so far as I know.

CC-
That sounds like a good condition for being human- coming from existing human sources. So even if I am cloned, my clone comes from a human source (though by a wayward route).

And as for your coma dilemma, maybe a way out would be to stipulate:
"A person is something that has the potential to become conscious."

But if we allow that, then a tiny embryo is a person, as well as any separate sperm and egg..

So let me say this:
"A person is something that both has had consciousness and has the potential to regain it."

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Kedaman-
Nope, so far as I know.

CC-
That sounds like a good condition for being human- coming from existing human sources. So even if I am cloned, my clone comes from a human source (though by a wayward route).

And as for your coma dilemma, maybe a way out would be to stipulate:
"A person is something that has the potential to become conscious."

But if we allow that, then a tiny embryo is a person, as well as any separate sperm and egg..

So let me say this:
"A person is something that both has had consciousness and has the potential to regain it."

I see that you have found the Philosophical and Moral stumbling block for abortion and I say that it was a nice attempt to recover. But I don't see that you have hurdled it due to the fact that your condition is circular. It has no beginning - I would not be considered human at any time since I never had the status of "having consciousness" prior as in a known starting point that excludes all other earlier timelines. So, I would agree with the: "A person is something (I would substitute 'prgressing life' instead of something) that has the potential to become conscious."
But then again... this shouldn't surprise anyone, because they know my allegence is to The Truth.

 

[Allister]

As Bill HIcks once said "you're not a person until you're in my phone book."

"A person is something that has the potential to become conscious."

a PERSON is SOMETHING that has the POTENTIAL to BECOME CONSCIOUS

that definition is not strong enough, in regards to gaining consciousness. what about AI? it's something with potential to become conscious (the actual possibility is not set in stone) if it became conscious would it be a person?

 

[ChristianCenturion]

As Bill HIcks once said "you're not a person until you're in my phone book."



a PERSON is SOMETHING that has the POTENTIAL to BECOME CONSCIOUS

that definition is not strong enough, in regards to gaining consciousness. what about AI? it's something with potential to become conscious (the actual possibility is not set in stone) if it became conscious would it be a person?

I believe that you are confusing theory with factual... unless you have hard, peer reviewed evidence to prove that AI can possess consciousness that I am not aware of.
Since we are discussing human and potential, how about us sticking with the proven there and refrain from the science fiction inspired... please.

BTW - when something mimics a human trait, behavior, appearance it is described as 'human'; not because it is, but because it is described as such.

 

[nuclear zoo]

CC-

C'mon. My condition could be false, but it's not circular. If I said, "A person is something that both has been a person and has the potential to be a person," then that would be circular.

Now let me quote you...
"So, I would agree with the: "A person is something (I would substitute 'prgressing life' instead of something) that has the potential to become conscious.""

Hmm... do you believe only humans can be conscious? Not any other Great Ape? (Even Koko?) Can't a chimp be aware of its state of mind? Or be self-controlled? Yes, and that's what makes it conscious.

In which case, something is conscious if it is human.. not vice versa tho.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

CC-

C'mon. My condition could be false, but it's not circular. If I said, "A person is something that both has been a person and has the potential to be a person," then that would be circular.

You are correct; it could be a person, I thought you were looking for defining criteria though. Sorry - in that case, there are many additions that could apply.

Now let me quote you...
"So, I would agree with the: "A person is something (I would substitute 'prgressing life' instead of something) that has the potential to become conscious.""

Hmm... do you believe only humans can be conscious? Not any other Great Ape? (Even Koko?) Can't a chimp be aware of its state of mind? Or be self-controlled? Yes, and that's what makes it conscious.

Understood, so I suppose that is not defining either.

In which case, something is conscious if it is human.. not vice versa tho.

Again, I thought you were looking for definitives, not generalized... but are we now dismissing that human must be concious to still be human again?