What is a human being?

[QuantaCura]

What is a human being? Simple question.


I don't want to limit anyone, but if you need some extra subquestions to ponder:

What distinguishes a human being from other beings?

When does a human being begin to be a human being (if ever) and when does he cease to be a human being (if ever)?

Does a human being have rights? If so, what are they and where do they come from?

Does a human being have duties? If so where do they come from?

Are human beings free?

Anything else you can think of?

(while I understand this question plays a large role in the abortion debate, I would prefer this thread not to be an abortion debate)

 

[Emmy]

Dear QuantaCura, only human beings, are made in the image of God. That means, like God we are capable of Love, of great love. We can think, we can reason, we know the difference between Right and Wrong, because God, our Maker, has given us His Commandments, also the knowledge how to choose, what Not to do, and what Elect to do. We, humans, have also been given a Saviour, Jesus Christ, to rescue us from bondage to Self, and teach and guide us, how to repent, and return to God, our Heavenly Father. I say this humbly and with deep gratitude, QuantaCura, and send greetings. Emmy, sister in Christ.

 

[The Nihilist]

Survey says: not an answer.
Descriptions and definitions are not the same.

 

[elman]

=QuantaCura;27715404]What is a human being? Simple question.

An animal with the intelligence to be aware of self and the world around and the ability to be loving.

What distinguishes a human being from other beings?

Ability to be loving and knowledge that being loving is a good thing.

When does a human being begin to be a human being (if ever) and when does he cease to be a human being (if ever)?

When they have the ability to love others, they have the ability to act in the image of God and fulfill the purpose for which they were created. When they cease to have the ability to love others, they become animals.

Does a human being have rights? If so, what are they and where do they come from?

If they love others they have the right to hope for being pleasing to God and forgiven for their failures to love.

Does a human being have duties? If so where do they come from?

We were created to be loving. That is our duty and our purpose. It came from the Creator.

Are human beings free?

We are free to love others or be unloving toward others.

 

[The Nihilist]

elman, these are mere assertions. Can you back them up? The bible probably won't cut it.

 

[Lifesaver]

A human being is a rational animal.
That means that he has a body, senses, autonomous motion, desires, reproduction and feelings as animals do, and also that he has a rational (or spiritual) soul, that is, that he is capable of abstract thought, theoretical conception, discursive reasoning.

These two principles in man are not separated but form an integrated whole. Some activities are much more material (or bodily) such as metabolism, while others are much more spiritual (or rational), as intellectual contemplation, but in all of them there is some interplay between rational soul and body.

Man is not an animal like the rest of animals, driven by natural impulses (instincts) and environmental conditioning only, nor is he a little ghost living inside and controlling a bodily machine distinct from himself. He is the composite of spirit and matter.

 

[The Nihilist]

What is this? A Christian who is well-read? And an Aristotelian no less! Color me surprised. Seriously, though, that's refreshing.
Now, prove we have a spirit.

 

[Lifesaver]

The spirit is the rational soul, the intellect (which is what distinguishes our soul from those of beasts and plants).

It is also this that survives the disintegration of the body, as its activity (abstraction, theoretical thought, discursive reasoning) is not necessarily dependent on matter.
I say not necessarily dependent, because, in this life, it is in fact dependent on the body. We only think about and abstract from objects of thought which we receive throught the senses. And the senses are obviously entirely dependent on the bodily organs.
This is the reason why, if someone injures our brain, the functioning of our mind may also be hindered.

Still, it is a fact that specific activity of the intellect does not have any necessary connection to any material entity (much less can it be sustained that our intellectual activity CONSISTS of bodily movements; though if it is not clear why we can discuss it). Hence, there is no reason why the destruction of the body should in any way harm our intellect.

Once it has been individuated by particular matter, each human soul has a distinct existence, and thus remains its existence as a separated intellect after death. However, this mode of existence is in no way complete for humans. Only with the resurrection of the bodies, the reunion of matter and spirit, after the end of the world, will we be complete again. But now we have entered the domain of theology.

Non-spiritual souls (those of animals and plants) depend necessarily, for all of their activities, on the body. And this is why their souls cease to be once they die.

 

[QuantaCura]

What is this? A Christian who is well-read? And an Aristotelian no less! Color me surprised. Seriously, though, that's refreshing.

Haha, that's because you're not a well-read atheist . Read St. Thomas Aquinas and the other great Catholic thinkers. Thomism is the most dominant western Catholic theology and he studied and used Aristotle more than anyone (where do you think the term "transubstantiation" comes from with its explanation using substance and accidents? ). Good thinking is good thinking no matter where it comes from.

 

[Eudaimonist]

What is this? A Christian who is well-read? And an Aristotelian no less! Color me surprised. Seriously, though, that's refreshing.

This is why I tend to like Catholics better than other varieties of Christians. Although, as an ex-Catholic, I may be biased.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[QuantaCura]

Thanks for all the responses so far everyone

 

[QuantaCura]

This is why I tend to like Catholics better than other varieties of Christians. Although, as an ex-Catholic, I may be biased.

It's that indelible mark .

 

[Eudaimonist]

What distinguishes a human being from other beings?

I tend to agree with Aristotle's definition of human being as the rational animal. While there are some fairly intelligent non-human species out there, we rely on our rationality for our survival more than any other, or so it seems to me. And since rationality is also at the root of, and helps explain, many other features of our humanity, it makes good sense to distinguish ourselves from other species in this way.

When does a human being begin to be a human being (if ever) and when does he cease to be a human being (if ever)?

A human being starts the human (rational) mode of biological existence probably sometime in the second trimester, or close to this, due to the newly awakened functioning of the brain.

A human being ceases to be a human being (becomes a lifeless corpse) at death, due to the complete ceasation of the functioning of the brain. I do not believe that personhood survives death.

Does a human being have rights? If so, what are they and where do they come from?

Individual rights, as I see it, are the social and legal preconditions of the self-directedness required for the ultimate human good -- personal flourishing, which may also be called happiness. As social beings who flourish best with and among other flourishing persons in society, it is in all our best interests to support a society that respects and enforces rights. We "have" rights when they are enforced, and "have a moral claim" to rights when they are violated.

At root, we have the rights to life [...to exist...], liberty [...as a rational...], and happiness [...human being].

Does a human being have duties? If so where do they come from?

Our moral obligations ultimately come from our need to flourish as human individuals. It is in our best interests to pursue certain values over others. In a sense, these obligations are something we owe it to ourselves to do.

Are human beings free?

I personally believe that human individuals have a limited sort of free will. While this is perhaps speculative, I view this ability as an emergent property of the whole person, much as consciousness is an emergent property and cannot be adequately reduced down to the functioning of the parts.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

It's that indelible mark .

LOL! Yes, I suppose so. And Catholic girls have those hot school uniforms.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[The Nihilist]

I am also a former Catholic, and sure the Eudaimonist's opinion.
Seriously, though, Aristotle is Aristotle whether it's in Nichomachean Ethics or Summa Theologica. I may truthfully be called many unkind things, but poorly read is certainly not among them.

 

[David Gould]

I prefer the definition of humans as the story telling chimpanzee. In other words, I think that it is our ability to tell stories about the world (either in our heads or to other people) that distinguishes us from other animals.

Language has, I think, played a very important part in this process. At the very least, it has allowed us to use symbols to represent complex objects and ideas, thus freeing up memory space and processing power for other things.

I would not be able to tell precisely when a human being becomes a human being. If I set a time for all, that is just arbitrary, which may be necessary for legal purposes but is not for philosophical ones. Presumably, story telling probably begins quite early in most; it may not ever happen for some.

Humans cease being humans when they cease telling stories about the world. This would usually happen upon death, but may occur earlier.

I do not think that we have rights, as right implies a moral absolute, which I do not think exists. Rights are in fact privileges that we, human beings, extend to other human beings and ourselves for biological, social, cultural, religious, economic and other reasons (and it is perhaps difficult to separate those reasons out from one another).

Responsibilities come about exactly the same way.

We have no such thing as free will, if that is what you mean by 'free'. If it is not, some humans are freer than others in terms of the restrictions placed upon them by other human beings.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I prefer the definition of humans as the story telling chimpanzee. In other words, I think that it is our ability to tell stories about the world (either in our heads or to other people) that distinguishes us from other animals.

I almost wrote that, and the Greek understanding of the word "rational" carries connotations of the capacity for language. I'm not certain that story-telling is quite fundamental enough a feature, though it makes for a great easily-noticable distinction with which to form a definition.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[quatona]

What is a human being? Simple question.

Like always when it comes to questions of the "what is a [insert conceptual term here]" sort, the question "as opposed to what?" pops up in my head. Such a description might vary greatly, depending on what we compare it to. "What is an apple (as opposed to an orange)" is likely to produce different result than "What is an apple (as opposed to an aeroplane?)".
Furthermore the respective contexts in which a term is supposed serve a meaningful discussion require different descriptions.

What distinguishes a human being from other beings?

Again, for me the answer depends on the context in which it is supposed to be usable. Compared to a bird, a human can´t fly.
See, I could for example say "humans are capable of rational thought", but I wouldn´t want to be quoted on that in a discussion about killing mentally disabled persons ("but they aren´t capable of rational thoughts, so they aren´t human beings, according to your own words").

When does a human being begin to be a human being (if ever) and when does he cease to be a human being (if ever)?

When does a seed become a plant, and when does a fruit become seeds?
Whether this thing there is a fruit or seed for a plant depends on my interests.
So what do you want the answer to this question to be helpful with?
If asked in this general way my answer is necessarily pretty arbitrarily picked.
If answering spontaneously, by my intuition, I would have said "As long as it experiences itself as a human being, it is a human being." There are contexts, though, in which I wouldn´t like this answer to be used for an argument.

Does a human being have rights? If so, what are they and where do they come from?

Again the problem of context.
A human being does not have inherent rights (what does that term mean here, anyways?).
Yet, I would advocate the so-called "human rights" as a pragmatic means of organizing human coexistence.

Does a human being have duties? If so where do they come from?

Towards what? Towards whom? In which situation?

Are human beings free?

Free from what?

(while I understand this question plays a large role in the abortion debate, I would prefer this thread not to be an abortion debate)

I see.
Personally, I don´t see a point (anymore) in discussing the meaning of words on an entirely abstract, academic, context-free basis.
Ex-catholic here too, btw.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

You might want to throw in that a "human" is the hue of mankind.

But I don't see any of the questions actually being answered.

LifeSaver and DG come close to answers but those answers are not logically distinct from "lesser" animals.

I'm surprised that Euda didn't present the "abstract thought" qualification. That one actually does it if you add some genetic description so as to specify humanoid construct from other possibilities.

As to having rights, as quatona pointed out, absolute rights can only be determined by absolute forces. Since few seem to grasp such things, it is pointless to declare any absolute anything. The rest would be a matter of situation.

The point of when a human becomes a human is one of arbitration and need to declare. In concept, a human being can exist only as the originating DNA before any multiplying or even go back before that time and be said to exist simply because the forces that are going to cause the DNA to come together already exist and thus the human is already developing. It is just a matter of picking the best point according to need.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I'm surprised that Euda didn't present the "abstract thought" qualification.

Didn't I? I mentioned rationality, and abstract thought is a feature of rationality.


eudaimonia,

Mark