What is a person?

[chris4243]

It's important to know when something/someone is a person and when it/they are not, so that we know when to give them the rights a person deserves. (such as whether something is abortion or murder).

Part of the problem is that "person" is not very well defined. Personally, I think "personhood" is not a binary state; that someone can be more person-like than someone else. This of course is problematic from a legal and moral perspective, but I feel I must accept that due to the facts. The problem with considering personhood to be a binary state is that you can't point to any exact instant in time where something changes from a non-person to a person.

For my definition of personhood, I'd say a person is any entity that has mental capabilities [similar to or greater than the typical mental capabilities of a person]; specifically, emotions, general intelligence, and abstract thinking (or, the sort of intelligence needed to create and use technology).

Because this is a scale and not a binary state, it would be prudent from a moral and legal perspective to include ad-hoc any H. sapiens past a certain developmental stage (say, in the third trimester), even if we won't give them full rights until age 18 or 21, and any H sapiens that was once considered a person until they are entirely brain-dead.

Of course, that is just my definition of a person. Perhaps you have a better definition? If so, please share. But the definition should be one that can be used (ie, don't just say that whatever has a soul is a person and then turn around and say that a soul is something that a person has or that you can't tell whether something has a soul or not). Your definition of person should include or exclude as you think appropriate:
Me and you
A dead human
A brain-dead human
A sleeping/unconscious human
A person with mental illness (retardation, amnesiac, altzheimers, very old age)
A person in a coma for several years
A computer and computer program that can pass the Turing test (ie, an average human can't tell whether it's a computer or not just by talking to it).
Identical twins as either a single person or two people
Siamese twins as either a single person or two people
Human-human chimeras as either a single person or more than one person
A human-animal chimera (with phenotype mostly like a human)
A human-animal chimera (with phenotype mostly like an animal)
A clone of a person (they're not made via fertilization)
A clone-copy of a person (like in bad sci-fi)
A human-cyborg with implants not affecting the brain
A human-cyborg with implants affecting the brain directly
A finger
An entity that was previously considered to be a person but lost a finger
A living brain-in-a-vat from something previously considered to be a person
And animal, such as a primate
God
A fictional character (eg Sauron or Bilbo Baggins)
A state, country, company, or family
A human with multiple personality disorder as one or more persons
A technologically advanced alien

And any other potentially ambiguous thing that might mess with people's definitions.

So, who thinks they know what a person is?

 

[Stella Nova]

A person is a part of the only living species in the Homo genus of bipedal primates in Hominidae. They often live in family-based social structures and create artificial shelter.

 

[yasic]

A person is a subjective term. I know what a person is because I define what a person means to me.

Now, my definition is certainly not the only one, and for collective purposes we come together and make a mutual definition of a person, specifically for legal cases, this due to its nature must be defined and is so for the most part.

There is no universal 'personhood' definition just floating in the cosmos.

 

[DataPacRat]

This is a question I've spent a good bit of time pondering... and at present, my understanding of it is that what is /really/ being asked is "What entities should be treated as having 'human' rights?" That is, what entities should we treat as being murdered if they're killed, and allow to own property and buy and sell things, and so forth.

My current answer to this question is based on my particular understanding of the reasoning for having human rights in the first place - specifically, that it's in nearly everybody's best interests to treat each other as having rights, in order that they might enjoy those rights themselves. Eg, in order to ensure that I can continue to enjoy the right of freedom of speech, I need to make sure that as many beings as possible also enjoy that right... because if some group, such as my society, get into the habit of denying rights to any one group, it becomes immensely easier for them to deny such rights to a group I happen to be a member of.

From this, I developed what I called the "Trader's Definition" of personhood - if some entity has the potential to make a decision about whether or not to trade a banana for a backrub, or some playtime for some programming, then it's in my own best interests to treat them 'as if' they were a person, whatever their 'real' nature might be. (This generally requires a certain level of thought, communication, and ability to affect their environment.) Or, of course, if they have the capability to try to exercise their right of self-defense and shoot me if I try to deny them their rights, then it's also in my interest to avoid triggering that reaction, and to treat them as having 'human' rights. (Note that this definition does /not/ take into account whether the entity being measured does or doesn't have a soul, or is "really" a person in some abstract sense.)

So far, this definition has stood me in pretty good stead for making a determination about whether I should /treat/ something as 'person' or 'non-person', but I'm always open to possible improvements.

 

[Tielec]

This is a question I've spent a good bit of time pondering... and at present, my understanding of it is that what is /really/ being asked is "What entities should be treated as having 'human' rights?" That is, what entities should we treat as being murdered if they're killed, and allow to own property and buy and sell things, and so forth.

My current answer to this question is based on my particular understanding of the reasoning for having human rights in the first place - specifically, that it's in nearly everybody's best interests to treat each other as having rights, in order that they might enjoy those rights themselves. Eg, in order to ensure that I can continue to enjoy the right of freedom of speech, I need to make sure that as many beings as possible also enjoy that right... because if some group, such as my society, get into the habit of denying rights to any one group, it becomes immensely easier for them to deny such rights to a group I happen to be a member of.

From this, I developed what I called the "Trader's Definition" of personhood - if some entity has the potential to make a decision about whether or not to trade a banana for a backrub, or some playtime for some programming, then it's in my own best interests to treat them 'as if' they were a person, whatever their 'real' nature might be. (This generally requires a certain level of thought, communication, and ability to affect their environment.) Or, of course, if they have the capability to try to exercise their right of self-defense and shoot me if I try to deny them their rights, then it's also in my interest to avoid triggering that reaction, and to treat them as having 'human' rights. (Note that this definition does /not/ take into account whether the entity being measured does or doesn't have a soul, or is "really" a person in some abstract sense.)

So far, this definition has stood me in pretty good stead for making a determination about whether I should /treat/ something as 'person' or 'non-person', but I'm always open to possible improvements.

So an 'animal' such as a dog is person to you?
They can communicate, affect their environment and act in self-defense. Come to think of it, so can bees and ants.
This might be an adequate meaning of a word, but maybe not for the word 'person'.

 

[DataPacRat]

So an 'animal' such as a dog is person to you?
They can communicate, affect their environment and act in self-defense. Come to think of it, so can bees and ants.
This might be an adequate meaning of a word, but maybe not for the word 'person'.

'Communication' with a dog is... iffy, at best, in the realm of negotiating to exchange one good/service for another. I'll certainly respect their ability to chomp me and try to avoid triggering that reaction in them, but that's a far cry from treating them with the full spectrum of human rights. So no, I don't act as if dogs, bees, or ants are 'persons'.

 

[Tielec]

'Communication' with a dog is... iffy, at best, in the realm of negotiating to exchange one good/service for another. I'll certainly respect their ability to chomp me and try to avoid triggering that reaction in them, but that's a far cry from treating them with the full spectrum of human rights. So no, I don't act as if dogs, bees, or ants are 'persons'.

Oh I see, the crucial aspect is the ability to negotiate for goods and services.

 

[DataPacRat]

Oh I see, the crucial aspect is the ability to negotiate for goods and services.

Yep, that's pretty much my current working definition. (With certain caveats about entities that have the /potential/ to become fully-fledged negotiating 'persons', though that leads into one of those sticky areas of debate that often generates more heat than light...)

 

[Eudaimonist]

It's important to know when something/someone is a person and when it/they are not, so that we know when to give them the rights a person deserves. (such as whether something is abortion or murder). [...]

So, who thinks they know what a person is?

I think we need to understand what the requested concept is for. We aren't asking "what is a person?" in the abstract, but for the specific purpose of understanding when rights apply.

So, what we need is a rights-theory that explains why and in what situations persons ought to have their lives defended by law.

For instance, if rights to individual liberty are defended in order to protect rational action, then the emergence of rationality, at least in its simplest working form, might be the criteria for personhood.

Personally, I regard these issues as hellishly complex. My own sense is that we should simply declare personhood to begin when there is evidence that consciousness has emerged (presumably through research into brain function), figure out how much time that takes, and then set the cutoff point there.



eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Tielec]

Yep, that's pretty much my current working definition. (With certain caveats about entities that have the /potential/ to become fully-fledged negotiating 'persons', though that leads into one of those sticky areas of debate that often generates more heat than light...)

Heat and light is one the reasons I inhabit these forums

Obviously the questions now are;

1) Is a mentally disabled person with the approximate mental function of a dog a 'person'?
and
2) Chimpanzees can negotiate for good and services (including prostitution), are they 'people'?

 

[DataPacRat]

Heat and light is one the reasons I inhabit these forums

Obviously the questions now are;

1) Is a mentally disabled person with the approximate mental function of a dog a 'person'?
and
2) Chimpanzees can negotiate for good and services (including prostitution), are they 'people'?

1) I would not consider such a being a full 'person' - though depending on the particulars of the disability, and of medical technology, they may have the potential to /become/ one, in much the way that an infant has such a potential. And if such a being /used/ to have full functioning, then I would want them to be treated with a certain amount of dignity and respect, precisely as I myself would want to be treated should my own mind suffer such a decline.

2) At least to a limited extent; and don't forget, certain parrots also meet this level of functioning. Someone above mentioned that personhood vs non-personhood might not be a binary set - and this is one of those areas where I've considered using my Trader's Definition to set up a sliding scale, in that the closer an entity comes to a 'human' level of negotiating/trading/self-defense ability, the closer I treat them with full 'human' rights.

(And, of course, I'm still entirely open to suggestions on how to improve my current rule-of-thumb, including tossing it out entirely in favour of a better one, should one be proposed.)

 

[jayem]

A person is a part of the only living species in the Homo genus of bipedal primates in Hominidae.

I like a taxonomic definition also. Even though it's purely academic, I'd consider other members of our genus as persons. So if a living Homo neanderthalensis, or Homo habilis should ever be found, they'd also be considered persons. But other hominids, like the Australopithecines, would not be persons. Sure, it's purely arbitrary, but why not?

 

[DataPacRat]

Sure, it's purely arbitrary, but why not?

How about this: Because if there comes a time when we find and/or create beings who are roughly of human-level intelligence, but don't fall into the genus homo, then in order to accomplish their various goals, they will want to have the freedom to live, to own things, to speak freely, to defend themselves, and so forth. If we don't treat them as 'persons' to such an extent, then they will have no reason to treat /us/ as persons, and will have no compunction about engaging in total war against us until such time as we /do/ treat them as persons.

Rather than go through all the time, effort, damage, and suffering of such a war, it's a lot easier to simply start out with a definition for personhood that allows us to work towards our own goals and avoids such conflict from the beginning.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I think it is useful to distinguish between the concept of 'human' and the concept of 'person.'

Some are going down the path of taxonomy and that is useful for what is human, but is it useful for personhood? Consider a human cell. Is it a person? If not, how many cells does it take?

So, though it is 'hellishly complex', I think considered cognitive abilities is perhaps the cornerstone.

If extra-terrestrials showed up, should we deny them personhood because they are not human? I think not.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Dang, I missed DataPacRat's post.

 

[jayem]

How about this: Because if there comes a time when we find and/or create beings who are roughly of human-level intelligence, but don't fall into the genus homo, then in order to accomplish their various goals, they will want to have the freedom to live, to own things, to speak freely, to defend themselves, and so forth. If we don't treat them as 'persons' to such an extent, then they will have no reason to treat /us/ as persons, and will have no compunction about engaging in total war against us until such time as we /do/ treat them as persons.

Rather than go through all the time, effort, damage, and suffering of such a war, it's a lot easier to simply start out with a definition for personhood that allows us to work towards our own goals and avoids such conflict from the beginning.

Good point. But having a particular definition now doesn't mean it's forever set in stone. We can, and should, modify it as future conditions demand.

 

[DataPacRat]

Good point. But having a particular definition now doesn't mean it's forever set in stone. We can, and should, modify it as future conditions demand.

Perhaps - but if we can get a /good/ definition in the present, then we can reduce the trouble of making future modifications to minor tweaks rather than wholesale overturnings.

What sort of modifications are you thinking of? If you can already describe them... then why not fix the definition now, instead of waiting? If you can't... then we might as well just make the best definition we can with what we can articulate now, right?

 

[chris4243]

A person is a part of the only living species in the Homo genus of bipedal primates in Hominidae.

So you'd consider God or an intelligent alien not a person but a brain-dead human a person?

From this, I developed what I called the "Trader's Definition" of personhood - if some entity has the potential to make a decision about whether or not to trade a banana for a backrub, or some playtime for some programming, then it's in my own best interests to treat them 'as if' they were a person, whatever their 'real' nature might be. (This generally requires a certain level of thought, communication, and ability to affect their environment.) Or, of course, if they have the capability to try to exercise their right of self-defense and shoot me if I try to deny them their rights, then it's also in my interest to avoid triggering that reaction, and to treat them as having 'human' rights. (Note that this definition does /not/ take into account whether the entity being measured does or doesn't have a soul, or is "really" a person in some abstract sense.)

Interesting. Very pragmatic. But I think that this would make it too easy to create an artificial person... The AI of a civilization/world conquest game, for example, seems like it would fall under this definition. But then, I do treat them kind of like a person. Similarly with the more intelligent animals... we can interact with them in a person-like manner (eg bribing them with treats to do what we like), but we don't treat them as full persons (possibly because they can't defend themselves nor evoke that much empathy and have limited intellect).

 

[DataPacRat]

Interesting. Very pragmatic. But I think that this would make it too easy to create an artificial person... The AI of a civilization/world conquest game, for example, seems like it would fall under this definition.

When such an AI becomes smart enough that it can try to negotiate with a third party to give me a backrub in exchange for me letting it win its game... then it just might be getting pretty close to full personhood.

But then, I do treat them kind of like a person. Similarly with the more intelligent animals... we can interact with them in a person-like manner (eg bribing them with treats to do what we like), but we don't treat them as full persons (possibly because they can't defend themselves nor evoke that much empathy and have limited intellect).

Just for the sake of argument... what about a being that's significantly /more/ intelligent than a human (though not infinitely so), such as a post-Singularity trans-sapient AI?

 

[chris4243]

Just for the sake of argument... what about a being that's significantly /more/ intelligent than a human (though not infinitely so), such as a post-Singularity trans-sapient AI?

I think it would depend on whether it had emotions or not. If it just existed to serve us, and didn't really "want" to be treated as a person, I don't think it would make sense to treat it like one.