NationStates Jolt Archive

This is sparked in part by a conversation GnI and I had in the death penalty thread, as well as a current special about feral children and an earlier discussion about mentally handicapped people with a coworker.

What is a "person"? What is a "human"? Is there a difference? Is there a difference between being a "human", a "person", and a "human being"? Is there a term I'm missing that you would apply?

Is it a cognative thing? Does a person have to walk on two legs? Do they have to use language? Do they have to abide by the rules of society?

As always, these questions are meant to guide thought, not dictate.

A human = Homo sapien. That's it. A person is also a human. A human being is a person. Thus, they are all Homo sapiens. That's the only definition there is, scientifically.

A "person" is a member of a sentient species.

A human is a member of the species Homo sapiens.

a person is an awairness is a person is an awairness is a person ...

yes that includes non'humans', nonearthlings, and even nontangable awairnessess.

if it is an awairness it is a person, whatever life form, or anything else, it occupies or even if it doesn't occupy any.

A human = Homo sapien. That's it. A person is also a human. A human being is a person. Thus, they are all Homo sapiens. That's the only definition there is, scientifically.
This isn't so much about the science. Atleast, not entirely. It is also about the psychological and sociological aspects.

Yes, scientifically, human = Homo sapien. However, do you consider a violent criminal who abuses, rapes, and murders large numbers of young children to be a human? Are they also a person?

It is rare that there are exact synonyms (when it does occur, it is due to a recent shift in one words definitions, and one usually finally wins out). What is the difference in the sense of "human" and "person"?

A "person" is a member of a sentient species.That's interesting...I've never heard someone use "person" to describe any creature besides homo sapien...would you call a dolphin a person? A chimp?

a person is an awairness is a person is an awairness is a person ...

yes that includes non'humans', nonearthlings, and even nontangable awairnessess.

if it is an awairness it is a person, whatever life form, or anything else, it occupies or even if it doesn't occupy any.
Would you consider a homo sapien who is so severely mentally disabled that they lack sentience to be a person? Or no?

Would you consider a homo sapien who is so severely mentally disabled that they lack sentience to be a person? Or no?
mental disability is not an emparement of sentience. only a major frustration to it. it is of no pertinence what so ever to awairness. only again, an imparement to tangable means of communication.

A miserable pile of sec--- hey! Don't point a crossbow at me! :mad:

Seriously, though, personhood is a gray area. Do you include Dragons? Do you exclude half-monkey politicians? Do you include gorillas who speak sign language? We could probably type this up into a 500-post thread with no off-topic posts and still make little progress...

mental disability is not an emparement of sentience. only a major frustration to it. it is of no pertinence what so ever to awairness. only again, an impairment to tangable means of communication.are you entirely sure about that? Mental disability could include severe brain damage, which easily could rob someone of their self-awareness. I'm also not sure if there has even been a chance to research severe forms of Edwards Syndrome, due to the fact that most die en utero, with more than 95% dieing before their first birthday...I'm not sure that it can confidently be said that mental disability is not an impairment of sentience.

A miserable pile of sec--- hey! Don't point a crossbow at me! :mad:

Seriously, though, personhood is a gray area. Do you include Dragons? Do you exclude half-monkey politicians? Do you include gorillas who speak sign language? We could probably type this up into a 500-post thread with no off-topic posts and still make little progress...

welcome to debate on NSG. Though, in a shockingly rare moment, I'm actually glad you mentioned gorillas who speak in sign language. They clearly communicate, and even create art with titles...are they "people" now?

You're a person when you can tie your own goddamn shoes. Thus, people who wear Velcro are not persons; Children under 3 years old are not persons; People who are too fat to reach their feet are not persons; Animals are not persons.

are you entirely sure about that? Mental disability could include severe brain damage, which easily could rob someone of their self-awareness. I'm also not sure if there has even been a chance to research severe forms of Edwards Syndrome, due to the fact that most die en utero, with more than 95% dieing before their first birthday...I'm not sure that it can confidently be said that mental disability is not an impairment of sentience.

yes, though you could i suppose call this an artical of faith. the way i see it, what we are, our true selves, is our awairness, not the lifeforms we occupy.

perhapse most of your example die in utero, precisely because awairnessess that would otherwise occupy them are able not to be stuck with doing so.

and to the dragon question, absolutely certainly yes, dragon is just a name appliend to certain, primarily speculative, lifeforms. again lifeform specifics are of no direct pertinenct to personhood.

a rock or a tree might be unlikely to completely host an awairness the way more mobile life forms are capable of. hive minds might be persons, though possibly not their individual components.

economic entities and soverign governments are about the only thing other then completely inert homoginous mineral substances i'd be inclinde to rule out entirely as potential hosts.

units of symbolic value too, although perhapse some very good alien camilion might be capable of immitating them.

Personally, I consider "person" a much broader category. If there were intelligent extraterrestrials, I'd also consider them persons, but I wouldn't consider them humans.

Are you calling me inhuman :mad:

fiddlebottoms is mistaken and lapse ought to take it as a compliment. i would.

human means nothing other then the dominant host lifeform of its planet, not its occupying awairness.

of course there is all this bussiness about 'humanness' but the implication of using the name of the species to be synonimous with its other implications is nothing but collective ego.

Luckily we don't have to worry about aliens or AI robots to debate what a person is since we've either never met any or they don't currently exist. A person today is a human. That's that.

Actually, I believe that any reasonably intelligent species of sentient being would prefer to pass humans by, since humanity is really nothing more than mostly idiotic sheep.

Sorry.

Luckily we don't have to worry about aliens or AI robots to debate what a person is since we've either never met any or they don't currently exist.What does that have to do with anything?
The nonexistence of god has never stopped anyone from pulling him into a debate. Is god a person? Well, obviously not if he doesn't exist, but supposing he did?

What does that have to do with anything?
The nonexistence of god has never stopped anyone from pulling him into a debate. Is god a person? Well, obviously not if he doesn't exist, but supposing he did?

It has to do with it because it implies that any being at the sentient level of a human that is not a human could be considered a person.

But of course they don't exist on this world that we know of so it's moot; also, the question seems perfectly tangible to me, nothing like questioning the existence of god. But that's just me.

It has to do with it because it implies that any being at the sentient level of a human that is not a human could be considered a person.Exactly. Whether they (will) exist or not has nothing to do with that.

But of course they don't exist on this world that we know of so it's mootYou're sending mixed signals here.
It's not moot. Just because it is hypothetical doesn't mean it's not worth debating. It's like saying we shouldn't speculate about dark matter until we've seen it. Non-human persons may at this point be completely fictional, but that doesn't mean that it can't stand as a concept.

Just because it is hypothetical doesn't mean it's not worth debating.

I never said it wasn't (yet didn't say it was either). I'd just say the jury is out and this is not a compelling debate. Not that I'm trying to stop anyone from debating, that's just my response.

That's interesting...I've never heard someone use "person" to describe any creature besides homo sapien...would you call a dolphin a person? A chimp?

Chimp? No. Almost though. Dolphin we don't really know enough to say whether they're truly sentient or not.

I was just making it clear that "person" to me means a being very near human intelligence or exceeding it, but it doesn't necessarily mean "Homo sapien."

I was just making it clear that "person" to me means a being very near human intelligence or exceeding it

You know, "exceeding it" too much, perhaps that wouldn't be a person? There's another question for you folks.

are you entirely sure about that? Mental disability could include severe brain damage, which easily could rob someone of their self-awareness. I'm also not sure if there has even been a chance to research severe forms of Edwards Syndrome, due to the fact that most die en utero, with more than 95% dieing before their first birthday...I'm not sure that it can confidently be said that mental disability is not an impairment of sentience.

If the menatly impered person is a member of a senitant speices, then they are still a person.

You know, "exceeding it" too much, perhaps that wouldn't be a person? There's another question for you folks.

Good question. So far it's only hypothetical.

Whatever definition people come up with it would need to count conjoined twins as two people which tends to suggest that it is about brains. Similarly how much could you remove before someone stops being a person?

This is sparked in part by a conversation GnI and I had in the death penalty thread, as well as a current special about feral children and an earlier discussion about mentally handicapped people with a coworker.

What is a "person"? What is a "human"? Is there a difference? Is there a difference between being a "human", a "person", and a "human being"? Is there a term I'm missing that you would apply?

Is it a cognative thing? Does a person have to walk on two legs? Do they have to use language? Do they have to abide by the rules of society?

As always, these questions are meant to guide thought, not dictate.

A human is a homo sapien. Personhood is a state of having moral rights and responsibilities. Almost all humans are persons at least after birth and until brain death.

That said, I agree with Joel Feinberg that there are five necessary and sufficient conditions embedded in the commonsense notion of personhood:

1) being conscious , e.g. aware of one's surroundings.

2) being conscious of itself, i.e. being able to think of oneself as oneself at least at a rudimentary level.

3) being able to reason and know, e.g. plan, understand at least at a rudimentary level.

4) being a sentient being, e.g. feel pain/pleasure.

5) being able to have emotions.

Note: the legal definition of personhood, such as having rights under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, is inherently concerned with human beings who have been born.

If the menatly impered person is a member of a senitant speices, then they are still a person.
so you would argue that it is simply biology...that is, this being shares 99.9% of its genes with all other homosapiens, therefore, regardless of mental abilities or behaviors, they are human?

A human is a homo sapien. Personhood is a state of having moral rights and responsibilities. Almost all humans are persons at least after birth and until brain death.

That said, I agree with Joel Feinberg that there are five necessary and sufficient conditions embedded in the commonsense notion of personhood:

1) being conscious , e.g. aware of one's surroundings.

2) being conscious of itself, i.e. being able to think of oneself as oneself at least at a rudimentary level.

3) being able to reason and know, e.g. plan, understand at least at a rudimentary level.

4) being a sentient being, e.g. feel pain/pleasure.

5) being able to have emotions.

Note: the legal definition of personhood, such as having rights under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, is inherently concerned with human beings who have been born.
It's interesting that you say "almost", and I like that list (I may steal it).

Interestingly, that list seems to include several animal species (gorillas, chimps, bonobos, and dolphins), while potentially excluding severe brain damaged patients

Similarly how much could you remove before someone stops being a person?
Was Terri Schiavo still a "person" with a brainstem and two bigs sacks of fluid where the cerebral cortex used to be? I would say, that's a no-brainer.

Whatever definition people come up with it would need to count conjoined twins as two people which tends to suggest that it is about brains. Similarly how much could you remove before someone stops being a person?
That's another point I had meant to call in.

If we consider one brain split between two bodies, where each body has individual thought, are they two people?

It also again ties in to the brain damage argument...at what point do we say "sorry, nope. You aren't a person any more"?

And moreover, what implications does that have?

Was Terri Schiavo still a "person" with a brainstem and two bigs sacks of fluid where the cerebral cortex used to be? I would say, that's a no-brainer.

*groans*
:p

Interestingly, that list seems to include several animal species (gorillas, chimps, bonobos, and dolphins),

Quite possibly, yes. Of course.

while potentially excluding severe brain damaged patients

Two additional considerations:

(1) the criteria for when a former person loses their personhood is not necessarily the same as the criteria for personhood;

(2) we may afford rights, duties, benefits, protections, etc. of persons to non-persons--especially under circumstances that do not impose on the rights of any persons

Quite possibly, yes. Of course.



Two additional considerations:

(1) the criteria for when a former person loses their personhood is not necessarily the same as the criteria for personhood;

(2) we may afford rights, duties, benefits, protections, etc. of persons to non-persons--especially under circumstances that do not impose on the rights of any persons
Now, I'd be interested in the legal point of view with this. At what point is someone considered unable to care for themselves (in the view of the state), and therefore has their rights transfered to someone else?

Of course, I wouldn't say that every person in a coma is not a person, but I'm sure there are some cases where it could be said.

I'm also somewhat curious about your personal take on this aspect: GnI made the claim that a criminal who commit a heinous enough crime should no longer be considered a person. Would you agree?

For general purposes, any being that can consider itself a person is one.

A human = Homo sapien. That's it. A person is also a human. A human being is a person. Thus, they are all Homo sapiens. That's the only definition there is, scientifically.

I agree. The complication arises from the legal definitions of artificial entities such as corporations as 'persons' and other legislation that seeks to redefine terms for legal purposes. After all, many here on NSG see the unborn as non-persons even though they are definitely homo sapiens from the moment of conception.

many here on NSG see the unborn as non-persons even though they are definitely homo sapiens from the moment of conception.They were Homo sapiens before the moment of conception as well. The sperm and ova certainly weren't canine, or elephantine.

They were Homo sapiens before the moment of conception as well. The sperm and ova certainly weren't canine, or elephantine.

Fail. The sperm and ova are genetically parts of the respective parents. They each carry half of the code for the new person.

Fail. The sperm and ova are genetically parts of the respective parents. They each carry half of the code for the new person.So your definition of "personhood" is a matter of chromosome count? Why are you prejudiced against the haploid?

Yes, scientifically, human = Homo sapien. However, do you consider a violent criminal who abuses, rapes, and murders large numbers of young children to be a human? Are they also a person?

It is rare that there are exact synonyms (when it does occur, it is due to a recent shift in one words definitions, and one usually finally wins out). What is the difference in the sense of "human" and "person"?
Violent murderers and criminals are humans and people. Albeit very dangerous people who deserve the punishment of death, though people and human beings nonetheless. They possess bipedal walking abilities, thumbs, and advanced speech abilities.

Interestingly, that list seems to include several animal species (gorillas, chimps, bonobos, and dolphins), while potentially excluding severe brain damaged patients

any set of conditions that captures all humans under personhood (that isn't flagrantly speciesist) will include a fairly significant range of non-human animals

i tend to think that we should keep personhood for even the most severely brain damaged humans, thus making that list more sufficient and less necessary.

After all, many here on NSG see the unborn as non-persons

effectively everyone on the planet would, if they actually thought about it. especially early on.

a person is anything born as a homo sapien. Not really a tough question.

A person is a homo sapien. I can understand the case being made that some of the great apes are people, but until humans can communicate with them the same way we communicate with other people, I would not classify them as people.

A person is a homo sapien. I can understand the case being made that some of the great apes are people, but until humans can communicate with them the same way we communicate with other people, I would not classify them as people.

does the fact that you are unable to communicate with the deaf the same way you communicate with the non-deaf rule them out?

does the fact that you are unable to communicate with the deaf the same way you communicate with the non-deaf rule them out?

No, because the deaf are the same species as I am, and we are only prevented from speaking to one another because of a physical disability. If a gorilla were given a set of vocal cords, I still don't think we could carry on a meaningful conversation.
Besides, if chimpanzees were persons, I would have to feel guilty for dressing them in humiliating clothing and making them dance.

No, because the deaf are the same species as I am

why is this relevant?

why is this relevant?

My definition of person was homo sapien. I am homo sapien, so if someone is the same species as I am, he also is a homo sapien.
If you're asking why that's my definition, I don't really have a good answer. I treat the words as synonyms.

A person is a homo sapien. I can understand the case being made that some of the great apes are people, but until humans can communicate with them the same way we communicate with other people, I would not classify them as people.
Gorillas can communicate both through a keyboard-like instrument, as well as through sign language. She also paints pictures that are titled things like "anger", and are surprisingly close to what a young child may paint with that same title.
No, because the deaf are the same species as I am, and we are only prevented from speaking to one another because of a physical disability. If a gorilla were given a set of vocal cords, I still don't think we could carry on a meaningful conversation.
Besides, if chimpanzees were persons, I would have to feel guilty for dressing them in humiliating clothing and making them dance.
You would have difficulty carrying on a meaningful conversation with a severely retarded person. They may even be fully incapable, from birth, of any communication.

And parents never feel guilty about dressing their kids up in humiliating clothing and making them do stupid things, I see no reason chimps should be exempt from this treatment.

My definition of person was homo sapien. I am homo sapien, so if someone is the same species as I am, he also is a homo sapien.
If you're asking why that's my definition, I don't really have a good answer. I treat the words as synonyms.

At what point is a being no longer "homo sapien"? A species is anything but firm and concrete...at what point have genetic mutations moved far enough that it creates a new species or, at the very least, is no longer a member of the old species?

What makes a "homo sapien" a homo sapien? Intelligence? Speech? Physical stature?

Bloody hell. This is the kind of question which I'd expect to start with "c'est quoi" rather than "what is". Bleuch.

At what point is a being no longer "homo sapien"?
When their bone structure, level of usual brain matter and other such things are radically different from those seen in homo sapiens. Obv.

Gorillas can communicate both through a keyboard-like instrument, as well as through sign language. She also paints pictures that are titled things like "anger", and are surprisingly close to what a young child may paint with that same title.

You would have difficulty carrying on a meaningful conversation with a severely retarded person. They may even be fully incapable, from birth, of any communication.
After I wrote that, I realized I have difficult carrying on a meaningful conversation with most people. As a criterion, that seems doomed.

And parents never feel guilty about dressing their kids up in humiliating clothing and making them do stupid things, I see no reason chimps should be exempt from this treatment.
That's a great relief for my conscience. :)

At what point is a being no longer "homo sapien"? A species is anything but firm and concrete...at what point have genetic mutations moved far enough that it creates a new species or, at the very least, is no longer a member of the old species?

What makes a "homo sapien" a homo sapien? Intelligence? Speech? Physical stature?

A homo sapien is a person, of course.
Seriously, I'm not sure what the biological definition of homo sapien. I thought species were distinguished in their ability to reproduce and create non-sterile organisms, but that's from high school biology.
I don't think it necessarily needs to be a concrete concept, though. "Person" is certainly not a concrete concept, and any single sentence defintion we give is going to either be fuzzy or it's going to be wrong.

When their bone structure, level of usual brain matter and other such things are radically different from those seen in homo sapiens. Obv.
Uh huh...so someone with Edwards, which severely limits brain function and malforms much of the body (including head shape and size, jaw bone, ears, soft palate, chest, hands, arms, feet, and genitals...including but not limited to different sized bones, to even missing bones) would or would not qualify as a homo sapien?

What about other major birth defects that impact both physical appeance and mental abilities?
After I wrote that, I realized I have difficult carrying on a meaningful conversation with most people. As a criterion, that seems doomed.


That's a great relief for my conscience. :)
Touche ;)

A homo sapien is a person, of course.
Seriously, I'm not sure what the biological definition of homo sapien. I thought species were distinguished in their ability to reproduce and create non-sterile organisms, but that's from high school biology. There are some cases (specifically within ring species) where viable offspring can be created that would be non-sterile. Also, the issue of creatures that reproduce asexually. The idea of "species" is still somewhat argued.
I take issue with excluding one homo sapien or one group of homo sapiens from being people myself...but there are many people who don't (most frequent would be to the exclusion of criminals...a homo sapien is human, but a person must be humane)

You also have a bit of a circle going. You said that homo sapien and person are synonomyus, but when I asked what makes a "homo sapien" individual a member of the species homo sapien, you reverted back to "it's a person". I'm just asking what your opinion of where the cut of is. (that potentially reads a bit more agressive than I intend...)
I don't think it necessarily needs to be a concrete concept, though. "Person" is certainly not a concrete concept, and any single sentence defintion we give is going to either be fuzzy or it's going to be wrong.
Oh, I don't disagree. I just like the fuzzy area. It feels nice ;)

Uh huh...so someone with Edwards, which severely limits brain function and malforms much of the body (including head shape and size, jaw bone, ears, soft palate, chest, hands, arms, feet, and genitals...including but not limited to different sized bones, to even missing bones) would or would not qualify as a homo sapien?
Would count. They're still a person, just a tragically retarded one.
What about other major birth defects that impact both physical appeance and mental abilities?
That would make you a person still...

Would count. They're still a person, just a tragically retarded one.

That would make you a person still...

Why? You said a homo sapien must share a similar level of brain matter, bone structure, and "other things". I would say missing bones, massively misshaped bones, irregular soft tissue, and immensely reduced mental functions would cover, at the very least, the brain matter and bone structure argument. Why are they a person by your argument?

You also have a bit of a circle going. You said that homo sapien and person are synonomyus, but when I asked what makes a "homo sapien" individual a member of the species homo sapien, you reverted back to "it's a person". I'm just asking what your opinion of where the cut of is. (that potentially reads a bit more agressive than I intend...)
I take no offense. And I know there's a circle, the first sentence was sort of a joke. The second is a better definition of the homo sapiens species, but as you say, it's not at all settled.

Oh, I don't disagree. I just like the fuzzy area. It feels nice ;)
True enough. Discussions about perfectly clear definitions ("What is a 'benzene molecule?'") are never as interesting.