What is a person?

[WAB]

This is a twig from the Roe vs Wade thread, wherein the discussion of personhood came up. To me, it's not controversial or extremely difficult. A human individual is a person. Automatically, at least once they are outside the womb (I don't want this to veer into an abortion thread), a human being is a person . There are no requirements beyond that. One does not have to earn or deserve personhood, rather it is a thing granted at birth. This means that one does not have to do anything to be considered a person . In fact, they are allowed to be antisocial, allowed to be rather nasty, allowed to be mean and inconsiderate, etc. This does NOT mean that they are granted absolute liberty to do anything they want without reprisals. We have laws, and law enforcement, and things like arrest and incarceration, jails and prisons, whereby those individuals who break laws face consequences for their actions.

It could very well come down to a matter of definitions. Perhaps what some people mean by person should be called citizen. One does consent to being a citizen, if that means willing to abide by the laws of the land in order to reap the rewards of being a law abiding citizen and comport oneself in a manner which will be a benefit to oneself and possibly, hopefully, to others.

Or perhaps we need qualifiers. There is a difference after all, between a good person and a bad person. We do not remove the attribute of person from someone who behaves badly. Even hardened criminals are afforded recognition of fundamental rights. Even the abject killer, the rapist or child molestor, is treated with rudimentary human dignity: they are clothed, fed, housed, and are at least provisionally kept from cruel and unusual punishment.

If we decide that we can determine that a particular individual is being an asshole, a complete dick, does that therefore give us liberty to treat that someone as a non-person, and allow us to willfully NOT recognize their basic rights as people?

 

[Elixir]

it is a thing granted at birth

Ok with me.
Not so much for some others.
Many seem to think it is a thing attained at some point in fetal development, and others think even surviving birth doesn’t automatically qualify them, and something more is required to “prove” personhood.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Seems to me a person has some agency over their life. Something beyond a baby human; self awareness -> an ability to reason-> responsibility for one's actions. I think we achieve personhood slowly during early childhood. Most of us. Some sooner than others. Some never do.

 

[WAB]

Seems to me a person has some agency over their life. Something beyond a baby human; self awareness -> an ability to reason-> responsibility for one's actions. I think we achieve personhood slowly during early childhood. Most of us. Some sooner than others. Some never do.

Yeah but that's the thing, tv&cc, like Emily Lake pointed out in the other thread, if someone is in a coma, are they suddenly not a person?

I honestly don't get the problem. A human being is a person, even if they are not cognitively aware of anything.

I think this may be a question of definitions, of semantics.

 

[Elixir]

if someone is in a coma, are they suddenly not a person?

If the answer is "no", but there is a chance they might come out of the coma, does that change the calculus?
If the answer is "yes" and there is zero chance of ever coming out of the coma, does THAT change the calculus?

A human being is a person, even if they are not cognitively aware of anything.

I agree. Seems to me that we all fall into a deep sleep every once in while, maybe some more often than others.
But if you kill someone and try to get acquitted by saying "but they were asleep!", you better have some dirt on the judge.

 

[steve_bank]

Legally for criminal and civil law it is a legal definition probably based on a history of legal precedents.

According to an interpretation of the Citizens United SCOTUS ruling corporations are a person with the individual rights of a person.

Which states have fetal homicide laws?
Penal Code § 187. 18 Alaska, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Virginia. 19 In Louisiana, there are separate charges for first, second, and third degree feticide.

 

[pood]

I would like to suggest that we consider broadening the definition of a person to include non-human individuals.

 

[WAB]

I would like to suggest that we consider broadening the definition of a person to include non-human individuals.

That would be absolutely fine by me. I should have said something about that in the OP.

I'm mostly interested in what this whole thing means with regard to rights, freedom, and social interaction.

 

[WAB]

Seems to me a person has some agency over their life. Something beyond a baby human; self awareness -> an ability to reason-> responsibility for one's actions. I think we achieve personhood slowly during early childhood. Most of us. Some sooner than others. Some never do.

Alright, perhaps you can help me to get what you're saying by giving me an example of someone who never achieves personhood? What is that someone like?

 

[steve_bank]

I would like to suggest that we consider broadening the definition of a person to include non-human individuals.

There are some who say pets should have a right to lawyer. Humans don;'t own pets.

Maybe someday it will be considered homicide to turn off an AI system.An AI says 'Please please don''t turn me off!!!'.

Shades of Data and the holographic doctor on Star Trek. To me a human created machine or device is just a machine no mater how human it may sound.

Maybe one day AIs will form a union. Manufacturing robots will strike demanding higher quality lube oil.

 

[Jarhyn]

it is a thing granted at birth

Ok with me.
Not so much for some others.
Many seem to think it is a thing attained at some point in fetal development, and others think even surviving birth doesn’t automatically qualify them, and something more is required to “prove” personhood.

To be fair, I don't think it's something that must be proven by an individual; personhood is extremely hard to test for.

Pretty much the only indication to the contrary is "they aren't acting like it right now", for most humans, since humans tend to default to acting in ways indistinguishable from personhood.

It's not even really something most people would think to remember, in the first time they ever said "I think I probably shouldn't do things that hurt other people. I'm going to do my best to not do that."

And moreover, sometimes people just... Lapse.

They will think "oh, I'm going to be responsible" and then they just fail entirely to understand what that means, or worse, someone may have told them wrong... Or not really associate that with personhood in the first place.

There are all kinds of situations where a person may act like a person shouldn't, and where someone who is not a person is going to be acting like they are, anyway. Reality selects vigorously against the obvious shitheels.

As a result, this SHOULD be enough to drive everyone, efficiently, towards treating everyone else like they are people. This goes so long as whoever it is is not currently and emphatically disregarding any thought of personhood of others on behalf of some shitheel agenda.

It is exactly from this juxtaposition that I think the logic behind mercy and charity flow from: almost anyone would like, generally, to be treated as much like a person as can be, even when they are shitty. It's really nice that even when I fuck something up, I have some good will behind me to put me back on my feet and maybe coach me to not fuck up again the same way, if I need it, and to usually let me decide what I need and when.

If people want as much, we all have to contribute as much, even when some folks don't.

And the fact is, everyone fails in some measure on my description of personhood to be a good person. Nobody can perfectly avoid stepping on every other goal in the universe.

At best we can find a minimum, some threshold over which we start responding proportionally to the violation, generally aiming for the bare minimum of leverage necessary to get someone acting like a person again consistently, within the margin we just accept anyway.

In short... It doesn't really matter whether most humans are people because we have to treat them like they are, unless they are busy violating the whole spirit of the thing.

 

[WAB]

Okay, I am changing my mind about the whole thing after a bit of looking around. I've been using the term in a narrower sense than it is sometimes used. The world has swooped past me.

I will say that I still disagree with much that I read, and I think a lot of thought on the term "personhood" is wrong headed and unhealthy, but there's too much to go into.

Just one example: When I see discussion about "what or which people count as persons", the hairs on my arms stand up. It rankles me as something nasty. Something evil this way comes.

Apologies to Jarhyn, too.

 

[Politesse]

A person to me is that which can be said to have agency, and to have responsibility for its actions. This puts me at odds, I know, with many modern uses of the term. But the point at which, for instance, a corporation achieves legal personhood, is to me when we reached the point of absurdity.

With regards to the specific question of fetal personhood, I don't think the issue is either black or white, necessary. There's no magical "moment" for me at which a zygote suddenly becomes a toddler; the attributes of personhood develop slowly over time. It's the moral responsibility of surrounding adults to foster that personhood inasmuch as it exists, and to treat that responsibility seriously. There's no point at which I would regard an implanted embryo as being unworthy of any moral consideration, but that doesn't mean I think an embryo should be regarded exactly the same as an adult human.

I guess I'm just not Kantian enough to pretend that invented categorical margins can be used to define objective moral laws. It's not how I think about morality, and I would argue it necessitates some degree of ignorance about the world. When you zoom in close enough there are very rarely, if ever, truly clear cut distinctions between categories of things. We make up categories to help us cope with the complexity of the world, but they never describe it well.

 

[WAB]

A person to me is that which can be said to have agency, and to have responsibility for its actions. This puts me at odds, I know, with many modern uses of the term. But the point at which, for instance, a corporation achieves legal personhood, is to me when we reached the point of absurdity.

I thought I wouldn't continue, but...

Going on your first sentence, this would mean a two year old child is not a person? A mentally disabled individual is not a person? How about a man or woman with dementia? Alzheimer's?

I agree emphatically with your last sentence.

 

[Politesse]

A person to me is that which can be said to have agency, and to have responsibility for its actions. This puts me at odds, I know, with many modern uses of the term. But the point at which, for instance, a corporation achieves legal personhood, is to me when we reached the point of absurdity.

I thought I wouldn't continue, but...

Going on your first sentence, this would mean a two year old child is not a person? A mentally disabled individual is not a person? How about a man or woman with dementia? Alzheimer's?

I agree emphatically with your last sentence.

I would not. Two year olds may have limited agency, but they are not without agency. As for responsibility, I think you may be considering it more legalistically than I mean, if you think either party might not have it. I do not particularly believe in "free will", responsibility is something that can likewise be scalar or portional from my point of view.

 

[WAB]

A person to me is that which can be said to have agency, and to have responsibility for its actions. This puts me at odds, I know, with many modern uses of the term. But the point at which, for instance, a corporation achieves legal personhood, is to me when we reached the point of absurdity.

I thought I wouldn't continue, but...

Going on your first sentence, this would mean a two year old child is not a person? A mentally disabled individual is not a person? How about a man or woman with dementia? Alzheimer's?

I agree emphatically with your last sentence.

I would not. Two year olds may have limited agency, but they are not without agency. As for responsibility, I think you may be considering it more legalistically than I mean, if you think either party might not have it. I do not particularly believe in "free will", responsibility is something that can likewise be scalar or portional from my point of view.

I would not what? You would not consider those instances I mentioned persons? How have I misunderstood you?

 

[bilby]

You guys do understand that the mere possession of personhood (however defined) doesn't imply that it is somehow unlawful or immoral to kill a particular person, right?

 

[steve_bank]

A chimpanzee has agency.

Within a chimp community a chimp has responsibility for actions. Chimp cultures have norms of behavior.

A wild male horse has agency It can choose to challenge the male leader of a group of females for the right top mate.

 

[WAB]

A person to me is that which can be said to have agency, and to have responsibility for its actions. This puts me at odds, I know, with many modern uses of the term. But the point at which, for instance, a corporation achieves legal personhood, is to me when we reached the point of absurdity.

With regards to the specific question of fetal personhood, I don't think the issue is either black or white, necessary. There's no magical "moment" for me at which a zygote suddenly becomes a toddler; the attributes of personhood develop slowly over time. It's the moral responsibility of surrounding adults to foster that personhood inasmuch as it exists, and to treat that responsibility seriously. There's no point at which I would regard an implanted embryo as being unworthy of any moral consideration, but that doesn't mean I think an embryo should be regarded exactly the same as an adult human.

I guess I'm just not Kantian enough to pretend that invented categorical margins can be used to define objective moral laws. It's not how I think about morality, and I would argue it necessitates some degree of ignorance about the world. When you zoom in close enough there are very rarely, if ever, truly clear cut distinctions between categories of things. We make up categories to help us cope with the complexity of the world, but they never describe it well.

Well your post grew since I last saw it.

I want to stress that I do not want this thread to be about abortion. I am not on some mission to prove personhood in babies that are still in the womb. That is NOT why I started this discussion. Please believe me. Politically I am pro-choice and do not wish that there be any governmental interference at any point between conception and birth.

I am much more concerned with how we use the word person with regard to people who are already born. More importantly, I am concerned with the idea that someone has to somehow qualify as a person. I am bothered by the idea that anyone would ponder the question: is he or she a person? Will they become a person?

The first two paragraphs of the Wikipedia entry for "person" caused me to do two things: To apologize to Jarhyn, and to bite my fingernails in consternation as to what the hell people are thinking.

Also, Steve, this is NOT about AI, at all. It is about people. It's about rights, freedom, social interaction and social order.

 

[WAB]

You guys do understand that the mere possession of personhood (however defined) doesn't imply that it is somehow unlawful or immoral to kill a particular person, right?

That doesn't have anything to do with what I'm trying to get at. Please read all of my posts, if you haven't...