What is a person?

[WAB]

Once again, this is not so much about what constitutes a person, as it is about what gives the right to certain people to regard others as non-persons. A few people in this thread have stated that they know personhood when they see it, and this implies that they can spot its absence. I don't believe that unpersoning people is a good or healthy thing.

Erving Goffman - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Politesse]

Ah, Erving Goffman! Was just telling the students about his work on institutionalization the other day. I find it disturbing how disturbed they aren't by some of his "thought exercises", compared to classrooms even ten years ago. Not to say that they actively cheer on cruelty, but most of them are just sort of apathetic to it. The young men, especially, who used to bristle, smirk, or nervously laugh through these kinds of lessons. Now? Just blank, bored faces. It doesn't affect them, so descriptions of cruelty are just words floating in space, I might as well be describing the weather. The culture really has shifted, in an alarming direction. Though of course, Goffman himself would be quick to note that this hardly the nation's first flirtation with authoritarian solutions to sociological miscommunications.

 

[Elixir]

A few people in this thread have stated that they know personhood when they see it

I think EVERYONE “knows personhood when they see it”. And said so.

this implies that they can spot its absence

That does not imply that they always see it.
It means that when they do, they are almost invariably correct.
Your statement that it implies an unerring ability to determine ABSENCE of personhood is utterly specious and speaking for myself, is categorically false.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Well, I think I agree, Steve, and this is what I mean, although there are a lot of other aspects of the question left open.

This could be only a discussion of definitions, of semantics, linguistics. When I think of the word person I do not have a bundle of conditions or qualifications that come along with it. To me, a person is a human being born in the world who is alive and living in the world. One does not have to do anything or comport themselves in any particular manner. It is not a test. And by no means whatsoever can a regular member of society walk around and arbitrarily designate the status of personhood on other individuals, or in any manner remove the status of personhood from any person, due to private and particular notions of what constitutes personhood.

So what is important about the word "person" then if it is just a synonym of "human being"?

 

[WAB]

Well, I think I agree, Steve, and this is what I mean, although there are a lot of other aspects of the question left open.

This could be only a discussion of definitions, of semantics, linguistics. When I think of the word person I do not have a bundle of conditions or qualifications that come along with it. To me, a person is a human being born in the world who is alive and living in the world. One does not have to do anything or comport themselves in any particular manner. It is not a test. And by no means whatsoever can a regular member of society walk around and arbitrarily designate the status of personhood on other individuals, or in any manner remove the status of personhood from any person, due to private and particular notions of what constitutes personhood.

So what is important about the word "person" then if it is just a synonym of "human being"?

No, no, no. I am talking about unpersoning people, and why that's not a good thing. This is not about abortion or fetal rights, and I wish to divorce this thread from any discussion about the legal issues surrounding the subject of abortion. This is about rights, freedom, and social interaction.

IOW, Jimmy, there is no difference between person and human being, at least none that bear any weight in this conversation. I don't give a fig about the scholastic minutiae. I want to know why seemingly rational people think they can go around and make spot determinations about the " personhood" of others. I can't imagine what flights of grandiosity I could leap to if I possessed such an ability!

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Well, I think I agree, Steve, and this is what I mean, although there are a lot of other aspects of the question left open.

This could be only a discussion of definitions, of semantics, linguistics. When I think of the word person I do not have a bundle of conditions or qualifications that come along with it. To me, a person is a human being born in the world who is alive and living in the world. One does not have to do anything or comport themselves in any particular manner. It is not a test. And by no means whatsoever can a regular member of society walk around and arbitrarily designate the status of personhood on other individuals, or in any manner remove the status of personhood from any person, due to private and particular notions of what constitutes personhood.

So what is important about the word "person" then if it is just a synonym of "human being"?

No, no, no. I am talking about unpersoning people, and why that's not a good thing. This is not about abortion or fetal rights, and I wish to divorce this thread from any discussion about the legal issues surrounding the subject of abortion. This is about rights, freedom, and social interaction.

I haven't introduced that word into the conversation. What I keep asking, and you aren't answering is what does "person" mean. If someone is a "person" what significance are you imparting with that word. Right now you are equating it with "human being", which again, it is a noun. You mention "personhood". You seem to have bought a label maker without concern of caring why the label matters.

 

[WAB]

Ah, Erving Goffman! Was just telling the students about his work on institutionalization the other day. I find it disturbing how disturbed they aren't by some of his "thought exercises", compared to classrooms even ten years ago. Not to say that they actively cheer on cruelty, but most of them are just sort of apathetic to it. The young men, especially, who used to bristle, smirk, or nervously laugh through these kinds of lessons. Now? Just blank, bored faces. It doesn't affect them, so descriptions of cruelty are just words floating in space, I might as well be describing the weather. The culture really has shifted, in an alarming direction. Though of course, Goffman himself would be quick to note that this hardly the nation's first flirtation with authoritarian solutions to sociological miscommunications.

Poli, can you give a note on a couple authors I can read in which they discuss the positive results of unpersoning? I want to read about the good, healthy results of unpersoning, if you please. (John Cleese voice, circa 1973.)

 

[WAB]

Well, I think I agree, Steve, and this is what I mean, although there are a lot of other aspects of the question left open.

This could be only a discussion of definitions, of semantics, linguistics. When I think of the word person I do not have a bundle of conditions or qualifications that come along with it. To me, a person is a human being born in the world who is alive and living in the world. One does not have to do anything or comport themselves in any particular manner. It is not a test. And by no means whatsoever can a regular member of society walk around and arbitrarily designate the status of personhood on other individuals, or in any manner remove the status of personhood from any person, due to private and particular notions of what constitutes personhood.

So what is important about the word "person" then if it is just a synonym of "human being"?

No, no, no. I am talking about unpersoning people, and why that's not a good thing. This is not about abortion or fetal rights, and I wish to divorce this thread from any discussion about the legal issues surrounding the subject of abortion. This is about rights, freedom, and social interaction.

I haven't introduced that word into the conversation. What I keep asking, and you aren't answering is what does "person" mean. If someone is a "person" what significance are you imparting with that word. Right now you are equating it with "human being", which again, it is a noun. You mention "personhood". You seem to have bought a label maker without concern of caring why the label matters.

Jimmy, I will answer your question right here, yet again, despite the fact that virtually every post of mine has already answered it. What does person mean? Person means any human being who is alive and living in the world, of any race, creed or color, of any persuasion. This does not necessarily refer to animals, AI, or beings in utero! Again, as I have stated clearly several times! Those things can be dealt with in another thread.

Jimmy, can you tell a person from a not-person when you see one? Can you describe your thoughts on this?

 

[Politesse]

Ah, Erving Goffman! Was just telling the students about his work on institutionalization the other day. I find it disturbing how disturbed they aren't by some of his "thought exercises", compared to classrooms even ten years ago. Not to say that they actively cheer on cruelty, but most of them are just sort of apathetic to it. The young men, especially, who used to bristle, smirk, or nervously laugh through these kinds of lessons. Now? Just blank, bored faces. It doesn't affect them, so descriptions of cruelty are just words floating in space, I might as well be describing the weather. The culture really has shifted, in an alarming direction. Though of course, Goffman himself would be quick to note that this hardly the nation's first flirtation with authoritarian solutions to sociological miscommunications.

Poli, can you give a note on a couple authors I can read in which they discuss the positive results of unpersoning? I want to read about the good, healthy results of unpersoning, if you please. (John Cheese voice, circa 1973.

Who would even write such a thing? If they have, I am not aware of them.

The closest thing I could think of are the bank of studies that led to soldiers being trained to depersonalize enemy soldiers from WWI onward, as it greatly increased the likelihood of firing non-defensively.

 

[WAB]

Actually, to keep the thread going, a few people have stated that they recognize a person when they see one, and the corollary is that they can recognize a person who is not a person, or at least temporarily not a person. These posters are Jarhyn, TV & Credit Cards, and Elixir. I am simply trying to find out what criteria we are to go by to distinguish a person from a non-person. Reminder, these terms refer to people who have been born and are alive in the world.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Well, I think I agree, Steve, and this is what I mean, although there are a lot of other aspects of the question left open.

This could be only a discussion of definitions, of semantics, linguistics. When I think of the word person I do not have a bundle of conditions or qualifications that come along with it. To me, a person is a human being born in the world who is alive and living in the world. One does not have to do anything or comport themselves in any particular manner. It is not a test. And by no means whatsoever can a regular member of society walk around and arbitrarily designate the status of personhood on other individuals, or in any manner remove the status of personhood from any person, due to private and particular notions of what constitutes personhood.

So what is important about the word "person" then if it is just a synonym of "human being"?

No, no, no. I am talking about unpersoning people, and why that's not a good thing. This is not about abortion or fetal rights, and I wish to divorce this thread from any discussion about the legal issues surrounding the subject of abortion. This is about rights, freedom, and social interaction.

I haven't introduced that word into the conversation. What I keep asking, and you aren't answering is what does "person" mean. If someone is a "person" what significance are you imparting with that word. Right now you are equating it with "human being", which again, it is a noun. You mention "personhood". You seem to have bought a label maker without concern of caring why the label matters.

Jimmy, I will answer your question right here, yet again, despite the fact that virtually every post of mine has already answered it. What does person mean? Person means any human being who is alive and living in the world, of any race, creed or color, of any persuasion. This does not necessarily refer to animals, AI, or beings in utero! Again, as I have stated clearly several times! Those things can be dealt with in another thread.

Let me try again, less words "what significance are you imparting with the word 'person'". IE what is the consequence of someone being labeled a "person".

 

[WAB]

Well, I think I agree, Steve, and this is what I mean, although there are a lot of other aspects of the question left open.

This could be only a discussion of definitions, of semantics, linguistics. When I think of the word person I do not have a bundle of conditions or qualifications that come along with it. To me, a person is a human being born in the world who is alive and living in the world. One does not have to do anything or comport themselves in any particular manner. It is not a test. And by no means whatsoever can a regular member of society walk around and arbitrarily designate the status of personhood on other individuals, or in any manner remove the status of personhood from any person, due to private and particular notions of what constitutes personhood.

So what is important about the word "person" then if it is just a synonym of "human being"?

No, no, no. I am talking about unpersoning people, and why that's not a good thing. This is not about abortion or fetal rights, and I wish to divorce this thread from any discussion about the legal issues surrounding the subject of abortion. This is about rights, freedom, and social interaction.

I haven't introduced that word into the conversation. What I keep asking, and you aren't answering is what does "person" mean. If someone is a "person" what significance are you imparting with that word. Right now you are equating it with "human being", which again, it is a noun. You mention "personhood". You seem to have bought a label maker without concern of caring why the label matters.

Jimmy, I will answer your question right here, yet again, despite the fact that virtually every post of mine has already answered it. What does person mean? Person means any human being who is alive and living in the world, of any race, creed or color, of any persuasion. This does not necessarily refer to animals, AI, or beings in utero! Again, as I have stated clearly several times! Those things can be dealt with in another thread.

Let me try again, less words "what significance are you imparting with the word 'person'". IE what is the consequence of someone being labeled a "person".

Nothing. What is the consequence of being labelled a non-person? THAT is the question.

And holy crap but I have to add: this does NOT refer to other animals, AI, or entities in utero.

Again, if we could have a word from @Cornelius!

 

[WAB]

Ah Fuck ya altogether!

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Well, I think I agree, Steve, and this is what I mean, although there are a lot of other aspects of the question left open.

This could be only a discussion of definitions, of semantics, linguistics. When I think of the word person I do not have a bundle of conditions or qualifications that come along with it. To me, a person is a human being born in the world who is alive and living in the world. One does not have to do anything or comport themselves in any particular manner. It is not a test. And by no means whatsoever can a regular member of society walk around and arbitrarily designate the status of personhood on other individuals, or in any manner remove the status of personhood from any person, due to private and particular notions of what constitutes personhood.

So what is important about the word "person" then if it is just a synonym of "human being"?

No, no, no. I am talking about unpersoning people, and why that's not a good thing. This is not about abortion or fetal rights, and I wish to divorce this thread from any discussion about the legal issues surrounding the subject of abortion. This is about rights, freedom, and social interaction.

I haven't introduced that word into the conversation. What I keep asking, and you aren't answering is what does "person" mean. If someone is a "person" what significance are you imparting with that word. Right now you are equating it with "human being", which again, it is a noun. You mention "personhood". You seem to have bought a label maker without concern of caring why the label matters.

Jimmy, I will answer your question right here, yet again, despite the fact that virtually every post of mine has already answered it. What does person mean? Person means any human being who is alive and living in the world, of any race, creed or color, of any persuasion. This does not necessarily refer to animals, AI, or beings in utero! Again, as I have stated clearly several times! Those things can be dealt with in another thread.

Let me try again, less words "what significance are you imparting with the word 'person'". IE what is the consequence of someone being labeled a "person".

Nothing. What is the consequence of being labelled a non-person? THAT is the question.

*ejects*

 

[WAB]

Well, I think I agree, Steve, and this is what I mean, although there are a lot of other aspects of the question left open.

This could be only a discussion of definitions, of semantics, linguistics. When I think of the word person I do not have a bundle of conditions or qualifications that come along with it. To me, a person is a human being born in the world who is alive and living in the world. One does not have to do anything or comport themselves in any particular manner. It is not a test. And by no means whatsoever can a regular member of society walk around and arbitrarily designate the status of personhood on other individuals, or in any manner remove the status of personhood from any person, due to private and particular notions of what constitutes personhood.

So what is important about the word "person" then if it is just a synonym of "human being"?

No, no, no. I am talking about unpersoning people, and why that's not a good thing. This is not about abortion or fetal rights, and I wish to divorce this thread from any discussion about the legal issues surrounding the subject of abortion. This is about rights, freedom, and social interaction.

I haven't introduced that word into the conversation. What I keep asking, and you aren't answering is what does "person" mean. If someone is a "person" what significance are you imparting with that word. Right now you are equating it with "human being", which again, it is a noun. You mention "personhood". You seem to have bought a label maker without concern of caring why the label matters.

Jimmy, I will answer your question right here, yet again, despite the fact that virtually every post of mine has already answered it. What does person mean? Person means any human being who is alive and living in the world, of any race, creed or color, of any persuasion. This does not necessarily refer to animals, AI, or beings in utero! Again, as I have stated clearly several times! Those things can be dealt with in another thread.

Let me try again, less words "what significance are you imparting with the word 'person'". IE what is the consequence of someone being labeled a "person".

Nothing. What is the consequence of being labelled a non-person? THAT is the question.

*ejects*

Good.

 

[WAB]

So, can anyone give me a description of someone who is NOT a person? What would that individual be like?

 

[TomC]

So, can anyone give me a description of someone who is NOT a person? What would that individual be like?

How about Terri Schiavo?

I don't understand all the medical stuff. But I believe that she was an ordinary woman. She suffered a horrible brain injury. She lost all higher brain function, all that kept functioning was the lower brain. That kept her breathing and her heart pumping, but that was about it.

Her husband thought that intensive care was prolonging her suffering and wanted to end it. Her parents kept hoping that she would recover and wanted to continue the intensive care. It became a big national deal, got the US Senate involved. It was eventually resolved, but not to anybody's satisfaction really.

Were did she fall on your personal "personhood" scale?
I'm really not addressing this question to WAB in particular.
Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

Actually, to keep the thread going, a few people have stated that they recognize a person when they see one, and the corollary is that they can recognize a person who is not a person, or at least temporarily not a person. These posters are Jarhyn, TV & Credit Cards, and Elixir. I am simply trying to find out what criteria we are to go by to distinguish a person from a non-person. Reminder, these terms refer to people who have been born and are alive in the world.

If we accept that personhood flows from the consent to not treat others in ways they wish not to be treated, and to do so on the most general possible way of interpreting "ways", then the point is not and can only be fairly maliciously interpreted as declaring someone absolutely not a person, or someone we can treat like they aren't a person in a general sense.

Because we can't assume they aren't trying to be or won't eventually be a person, it places the requirement on treating all violations as lapses, to the extent that recovery can be reasonably expected, and the "benefit of the doubt" is restored.

This is starkly different from worldviews which treat human and person as synonymous, and then make all kinds of excuses for denying rights fundamental to personhood.

It's really hard to square away an absolute right to personhood linked to a species, and then momentarily treating members of the species like humans often do, unless you take that to mean that the right to consent is somehow conditional based on something other than personhood rather than personhood being something conditional on *affording others the reciprocity of your shared rights*.

 

[Elixir]

a few people have stated that they recognize a person when they see one, and the corollary is that they can recognize a person who is not a person, or at least temporarily not a person. These posters are Jarhyn, TV & Credit Cards, and Elixir. I am simply trying to find out what criteria we are to go by to distinguish a person from a non-person.

You have the cart before the horse, here WAB.
You haven't offered any definition of person that another person could reliably recognize. I tend to go with the duck test. And so, I suspect, do you WAB and most other people. When I see a very pregnant person I don't see two people, sorry. Perhaps you do. Your corollary is false, as I already explained; I see people, I know they're people. I see a very very pregnant person, I USUALLY don't see "them" plural. That is NOT a criterion I would use to limit personhood, but rather it is a limit to my own perception/perspective - (being outside of the womb and all).

I assume that WAB is a person. I'm sure that if I met WAB it would confirm my opinion (which is already almost without any room for doubt). But it's very possible that someone dressed as a mannequin could pass unseen as a "person" if they stood very still in a store.
"I know it when I see it" has a corollary, but it's not "I can recognize a person that is not a person" which is a contradiction in terms, for starters. The actual corollary is "I don't know it when I don't see it"

 

[Elixir]

So, can anyone give me a description of someone who is NOT a person? What would that individual be like?

After my cat (a definite person) died, mice invaded the garage and I had to put out traps.
None of the mice I killed (one a day or so for most of a week) were people - I even asked them and they didn't respond.
I got sick of killing them and made a trap out of a 40 gallon steel garbage can with a lead rope going up the side facing the wall, and a little smear of peanut butt on the bottom. Next morning there were six mice going crazy. I picked up the garbage can and walked it way far away and flung them. I didn't really ask their names, knowing I'd forget and not recognize them if we met again. But the next day there were only four, then two. I put them into a 5 gallon bucket instead of carrying them in the big steel can, much easier to carry. For several days thereafter, only one mouse.

By that time they were all people named Mickey. I had stopped carrying them in the bucket; I'd reach in with gloved hand and catch them off the bottom of the garbage can. They bite the glove and squirm like a fish, but I get a good grip on them without causing injury, and take them for a little walk, then throw them as far as I can. Amazingly, after they've been held for a minute or two without getting eaten or even torn apart, they relax. I feel them just slow their jets and look at me. So I look 'em in the eye and tell them I better not see them round these here parts again, or I'm gettin' out the nail polish, and it's a death sentence for repeat offenders, MICKEY!.
Yes, all the Mickeys are people, but they're dead ones if I convict them of a repeat offense.

I regret the death toll, and almost enjoy seeing Mickey in the morning on my way to feed Seven. But without Lucy's scent keeping them at bay, it was going to get serious.

So, can anyone give me a description of someone who is NOT a person?

A dead person is a person and is not a person. Is that a description of someone who is NOT a person?
I mean... a dead Mickey isn't really a person, but a live one... ??