PDA

View Full Version : This is a question that has been bothering me for a while……….


SatansLeftHand
03-21-2002, 01:58 PM
What is the nature of personhood? What makes one a person, or an animal? I’ve always been told that animals aren’t people, but where does one draw the line? Are ‘people’ humans only, and all humans, and every other creature an animal? Or is it true that some humans are animals, not fit to be called people? If that last is the case, then it must be that some non-humans are people, too.
Say, for instance that there is a male chimpanzee who would be considered a genius, even on the criteria by which we judge other humans. Say also that the chimp can speak understandably, and has even managed to earn a doctorate from a prestigious university. Would such an individual not be a person?
Or take as another example a human woman, one so stupid as to have difficulty talking. Say she’s just so damnably dumb as to not be able to read, drive, or even have a job (of any kind at all). Is she a person, or merely an animal that happens to be human?
Imagine that for some reason (I can’t think of one) these two individuals have sex. Which one has performed an act of bestiality?
If you are of the school of thought that believes that one of the criteria for being a person is that the individual in question be human, would you say that some subspecies of humanity are not really people? If an alien were to land its ship in your backyard, would you waste time trying to explain to it that it’s not really a person, but an animal? Or would you treat it as a person, based on the fact that it is obviously smart enough to pilot a craft with advanced capabilities, and it’s species must be capable of creating such things. Likely he would treat you as the animal, or at best as a backward primitive.
I think that what constitutes a person is a very simple set of rules, that several species on this planet are capable of achieving, and which some of the members of those species have already achieved. My rules are thus:

The ability to communicate. It need not be verbal, it only means that you can get your meaning across to another, not necessarily of the same species, with or without a common language between you.

The ability to use, and more importantly, MAKE tools. Even the most simple of tools requires a directing mind to use, and making a tool requires an even more complex mind than merely using them does.

The ability and willingness to kill at need. With this goes the responsibility and knowledge of how to decide when there is a need. In my mind, this also requires that one not kill unnecessarily.

The ability to retain knowledge. If one cannot remember that which is needful for survival, or the means to make mere survival into living (which is not at all the same thing), then that one is only an animal, and not a very successful one, at that.

The ability to change one’s environment. Whether the change is for the better or the worse is immaterial. The ability to change and modify the world around you is necessary.

Looking at these rules, you can no doubt see that some of the individuals around you are not really people, at least not by those criteria. If you look closely, you might also see that there is the possibility of gaining or even losing one’s personhood. If you lack any of these things, you are merely a clever animal, and not truly a person. There are no exceptions to this in my mind.
Take a moment to think about those rules, and consider. By those criteria, some chimpanzees ARE people, though by no means are they all people. Several other members of the primate family fit this rule-set, as do some birds, and even the occasional elephant. There are many, many animals out there that fit one or more of those, but not all of them. For instance:

Bees. They fit all but the second rule. They communicate to each other the location of flowers, and humans can learn to read this form of communication. They are perfectly willing to kill and be killed in the defense of their homes. They can retain knowledge, at least long enough to pass it on to all the other bees in the hive, and still remember well enough to go back to the site they indicated to the others. The changes they make in their environment are minor, but noticeable. They build hives, and some species of bees even tunnel under the ground. But they do not use or make tools. I think that we can all agree that bees aren’t people.

Goats. They can communicate simple needs and wants to anyone who pays attention quite easily. There have been numerous instances of goats causing the death of other animals. They have changed the environment of the earth in more drastic ways than humans have ever managed. But they do not utilize tools, and they don’t remember things from day to day, except possibly that they hate you.

Dolphins. They most definitely communicate between each other, and they can even get some simple concepts across the barrier between themselves and humanity. They don’t make tools, but it’s been shown that they can use them once they learn, although clumsily. They definitely kill at need, as they are born predators. They seem to have good memories, sometimes even better than their researchers have. But they cannot change their environment. That is the one thing that they lack to be people, and I don’t think even that will remain true for much longer.


What do you think is required to make one a person? Any thoughts you have would be appreciated, and civil debate is welcome.

Asmodeus
03-21-2002, 02:11 PM
That is a bit clumsy SLH... I will try to get back to this...

SatansLeftHand
03-21-2002, 02:14 PM
clumsy?!?!
howso?


err......i didn't say that the communication had to be elegant, did i?

skalie
03-21-2002, 02:23 PM
You can't be a person unless you are member of the human race.

Don't matter how much personality you got, a human is a person and a goat is a goat.

rage
03-21-2002, 02:25 PM
Some people say that it is a "soul" that differentiate's us from other mammals, but I am of the idea that it has something to do w/ how our brain works, the same thing that would make people believe that we have a soul.

You know, there is a book I have on Order from Barnes and Noble, waiting to come in. It is "Are Souls Real" by Jerome Elbert. <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/stores/detail/-/books/1573927910/reviews/002-5507875-9280028#15739279105000">Here is a link to a synopsis of the book.</a> Basically, from what I have seen, it talks about the brain, and how it works, and differentiates us from other mammals, and whether or not souls are real, or if what we percieve as our soul is actually the way that our mind works.

I haven't throughouly read your post yet, as I am a little busy at the moment, but I thought this might have something to do w/ what you are talking about and may help some, from what I have read at the beginning of it.

Will come back and read your post and post again.

Koliedrus
03-21-2002, 02:38 PM
Humans are animals.
Humans (by and large) are sentient.
A person can be described as a human with sentience.

A sentient dolphin, on the other flipper, might need a different description. "Person" just doesn't fit since it's been used for so long to describe the individual human.

Make up a word that fits. Biologists and linguists have been doing it for centuries. No need to stop now.

squee
03-21-2002, 07:30 PM
Ok, assume for the moment that there is some kind of X-Factor that separates humans from animals. It has to be a kind of yes/no, on/off kind of characteristic rather than a matter of degree because if you simply have a scale where you rate all the animals in the world, you will be wondering where to draw the line:

"Ok, well, Dolphins are almost human, except they haven't got thumbs."

Secondly, it cannot be a characteristic that can be altered during the course of a person's life--it ought to be some innate quality. Once human, always human. AND, the idea of equality of races dictates that mere physical and mental differences cannot tell us who is human and who is not. So, this means that you cannot predicate your discussion of who is human and who is not upon race, religion, gender, age, or whether you've got thumbs or not.

What it must depend on, I think, is a certain potentiality that is inherent in the human condition: And some of you may think that this is kind of flaky, but I think it has to do with the idea of love, inasmuch as love involves self-sacrifice:

Take a being who is willing to die for another being not because this action confers any advantage of it, or its bloodline, or its race or ideas, but rather because it so believes in the worth of that other being's life that it would lay down its own to save it. That's love.

So you show me a dolphin or a chimp or a dog or a goat that can consciously make the decision to take a bullet for me, and I'll tell you, "That right there is a person."

Smug Git
03-21-2002, 09:01 PM
I am not convinced that there is a strong distinction between animal and human (like Kol intimated) but Squee has a decent point too.

I am certainly not convinced enough to kill them to eat, if I don't have to.

jules
03-21-2002, 09:30 PM
I consider humans to be animals as much dogs (or dolphins, or goats, or whatever) are.

I'm not in a position to say we are "better" than other animals; nor to dub us smarter. They could have intelligence and abilities that we cannot even begin to comprehend; like music to a deaf person or colors to a blind person.
All this in mind, I'll admit to be quite nearly carniverous. I eat more meat than anything else. I have no problem eating other animals because I see nearly ever other animal on the Earth eating other animals. It's obviously something that we should do; not morally "should" but for our own wellbeing "should". We get all sorts of weird deficiencies otherwise, unless we specially compensate for it.

Anyways, I've had this debate before, and it usually ends up arguing over the definition of "human" versus "person" versus "animal" versus "mammal", etc etc etc. I like to think of it this way: A "pet" is to a nonhuman animal as a "person" is to a human.

squee
03-21-2002, 09:36 PM
I'm not in a position to say we are "better" than other animals; nor to dub us smarter. They could have intelligence and abilities that we cannot even begin to comprehend; like music to a deaf person or colors to a blind person.

Juliana--
The assumption in this statement is that the quality of "humanness" is dependent upon innate qualities. But why speculate that they exist if there is no evidence or no reason to think that they might?

jules
03-21-2002, 11:37 PM
Originally posted by squee


Juliana--
The assumption in this statement is that the quality of "humanness" is dependent upon innate qualities. But why speculate that they exist if there is no evidence or no reason to think that they might?

Simply because I have no reason to believe they do not. I'm not saying that this is what I believe; but that it is a possibility. We have know way of knowing. I can't make an honest, real judgement of something I do not fully understand.

Uberwonder
03-22-2002, 12:14 AM
Your original post was a bit muddy. Human, person, people... Eh, just different words to describe the species.
Humans are animals. They certainly aren't plants or minerals.
I presume you are trying to get a description of humans as opposed to other animals but I don't see what you are truly trying to get out of your question and by the responses, I'm not sure anyone else is either.

D_I
03-22-2002, 12:36 AM
Originally posted by Uberwonder
Your original post was a bit muddy. Human, person, people... Eh, just different words to describe the species.
*snip*
I presume you are trying to get a description of humans as opposed to other animals

The seperator would be the ability to control fire. Seriously, that is the ultimate distinction between Human and non-Human on this planet.

Uberwonder
03-22-2002, 12:57 AM
I dunno...
I had a Ridgeback that could blow out a match on command.

D_I
03-22-2002, 02:54 AM
But could he light one? A match, I mean.

Uberwonder
03-22-2002, 06:00 AM
No, she didn't smoke. An opposible digit helps too, which are not esclusive to humans. In fact, the Orangutan that was in the movie, Every which way but loose, could light a lighter so that kind of shoots your theory down.
If you come back with whether he could make fire on his own I would say yes if he was shown how, just like a human.