What does it Mean to be a "Person"?

[Sunstone]

What does it mean to be a "person"? How would you define that term? Why would you define it that way?

I notice that Wikipedia defines the term as:

"...a being that has certain capacities or attributes such as reason, morality, consciousness or self-consciousness, and being a part of a culturally established form of social relations such as kinship, ownership of property, or legal responsibility."​

That strikes me as somewhat vague, but Wikipedia does note that "...what makes a person count as a person differ widely among cultures and contexts." That's true. Japanese friends of mine tend to have a very different notion of "person" than I do, for instance.

The Concept of Person in Psychology

So far as I know, the traditional concept of a person in psychology has been challenged in recent years by some psychologists. Among other reasons, they point out that people seem to be a mass of contradictions. That is, the same "person" can be both kind and cruel, intelligent and stupid, funny and grim, and so forth. Which makes them suspect the traditional concept of a person as based too much on the notion there is some unchanging core to people.

Some Questions

Can the concept of what it means to be a person be stretched too far? For instance, the US Supreme Court has ruled that corporations are "persons" in at least some ways? Does that make sense to you?

Again, some people feel that both an adult human and a fetus are persons. Does that make sense to you?

Must the notion of person rest on something that is unchanging through-out our lives?

Questions? Comments?[/S]

 

[Vouthon]

An autonomous, conscious being with the capacity for self-actualisation, inter-personal relations, abstract/reflective thought (i.e. the ability to ponder or imagine objects, principles, and ideas that are not physically present) and complex language.

One of the first tangible signs of "personhood" to surface in pre-history was the magnificent neolithic cave-art; suggestive of an inquiring mind, symbolic thinking, creativity and reflection.

Complex language arising from our ability to think in the abstract and defined by inter-personal relations (itself motivated by self-actualisation), enables a "person" to hold all kinds of symbols (including physical and social relationships) in our minds, independent of their presence or existence in the physical world.

In the words of one academic, as a result of this “our mind acquires the ability to imagine, to reason, to choose among various motives, and to evaluate alternative plans to actions.” Neuroscientist V.S. Ramachandran summed it up well: “Here is this three-pound mass of jelly [the human brain] you can hold in the palm of your hand…it can contemplate the meaning of infinity, and it can contemplate itself contemplating the meaning of infinity.”

That's personhood for me.

Can the concept of what it means to be a person be stretched too far? For instance, the US Supreme Court has ruled that corporations are "persons" in at least some ways? Does that make sense to you?​

It can be stretched too far.

However, Legal personhood is a jurisprudential fiction that has proved very useful, so I don't consider that to be a stretch. We all know that companies are aggregations of individual persons acting towards the same end under a constitution, just like nation-states or other conglomerates.

Again, some people feel that both an adult human and a fetus are persons. Does that make sense to you?​

The fetus is alive but not yet a person. It has the DNA and ingredients, one could say, of personhood in their germinal form and will inevitably become one if left to develop, but it would be difficult in my mind to actually regard it as a 'person'.

A life, yes - and a human life, genetically, at that. But not yet a human person.

Not all pro-lifers take the extreme position that the fetus is a person - that is an unfortunate caricature made by some opponents and expressed by some proponents. Even today, the Catholic Church does not teach that we can be sure that the embryo is animated at the point of conception. The stance actually goes that probabilism may not be used where human life may be at stake, thus the 1992 Catholic Catechism notes that the embryo must be treated from conception "tamquam, "as if a human person". That's an important qualifier. It further states that: "the church has not determined officially when personhood actually begins" and respect for life at all stages, even potential life, is generally the context of church documents.

This is where it is useful to distinguish "humanism" from "personalism". Humanism actually implies dignity for all human life-forms, whether or not they are actually persons. Personalism, however, is potentially broader if one envisages non-human persons (such as hypothetical extra-terrestrials). But the terms are bandied around so loosely and imprecisely these days.

Must the notion of person rest on something that is unchanging through-out our lives? ​

Personhood is an innate and inviolable quality. Once a person, always a person. From a legal and moral standpoint, brain damage does not annul the rights of personhood, given that the individual would still be a fully-functioning person minus that malady and is a member of a species of persons.

 

[Jollybear]

What does it mean to be a "person"? How would you define that term? Why would you define it that way?

I notice that Wikipedia defines the term as:

"...a being that has certain capacities or attributes such as reason, morality, consciousness or self-consciousness, and being a part of a culturally established form of social relations such as kinship, ownership of property, or legal responsibility."​

That strikes me as somewhat vague, but Wikipedia does note that "...what makes a person count as a person differ widely among cultures and contexts." That's true. Japanese friends of mine tend to have a very different notion of "person" than I do, for instance.

The Concept of Person in Psychology

So far as I know, the traditional concept of a person in psychology has been challenged in recent years by some psychologists. Among other reasons, they point out that people seem to be a mass of contradictions. That is, the same "person" can be both kind and cruel, intelligent and stupid, funny and grim, and so forth. Which makes them suspect the traditional concept of a person as based too much on the notion there is some unchanging core to people.

Some Questions

Can the concept of what it means to be a person be stretched too far? For instance, the US Supreme Court has ruled that corporations are "persons" in at least some ways? Does that make sense to you?

Again, some people feel that both an adult human and a fetus are persons. Does that make sense to you?

Must the notion of person rest on something that is unchanging through-out our lives?

Questions? Comments?[/S]

I think a corporation being deemed a person by the supreme court is not only wrong, but a reckless judgement.

It gives a corporation the same rights as any real person (human) thus if the need of the human comes against the need or want of the corporation, then it has equel power and the corporation would likely have more power given that its wealthy.

 

[Audie]

I think a corporation being deemed a person by the supreme court is not only wrong, but a reckless judgement.

It gives a corporation the same rights as any real person (human) thus if the need of the human comes against the need or want of the corporation, then it has equel power and the corporation would likely have more power given that its wealthy.

The Supremes are not noted for reckless behaviour.

Do you know the arguments?

 

[Revoltingest]

I think a corporation being deemed a person by the supreme court is not only wrong, but a reckless judgement.

It gives a corporation the same rights as any real person (human) thus if the need of the human comes against the need or want of the corporation, then it has equel power and the corporation would likely have more power given that its wealthy.

The USSC didn't actually equate being a person with being a corporation.
It's about corporation having some of the rights of persons.
(This makes sense because corporations are people coming together
for some purpose, eg, business, political parties, charity.)
This is a very old legal concept which many people were simply unaware
of before the ruling. Example: Corporations can sue & be sued in court.
But they cannot vote or marry.
Ref....
Corporate personhood - Wikipedia

Thus, corporations don't appear to relate to the OP.
(But robots some day might.)

 

[PureX]

I think we do need to keep this definition somewhat open and unspecified, as the nature and character of a "person" varies widely. Yet we would want to be fully inclusive (for obvious reasons). But I do think there are a few basic attributes that would be considered universal, and tat we could use as a basis for establishing a definition of personhood.

Principally, I think personhood requires existential autonomy.

1. ... having an awareness and conception of a "self" apart from a collective or an environment.
2. ... having a will in relation to 'self', even if unable to exercise it.
3. ... being able to recognize the existence of other autonomous 'selves' in relation to one's own.​

I think if we start trying to include reason, character,morality, and so on, we will invite a propensity for bias that would defeat the functional purpose of creating such a definition.

 

[Jollybear]

The Supremes are not noted for reckless behaviour.

Do you know the arguments?

No, please tell me the arguments?

 

[Jollybear]

The USSC didn't actually equate being a person with being a corporation.
It's about corporation having some of the rights of persons.
(This makes sense because corporations are people coming together
for some purpose, eg, business, political parties, charity.)
This is a very old legal concept which many people were simply unaware
of before the ruling. Example: Corporations can sue & be sued in court.
But they cannot vote or marry.
Ref....
Corporate personhood - Wikipedia

Thus, corporations don't appear to relate to the OP.
(But robots some day might.)

Well in that case, in the case of corporations being defined as many persons (many humans) then thats different then just the mere inanimate object of a corporation.

But then begs the question, whos rights or needs should trump the other? The many humans or the one human?

And of course this question makes no sense without a context. Wed need to figure out a scenario here.

 

[Audie]

I think we do need to keep this definition somewhat open and unspecified, as the nature and character of a "person" varies widely. Yet we would want to be fully inclusive (for obvious reasons). But I do think there are a few basic attributes that would be considered universal, and tat we could use as a basis for establishing a definition of personhood.

Principally, I think personhood requires existential autonomy.

1. ... having an awareness and conception of a "self" apart from a collective or an environment.
2. ... having a will in relation to 'self', even if unable to exercise it.
3. ... being able to recognize the existence of other autonomous 'selves' in relation to one's own.​

I think if we start trying to include reason, character,morality, and so on, we will invite a propensity for bias that would defeat the functional purpose of creating such a definition.

So does a person cease to be a person while asleep?

How about intelligent animals such as dolphins, that
meet your criteria?

How about the unborn? They become 1% of a
person at a certain age, then higher percents
until some time after birth?

Then later, in diminishing percents?

 

[Audie]

No, please tell me the arguments?

I will let you do that for yourself, oh reckless one!

 

[Shadow Link]

Must the notion of person rest on something that is unchanging through-out our lives? [/S]

Depends on how conglomerate something is that one chooses to rest on. People have many different needs.

 

[David T]

What does it mean to be a "person"? How would you define that term? Why would you define it that way?

I notice that Wikipedia defines the term as:

"...a being that has certain capacities or attributes such as reason, morality, consciousness or self-consciousness, and being a part of a culturally established form of social relations such as kinship, ownership of property, or legal responsibility."​

That strikes me as somewhat vague, but Wikipedia does note that "...what makes a person count as a person differ widely among cultures and contexts." That's true. Japanese friends of mine tend to have a very different notion of "person" than I do, for instance.

The Concept of Person in Psychology

So far as I know, the traditional concept of a person in psychology has been challenged in recent years by some psychologists. Among other reasons, they point out that people seem to be a mass of contradictions. That is, the same "person" can be both kind and cruel, intelligent and stupid, funny and grim, and so forth. Which makes them suspect the traditional concept of a person as based too much on the notion there is some unchanging core to people.

Some Questions

Can the concept of what it means to be a person be stretched too far? For instance, the US Supreme Court has ruled that corporations are "persons" in at least some ways? Does that make sense to you?

Again, some people feel that both an adult human and a fetus are persons. Does that make sense to you?

Must the notion of person rest on something that is unchanging through-out our lives?

Questions? Comments?[/S]

For me carl rogers summed it up. I suppose i can explain how that relates to the topic person but that is long winded usually.

"Experience is, for me, the highest authority. The touchstone of validity is my own experience. No other person's ideas, and none of my own ideas, are as authoritative as my experience. It is to experience that I must return again and again, to discover a closer approximation to truth as it is in the process of becoming in me. Neither the Bible nor the prophets -- neither Freud nor research -- neither the revelations of God nor man -- can take precedence over my own direct experience. My experience is not authoritative because it is infallible. It is the basis of authority because it can always be checked in new primary ways. In this way its frequent error or fallibility is always open to correction."
Carl rogers.

 

[Jollybear]

I will let you do that for yourself, oh reckless one!

I dont want to google it. I want to Audie it, lol

 

[PureX]

So does a person cease to be a person while asleep?

I know of nothing about being asleep that would deny one's existential autonomy.

How about intelligent animals such as dolphins, that meet your criteria?

Until we can read their thoughts, we can only guess as to the degree of their "personhood".

How about the unborn? They become 1% of a person at a certain age, then higher percents
until some time after birth?

We do not currently have a means of determining these criteria in developing fetuses. Which is why abortion inspires so much disagreement and controversy. It is clear that at some point in the development these criteria will emerge, but exactly when remains a mystery to us.

Then later, in diminishing percents?

Degree of personhood would be a matter that we would still have to grapple with. Reality often does not obey our ideation of it. But that doesn't dispel the effectiveness or usefulness of our creating and implementing these ideas. We do the best we can with what we have until we learn more.

 

[Audie]

I know of nothing about being asleep that would deny one's existential autonomy.
Until we can read their thoughts, we can only guess as to the degree of their "personhood".
We do not currently have a means of determining these criteria in developing fetuses. Which is why abortion inspires so much disagreement and controversy. It is clear that at some point in the development these criteria will emerge, but exactly when remains a mystery to us.
Degree of personhood would be a matter that we would still have to grapple with. Reality often does not obey our ideation of it. But that doesn't dispel the effectiveness or usefulness of our creating and implementing these ideas. We do the best we can with what we have until we learn more.

As in, so much for your points 1, 2, and, 3.

 

[PureX]

As in, so much for your points 1, 2, and, 3.

You really don't like me, do you. As you always seem to go to great lengths to find some way of dismissing anything I post.

 

[Curious George]

Some Questions

Can the concept of what it means to be a person be stretched too far? For instance, the US Supreme Court has ruled that corporations are "persons" in at least some ways? Does that make sense to you?

Questions? Comments?[/S]

Yes. But i think you would do well to research this more. Firstly, the law does make a distinction between natural persons and legal persons. Corporations are legal recognized entities that are not natural persons. Using the term person to reflect natural persons and then contrasting that with persons to reflect legal persons is an equivocation.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well in that case, in the case of corporations being defined as many persons (many humans) then thats different then just the mere inanimate object of a corporation.

But then begs the question, whos rights or needs should trump the other? The many humans or the one human?

And of course this question makes no sense without a context. Wed need to figure out a scenario here.

We could, but that should be in a different thread, lest we derail this one.

 

[Audie]

You really don't like me, do you. As you always seem to go to great lengths to find some way of dismissing anything I post.

"Casual flick"

 

[Jollybear]

We could, but that should be in a different thread, lest we derail this one.

Fair enough!