Personhood .com



PersonhoodOct 20th, 20161. Noonan’s Genetic Criterion of PersonhoodGenetic criterion: Whatever has human DNAs is a person.—Obviously reject, focuses too much on the biological aspect, excluding those who have undergone genetic mutation2. Cognitive Criteria of PersonhoodThe Cognitive Criteria are as follows:1. Consciousness2. Reasoning3. Self-motivated activity4. The capacity to communicate5. Self-awarenessThe advantages of this theory:- Solves the problem that non-humans can’t be persons- Justifies abortion, because according to these criteria, fetuses aren’t persons. (p.s. from a extremely conservative view, is this truly an advantage?)The disadvantage: focuses too much on the cognitive (intellectual capacity), Excluding babies, people in vegetative states, and those suffering mental disorderQ: does a being need to be in the state of doing all these congnitive functioning in order to be recognised as a person? If I am sleeping, I am not conscious/reasoning/acting/communicating/self-aware, then am I not a person?A: A being only requires the capability of these cognitive functionings in order to have personhood.2.1. Examining the congnitive criteriaSelf awarenessQ: Do babies have self-awareness?A: little babies look at themselves in the mirror and don’t know that it is themselves. Does this mean babies aren’t persons? (See gradient theory)Capacity to communicate—How to interpret this criterion?Interpretation 1: the ability to speak languages and logos are what distinguish persons from non-persons.Q1: But different languages work differently. How do you pinpoint language?A1: All languages have similar syntaxes that are A Priori, and given that we can translate a language into another, it is proof that languages are pretty much the same.Q2: What about primitive people who haven’t invented languages? Are they not persons then?A2: They still communicate relatively complex ideas with logos, so they count as persons.Q3: What if humans are modified in the way that they can communicate teleopathically (with brain waves)? Are they not persons then?A3: Maybe it’s not about how persons communicate, maybe it’s about what they communicate.Although logos seems to exist solely within the human language, this again shifts the debate back to the biological side since logos seems to exist only within human brains.Interpretation 2: the complexity (?) of communication distinguishes persons from non-persons.Solves the brain-wave communication problemDefining the human language based on content will qualify all those who have the ability to understand intellectual, spiritual, philosophical discussions as persons, resolving the issue raised in the thought experiment.3. Social criterionDisadvantages:danger of infinite regressionexcludes people with no social relationshipssuggests non-people beings could be classified as persons when they are considered to be ‘meaningful’ to those who are already people4. The Gradient Theory of PersonhoodGradient Theory: maybe personhood is not black and white. Maybe there is a gradient of personhood. Some have a high level of personhood, while some others may have a low level of personhood, depending on how much they meet the criteria in CCP.Agreed that personhood comes in degrees.The advantages of this theory:- Elegantly accounts for the difference between the mother and the fetus: the fetus has a lower degree of personhood then the mother, therefore it is justified to sacrifice the fetus for the mother. (detailed argument seen below)- Accounts for relatively intelligent animals such as dolphins.- Accounts for one’s growth from a child to an adult.Possible measurements of degree of personhoodAge: one may have age without any enlightenmentExperience: Amount of experience? Quality of experience? Range of experience?Morality: How to define good and bad? Is it even possible to define them?Applying This theory1) Abortion is justified, because:a) the mother is more of a person than the fetus, so if either mother or the fetus has to die, saving mother is more justified.b) Since the mother wants abortion, she clearly does not want to raise the baby. Therefore, the baby, if born, will be raised in a bad environment, where the mother may not be physically capable of supporting the child’s growth or may not be willing to raise the child, resulting in an unfortunate childhood.2) BabiesAccording to the gradient theory, babies are still persons, they just have lower levels of personhood than adults, because they are less developed with regards to the cognitive criteria.3) Relatively intelligent animals, such as dolphinsDophins may be persons, since they are relatively intelligent and can communicate with each other. But they have a lower degree of personhood.Q: but dolphins aren’t treated as persons.A: they can be treated as persons if they ask for personhood.5. Some interesting problems1) Based on the cognitive criteria, assuming there is a god-like figure, capable of far more than human beings with regards to every cognitive criterion. This god-like figure, according to the cognitive criteria, is treated as a person. Wouldn’t such a god-like figure be offended, since “person” is such a low level of being, compared to what the god-like figure is capable of?A: According to the gradient theory, God may have a very high level of personhood, that surpasses human beings’ personhood by a lot. We may call it Godhood. But essentially it is still personhood, but just on a very high level.2) According to the gradient theory, if being has a higher capability of doing the cognitive functioning (i.e.: consciousness/reasoning/self-motivated activity/communication/self-awareness), then this will correspond to a higher level of personhood. So, Mother has more life experience than me. She can handle things better than me, because she’s been around. Therefore, she is more capable of reasoning than me. So, does this mean that Mother has a higher level of personhood than me? If so, does this mean that Mother has more human rights than I do?A: maybe the gradient theory suggests the potential level of development in the congnitive functionings, rather than the actual level of development. In this case, although mother is more experienced than me in reasoning, I might have the same potential with Mother. So gradient theory does not mean that Mother has more human rights than I do.6. ResolutionPotentiality: assuming that one has not undergone genetic mutation, if one is born with the potentiality of having high-enough cognitive abilities, one should be classified as a person being.AdvantagesIncludes babies, those with disabilities, and suchIncludes those who are temporarily unconscious (i.e. blacked out/sleeping)Includes alien creatures who may have different genetic codes to humansDisadvantagesPeople in vegetative states?Potentiality + Degrees of personhoodAdvantagesAvoids easy-abortion on the grounds that a mother has a higher degree of personhood than the babyDisadvantagesCannot decide prioritize the importance between the ‘already acquired personhood’ and the ‘potentiality of acquiring personhood’Possibly overlooks the personhood of the elders who do not have many days to live but are arguably wiser than mostPersonhood as a continuous variable with a defined rangeAny degree of development below personhood can no longer be classified as part of personhood.Could possibly include: animals, insects, fish etc.Any degree of development above personhood can no longer be classified as part of personhoodCould possibly include: god, perfected AIPersonhood is a continuous variable only within the orange-range; becomes discontinuous in the black and the green ranges.A lack of personhood does not mean a being has zero-degree of development, suggesting animals also deserve respectArtificial Intelligence may never be persons, because once they acquire the capabilities of persons they are likely to develop beyond the development range of personhood. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download