Personhood: Crash Course Philosophy #21
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 вер 2024
- Now that we’ve started talking about identity, today Hank tackles the question of personhood. Philosophers have tried to assess what constitutes personhood with a variety of different criteria, including genetic, cognitive, social, sentience, and the gradient theory. As with many of philosophy’s great questions, this has much broader implications than simple conjecture. The way we answer this question informs all sorts of things about the way we move about the world, including our views on some of our greatest social debates.
--
All other images via Wikimedia Commons, licensed under Creative Commons BY 4.0: creativecommon...
--
Produced in collaboration with PBS Digital Studios: / pbsdigitalstudios
Crash Course Philosophy is sponsored by Squarespace.
www.squarespace...
--
Want to find Crash Course elsewhere on the internet?
Facebook - / youtubecrashc. .
Twitter - / thecrashcourse
Tumblr - / thecrashcourse
Support CrashCourse on Patreon: / crashcourse
CC Kids: / crashcoursekids
5:20 Child abuse and extreme bullying survivor here. I can confirm this view to be true. When you are not recognized as a person be anyone around you, arguing in favour or you being a person is completely useless. Really, the thing is that when a capable, fully functioning human is denied personhood, the morally correct thing to do is to offer a helping hand by caring about that non-person, restoring their personhood in the process. I am eternally grateful for the person who did that to me
Crashcourse philosophy has been truly masterful at handling difficult topics in a very rational way. Keep up the good work.
Regarding the gradient theory of personhood, how do you determine where someone falls on that gradient? If we take that theory in conjunction with Singer's theory (since they don't appear to be mutually exclusive theories), then a cow may be considered more of a person than a week-old fetus, since the cow at least has the capacity to feel pain and pleasure, whereas the fetus does not. In which case, abortion of a fetus in the early stages of development has no more of a moral implication than slaughtering a cow for meat.
On the other hand, it may in fact make the matter of slaughtering animals such as cows for meat even more controversial, since cows have now been promoted to persons and killing them could be considered murder. To go even further, if we believe that persons can forfeit their personhood by committing grievous acts against other persons (like murder), then a lion (which is now technically a person since it can feel pain and pleasure) hunting and killing a gazelle (also now a person) is forfeiting its personhood by killing another person. But since lions are cold-blooded animals and must kill other animals (mostly persons) to survive they can never be persons, since their survival precludes their ability to be persons.
Therefore, a person cannot be defined by its ability to feel pain and pleasure if persons are also capable of forfeiting their personhood through seriously immoral acts against other persons. By extension, all carnivores have forfeited their personhood by murdering other people (that is, if they have killed the animal themselves).
Thanks to Crash Course Philosophy, is now my favorite subject.
Thanks to Crash Course, Philosophy is now my favorite subject.
Thanks to Philosophy, Crash Course is now my subject favorite.
I knew that would attract the grammar Nazi's!
Like fish ya took the bait!
***** Bait you took fish like!
Thank you Crash Course Philosophy. This is now my favourite subject.
he had glasses in his mother's womb
aye
@@obitavora7478 foxy the pirates animatronic?! Is that you????!!!!!
My problem with Personhood is we only have one real example, Us.
A sample size of one is difficult to examine. That's why I've always been fascinated by Neanderthals. In many ways they were very different than us but we would seem to give them personhood.
I don't think it is necessary to take away one's personhood in order to punish them for their actions. ...It is by their being people that they can be punished for what they have done.
If you take away their personhood, it is like you are trying to punish a rock for not being a tree.
Yeah. We are mad at Hitler for example because he was a person and he did what he did.
Agreed! As explained in the past episodes, "personhood" changes from time to time. I don't think that murderers and rapists HAVE to be that way forever. And if you're a theist of some sort, taking someone's "personhood" shouldn't be an ability anyway.
Agree, with some exception. When we find fault with a human we find a way to demonize and they become a bad person or an evil person. When we find fault with other fauna we tend to forget they have personalities and become to us mindless beasts. Certain "primitive" cultures still refer to what we think of animals as a monkey person or an elephant person for example. This, to me, suggests a combination of instinctive self preservation coupled with a trained response to a such a "person".
Warren's criteria also excludes about a third of humanity at any given point... you know, the part that's -asleep-, as in, not conscious, not able to communicate and definitely not self-aware.
+
+
Being asleep isn't the same thing as being unconscious. I'd also wager that the thought process only excludes you from personhood if you permanently lack one of the criteria, which would not be the case for people who are simply asleep.
FamAD 123 I thought of this, the problem with the "permanently" argument is that, by that logic, fetuses SHOULD be people, since after a few months, they will be conscious and all that. And what about coma patients? In that case, you just don't KNOW if they'll ever wake up for sure, so are they people or not?
When can you say somebody looses their personhood, when can you say they permanently lack one of these? I mean we're not time travelers so we don't know if the person who got hit by a bat and has been out cold for a few hours will wake up. So are they not a person? Maybe they loose it after a week of not waking up? Such a thing does not stand until such an important factor is included.
"I'm sure no one in the comments will be shouting their opinion at all" - LOL thanks Hank, I just spat my porridge all over my phone at that line! 😂
It is extremely brave of you to make this episode.
+
how is it brave to make this episode?
In order for Crash Course to be brave to produce this video they would need to have fear. This particular series has covered a wide range of controversial topic already that could be more dangerous in the current period of history. The fact that it is a complicated subject does not make one brave to discuss it... especially in a video format on a public domain. The video could be described as brave if they would have taken a firm stance on exactly what defines personhood and argued for that sake at the risk of repercussion. Since there is no possible repercussion from this video there was nothing that required bravery. It is an extremely well thought out video and a great discussion starter...but not brave.
+Brian Griffin My guess would be that because this is a hot button issue it's kinda risky to bring it up. But I think that bravery comes from taking a stance on a subject rather than discussing something that should and is constantly being debated and considered. Not to say that somebody somewhere didn't get their knickers in a twist and add the bookshelves to their hit list because a group of people decided to actually present something for consideration and *gasp* allow people to draw their own conclusions.
+Will Plume So yeah, I guess it is kinda brave. Mayhaps I need not be such a muscle brained purist.
Cognitive also calls into question if we're still persons when asleep.
Great series! Keep it up! To the description or to the videos themselves you should add a suggested readings section or additional information area about the video, so people with interest in that topic can find out more about it.
Thanks to Crash Course for helping me through philosophy class this semester in an engaging way. I can imagine I'll continue to use this channel throughout college and beyond :)
Everyone should watch "Unplanned". It answers so much!
As a pro-lifer, it’s so unrealistic and flawed lmao
@@mopolitics8158 This movie mirrors all the research that I have done including the testimonies from 3 girls who I have known personally since grade school, plus all the testimonies from past abortion doctors, past abortion workers, abortion survivors, to the mothers and fathers themselves. There are literally thousands upon thousands of similar testimonies from all over the U.S., let alone the world. Why do you not believe all these people? Why do you think that they are all lying?
I challenge you to prove scientifically what is unrealistic and flawed about this movie, not some generalization, insults, or opinions, but real peer reviewed scientific evidence. I wonder if you even watched this movie or not. If you haven't watched it, you can watch it for free on Amazon Prime Videos.
This is the kind of class I wish I would have taken in college, but it never would have happened at my conservative Christian university. Thank you very much for saying that this was hard to talk about. That shows me you have empathy for how it feels for those who want to explore what these parts of existence mean.
I wish this episode was longer. These are some extremely fascinating ideas and I feel like you didn't have enough time to discuss the arguments for and against each idea of personhood. Is there any recommended reading out there that can compare these definitions in greater detail? Great episode! Definitely got me thinking.
i think Data is a person and Commander Maddox shouldn't be allowed to take him apart to study his brain!
But was Data right to deactivate Lore?
+aperson22222 +
Yes, I believe Lore surrendered his personhood when he tried to kill the whole of the Enterprise and its several thousand crew members.
Joshua Guillemette Elsewhere on the comments section of the video I pointed out that leaving the phrase "moral responsibility" undefined really hampers this discussion. Here you say that Lore's immoral actions earned him death. Fair enough, that's a consistent application of the real-world justification of capital punishment.
You further say that this is acceptable because Lore forfeited his personhood by his actions. Well all right, but I must ask: Is it ever acceptable to kill someone _without_ first demonstrating their non-personhood? A person is someone to whom we are morally responsible, but does moral responsibility include an obligation to avoid ending a person's life at all costs?
I'm not at all sure it does. And I think that challenging the idea that it does could potentially create a far more nuanced and robust debate on the capital punishment issue.
+aperson22222 You're right. Our Judeo-Christian morality comes with conflicting ideas. 'Thou shalt not kill' doesn't sit easily with "thou shalt not suffer (X) to live". Hence, capital punishment at any level is a conflicted issue.
They really are super considerate about sensitive issues. I love how great they do at really staying neutral
I have some questions, I'm truly and honestly not implying anything, but I found these questions to be interesting to think about, and would like to know your perspectives too, if you would honor me:
About cognitive criteria:
1- Do you need to have all or at least 1(or x)?
2- Is a man sleeping or unconscious a person?
3- Can a table be a person capable of reasoning, but incapable of communication?
4(3)- Can all these criteria be summarized to ability to communicate?
Social criteria:
1- Does this allow for multiple levels of person hood? (is a hit singer more of a person than me, as more people care for him.)
2- Is this perspective recognizing the belief of majority as the ultimate truth?
3- Does the person who cares about you also have to be a person?(Can I claim a table cares about me, or the sun?)
4(if 3)- Who is the person whose person hood doesn't depend on another? Who is The First person?(damn it, god get out of here)
The capacity to suffer:
1-Does that mean some one who is unconscious is not a person?
2-What role does the ability to communicate pain play in this?(How to recognize a suffering creature unable to communicate?)
3-Does it mean later moral conclusion would only apply if suffering is involved, and not when harm is evolved?
Gradient theory:
1- What is measurement of Personhood?(Damn, this one just expands the question)
hear are some possibilities:
i- Remaining lifetime: An Embryo is more person than all of us.
ii- Power: in which case anyone with ability to end another is more of a person than the other. like a mother.
iii- Toughness: In this case a table is more of a person than all of us.
Also maybe a semantic point(specially since English is not my language this is really in my interest,) I thought rights are attached to you except if you refuse to receive them, and at any points you can ask them to be given to you(as in america right or receiving a trial by pears is a thing I hear.) I was expecting the word privilege to be used in explaining ones ability to loose his/her/its personhood.
As an abortion abolitionist and somewhat of an amateur philosopher, I really enjoyed your fair, unbiased presentation of this issue. I have genuinely never heard a truly unbiased laying out of these positions until now. Well done. Love your science videos as well.
Austin Henning may I ask why you want abortion abolished?
Rude
Sydney Freeman "To their bodies", something I always here from you feminists, nothing but selfish women and men who conform to the feminist ideology. You can do what you want to "your" body, but you definitely shouldn't have the right to someone else's life, being an unborn child. Though not considered a person in terms of this video, a human is a human, no matter how small. No reason can justify the murder of unborn babies.
Sydney Freeman I suggest you look up information on abortions from both perspectives in terms of abortion and what really happens during one.
Sydney Freeman In your opinion, how exactly is "bodily autonomy" a determing factor in terms of abortion? How does it justify the ending of a HUMAN life, without regards as to whether a human fetus is a person or not?
I really love this series! Hank in general is amazing and I just recently discovered this, and it is still so useful even 6 years later! I love how you consider very difficult questions while presenting different views. It really helps me think about these very important ideas! Most people just ignore them because they are too hard and confusing, but their answers play such a vital role in society that I wish more people would. Thanks, Hank! ❤🤔💭
So the railroad is right, synths are people.
Synth Lives Matter
+
As the institute director of the "slaver" of sinths but thay are the best hope for humanity
Railroad were the best. If only the actual story of Fallout 4 was better, they might have had more depth to them like the Institute...
#GradientTheoryOfPersonhood
Nicely Done Hank. Not an easy subject to do well but you and the teams have given us food for thought.
One of my favourite things to do is go to one of these videos, scroll down and just enjoy the debates :)
I know I'm late to the party but I just want to say thanks for these videos, you guys deserve all the credit people give you!!!!
*Scrolls through comments, smiling* This is why I love this community so much...
Oh man, I can't even WAIT for Ethics. one of my favorite subjects.
Please consider "Crash Course Theology". I would love that!
It would have to be pretty good. Misrepresentation is just too easy.
I'm flashing back to my time watching Smallville after this week's Flash Philosophy. Awesome episode guys, love this series.
Crash course should be viewed in school classrooms and taught in the curriculum.
CC sociology!!
Pls
+
+
+Nicole Feltman What's the deal with this plus sing?
Is it a new trend?
hank green started that to trick the youtube alogythm. it supports good comments to go up in the comment section over the controversial ones that provoke people into answering. there have been complains of course because it makes debates harder but there now is a plugin that stops showing you comments with only a plus sign. also i like your idea so you get a + from me two ;-)
william41017 ^ basically exactly what I was going to say, lol. Yeah Hank started it after he made a "controversial" video and wanted to keep the comments positive and inventive.
i really like the gradiant theory. it allows for all animal and things to have some degree of personhood, aliens, apes, robots, dogs trees, stones(?). I also like the idea of humans growing in personhood. what i personally don't agree with is the idea of loosing personhood other then through death.
I tend to combine Warren's criteria, or another set of criteria outlined by a Thomas I. White, with the gradient theory. We can then say that something's personhood is relative to the number of criteria that they meet at any given point. You can then look at the issue of conciousness during sleep by saying that sleep is a predictable function, we know it will happen, and we know it will stop, usually, therefore we can ignore that state because it doesn't define that individual. The conclusion of this is that something's personhood is defined by its state that meets the greatest number, or greatest value (if you don't consider all criteria equal), of criteria during a predictable and repeated cycle.
Watching this all I can think is that I would consider myself a people person
who else have played The Talos principle ?
+
sublime game
Me 😍
Yes! I also felt like SOMA raised a lot of similar questions, although in a different way. Both games really left me thinking...
Jón Aron Lundberg I'll have to check SOMA! seams like I should not play this game before going to sleep tho
Thank you very much Crash Course and Hank Green! This is an issue I've been thinking about for a long time and I think that It will be helpful for me to think about Personhood as ability to suffer on a gradient scale as a new solution to explore. hank you for introducing me to a new perspective!
One way of examining Mary Ann Warren's idea of being "cared about" is a reciprocal person stance. You don't need people to directly care for you, but people need to regard you as a person. IE - a robot with an idea that it is a person would not count, neither would a bird who has imprinted as a baby and thinks a human is it's mother.
I agree with Peter Singer. I find it silly to care about hurting something or wanting to please something that cannot feel the pain or pleasure.
+
+
+
Just to play Devil's Advocate, what are your feelings concerning eating animals? If they have a sufficiently developed nervous system (and most animals we eat do), then they are sentient and deserve moral consideration. How then can we justify treating them the way we do, what with factory farms and the like making their lives miserable? Would you propose a sliding scale of personhood, or would you advocate for more vegetarians/vegans, or something else entirely?
"How then can we justify treating them the way we do, what with factory farms and the like making their lives miserable?"
I couldn't justify it, so I became a vegetarian. Have been one for over a year.
".. Some Beings have more Personhood then Others." Reminds me of "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
It seems to me that the most intuitive answer is that a Person is any being that can make moral judgments, and this can definitely happen on a gradient. As far as I can tell this would include most great apes, many dogs, and most people except very young babies, and very mentally ill or old people. It sort of goes with with the question "Why should I care about you if you CAN'T care about me?"
Will there ever be a crash course mathematic ?
Good topic. How math and the understanding of numbers have evolved and appeared in Multiple civilizations and cultures throughout the world. "0" , Geometry to Algebra. Also, Different counting systems (calendars etc)
Probably because eventually they'll run out of ideas!
There's quite a bit of math in Crash Course Physics.
Mathematic is not as interesting as other subjects so i guess not. Also mathematic is all about practicing.. if you need to study math check out Khan academy.. they are the best in my opinion.
***** it's common opinion...
Alberta's "Famous 5" were petitioners in the groundbreaking Persons Case. Led by judge Emily Murphy, the group included Henrietta Muir Edwards, Nellie McClung, Louise Crummy McKinney and Irene Parlby.
I think the Social Criterion is the one that catches most, but without the second clause, just the first one. "You are a person whenever society recognizes you as a person", period, no "someone cares about you". I like it because I think it truly matches what we call a person, since morals are a social construct, then it makes perfect sense for a "being that deserves moral consideration" to be also defined by society.
With this criterion, you also remove the issue of the lonely person since, regardless of how lonely you are, if someone sees you, they will consider you a person.
it's probably relevant to mention the legal/judicial doctrine of "corporate personhood" for business corporations.
Lawyers and Lobbyists argued that certain collective groups, or legal charters or contracts defining a collective group, consisting of 4 officers, some capital investment, property rights, legal boundaries and protections, is itself a "Person" and entitled to all legal protections owed to human natural persons.
Of course this legal precedent mostly applies to major court cases, so applying to larger corporations with large law departments.
See Ted Nace book, Gangs of America.
I think this is the most important episode of crash course philosophy so far. I think he is correct to say that our understanding of the personhood of the unborn should inform our views on abortion. I do think that a fetus is a person because I have felt a strong sense of love for my unborn children. It would inconsistent for me to say that my children are people before they are born but unwanted fetuses are not people. It then follows that if a fetus is a person regardless of whether they are wanted, then they are deserving of love and legal protection. My intent is not to condemn anyone who has had an abortion but I think we all should be a lot less ok with abortion on demand. To say that abortion is a right under any circumstances seems indefensible to me if we think that there is even a possibility that a fetus is a person.
3:21 “I’m sure no one in the comments will be shouting their opinions on the matter at all”
Looking at you
A person is anyone or anything that can communicate ideas, affect emotions and influence our behavior through the same neural pathways that humans have adapted for social behavior with other humans.
So how do you define the term "human" in "that humans have adapted for social behavior with other humans" ?
A PET scan would show a non-person pattern for the insect or rock.
If it can't ask what a person is, it's not human.
***** So....People who have brain damage no human..?
I think one's theory of personhood *should* exclude things you want in, and/or include things you want out. It shows a level of willingness to think through the ramifications of things without just relying on your own prejudices.
Great video. On the topic of abortion, I agree more so with the gradient theory. I'm against abortion, but don't believe I have a right to tell a woman what to do with her body. I agree insofar as, even if a fetus may have a lower level of personhood, that fetus has the high potential to develop personhood in the future if it were not to be aborted. Considering the high likely hood of personhood in the future, it is morally wrong to kill off the potentiality of personhood, even if the being in question, hasn't fully developed it yet. Just like a person who has a horrible infection in their foot. It would be easy to just cut off the foot and get rid of the infection immediately, however, if there remains a high chance that the foot can recover, then cutting the foot off right away is the wrong choice.
MY personhood is HUGE!
I don´t know if you see this, but the GENETIC argument is the strongest of the four: It can be tested empirically, and yeah, you cannot include Superman or Daeneris, but probably they dont care. Plus, if you add the factor: Uniqueness of the DNA (a human INDIVIDUAL), you can consider your cells to be part of the same person, which kind of make sense. All other arguments are highly subjective, because they cannot be tested: Where is located the "concience"?, what is "feeling"? (a worm has a central nervouse system (just simpler), and some scientist say plants feel more than us).
One aspect of personhood I consider which is missing here is what I would call "potential personhood". For instance a dog has the intelligence of a 4 to 5 year old human, so does this mean that a dog is more of a person than an infant? I think not, we put more personhood into an infant than we do a dog because that infant has the potential to be more of a person than a dog, but a dog has already reached their maximum potential after maturing from a puppy.
There are also others out there which view personhood at beginning even before conception; they recognize personhood at the moment there is the chance of developing a person.
I think the matter of personhood, in the gradient scale case should be measured not in the sense of who has more or who has less but in the sense of who is more balanced, not too much and not too little.
I'm glad the episode talks about degrees of personhood because throughout the first half I was thinking about how I feel regarding animal welfare: I care to varying degrees about humans, cattle, spiders and bacteria. While I'd be reluctant to kill a human in all contexts except for self-preservation, I'm okay with the death of a cow for food though I still would want to spare it pain, and I prefer not to kill spiders but will readily do so if they're inconvenient enough, while I am not bothered at all about the death of bacteria. I can see my moral position towards the life of other organisms along a spectrum of sorts, so that even though I wouldn't say cows are people, I consider them more person-like (or deserving of moral consideration?) than spiders or bacteria and this is reflected in my moral attitude towards them.
No matter what it generally considered the definition of a person, I will continue to treat every human as a person, with respect, kindness, and consideration.
the only difference difference between an animal with a nervous system responding to pain as a computer running a script that goes like if (hurt) print "ouch" is complexity.
Should we even consider fictional characters as persons if the author manipulates everything from traits to setting?
9thRoyalPirateAssassin (Mystic Stirling) Say you are a religious person and your actions are controlled my god, are considered a person. Say you are a woker at a prison that still uses the death sentence, your boss (the manipulation of your decision) tells you to kill everyday. Personhood can be manipulated but not taken away. It can be created but not stolen.
Camie Neko "A new world has opened up to Mystic" ;P
It's been a while since Mystic used the internet so Mystic is trying to reply to every notification. For now, you have my gratitude.
Though it's interesting how humans tend to defy rules as long as they have support by others. Yet only few figures choose to defy the rules alone even if the price is death just to give them a wake up call. :o
Well, they aren’t persons because there is no need to give them moral consideration. They are helpful in a discussion however since characters like superman help us understand how we would feel in situations that don’t exist yet
This is one of my favorite episodes so far.
In a previous episode, it was mentioned that David Hume asserted that personal identity was an illusion, a sort of veneer over all the emotions, thoughts, memories, and values which constitute a "person". Hence, maybe personhood itself is an illusion too, a hamper as well if one attempts to determine what beings are worthy of moral consideration based on their personhood, lack, or degree thereof; an existent such as the environment or a work of art is probably worth being ethically dealt with albeit it does not adhere to any theory of personhood. So, ethics aside, what is the point of the classification "person"?
I'm having trouble creating a definition that explains why chimps and babies are people, but Donald Trump isn't.
Ha
Then you can be happy htat all 3 lack personhood.
***** That makes me feel a lot better about the time I ate chimp brains in Trump's baby-torturing lair.
Anyone with at least some form of brain activity
Nicole Feltman "Anyone" already assumes personhood.
I think A person is one that has the ability and chooses to do good towards others that have the ability to be good.
The cognitive and sentience qualifications are the most reasonable, and only need a small tweak to overcome their deficiencies. Something to indicate an acceptance of impending cognitive or sentience qualification. That way, you can preserve for children the person label, without automatically condemning coma patients.
A fetus, before full birth is not a person and therefore abortion is fine. I could elaborate, but thats my basis.
My view for that is that the fetus is like a virus, it theoretically isn't viable on its own without its host, which is why there's such a debate on whether a virus is considered a living thing or not
I'm curious, is there something in the birth process that causes personhood? What about an embryo fertilized and grown in an artificial environment? If if ever becomes technically possible to grow a fully formed adult human from artificial processes, do they never obtain personhood?
+Jenni Tran Wow just Wow
Obviously the answer is that no, there is nothing special about being born that causes personhood. And depending on what framework you define personhood in, just being born isn't enough either.
For example, for me, an infant is not a person. It's an independent living human, yes, but it has no understanding of itself, which is a trait I consider to be the most important for a person to have. Now, that doesn't mean that you can do whatever you want to said infant. Just like you can not do whatever you want to an animal, human infants just have different rights than human persons.
So, with an unborn fetus, what rights should be given to it? For the abortion debate (which is ultimately what you're getting at), I believe that persons have the right of bodily sovereignty or bodily integrity. That is to say, you have the right to choose how your body is used and who or what it is used by. For instance, the government cannot force you to donate bone marrow, blood, or a kidney, even if this was to save another person's life. On the same token, the government should not have the power to force someone to carry a fetus to term, saving its life. Therefore, the option to end the pregnancy through abortion should be legal.
With the abortion debate, it doesn't even matter if the fetus is a person or not. The mother's bodily sovereignty grants her the right to remove the fetus from her body.
+Matt Beaven they do, obviously. if an artifically incubated human fetus grows to child and adult hood they have the same rights to person hood as anyone. it is only that everyone in a fetus like state has very little peraonhoofld
It is great how it addresses all the topics especially I believe the 8th admentment in Ireland is brilliant
I love the clouds at the end, if you look you can see two faces looking at one another.
Saw Superman.......clicked.
I don't think that Warren's theory would necessarily exclude young children. They might not yet be self aware, but they're able to communicate (albeit, through crying and body language) and they're conscious. Warren stated that meeting only some of these criterion proves sufficient for personhood, meaning that you're still a person even if you don't meet all 5 stipulations.
Peter singer's view makes the most sense
I think self awareness is enough to consider something a person.
Aaaaand the ability to feel pain. There. I think I'm done.
I think that the are different levels of personhood that are jugged by how much you are like one. not arguing just putting my option out there. thank you.
3:40: "You're a person if you have human DNA"
Indominus Rex confirmed person.
Xenomorphs confirmed persons.
are there sources for whats said in the video?
Can it be reasoned with? Do you want to reason with it? Will it be possible to reason with it in the near future? Are you sure about that? On a side note, is Superman (as a comic book character) even really a person?
this is a very complicated issue, kudos for trying to tackle this
Err on the side of a wide definition. The harm done by those errors are less severe than the harm done by errors that define personhood too narrowly.
The gradient theory is problematic. If a newborn baby is less of a person than an adult does that mean they deserve less moral consideration? I think most people would disagree with that
That's the case most times when a pregnant mother delivering her baby has complications. People tend to want to save the mother if it comes down between mother vs. newborn.
is moral consideration reserved for 'persons' only? what about my poor pup?
I personally believe that newborn babies are less people than an adult, just as I am less of a person than an adult(I’m a juvenile). Like if there was a car rushing down the road and I had to choose between an adult and a baby in a carriage, I would choose an adult. (Side note here: I would save a juvenile over an adult because of greater potential to do good without heavy consequences on other, barring on further information about both parties, eg if the baby was an Einstein clone I probably would save it over a lazy adult)
"..and exclude those who you think should be excluded"
Oh boy if i were you i wouldn't encourage people to do such thing because there are peo- there are humans (?) who think exclusion of certain other humans like certain races or minorities such as the lgbt community is justified. There are humans who think someone doesn't deserve to live just because they identify as a transgender person. Encouraging people to think is important but to mindlessly shout their opinions to the void can be dangerous. I think we shouldn't encourage the thought that someone might be less of a person for who they are what they believe in or what they've done.
Dang it, if I've learned something from these videos so far is that everything can have a counter argument but that's the beauty in philosophy, really think things through in a civilized manner, I mean, in the end all we all care about is the truth so arguments and counter arguments are good.
This and a large part of philosophy is a problem with the fact we have to use language to discuss ideas. Our languages are woefully inadequate for this task.
Personally, I consider any sapient being to be a person, and any non sapient being to not be a person.
Elaborate please
So would you consider a three month old, who hasn't gained sapience yet, a person? If not is it ethical to kill them? (Not being snarky just curious)
He uses the word "sapient" which means wise. Essentially he is saying that if it is an intelligent being, it is a person. If it is not an intelligent being, it is not a person.
By this logic, most animals have no rights, and thus anything can be to done to them. We can skin a cow alive and then keep it alive without anesthetics, and it's perfectly alright because this cow is not sapient, and therefore not a person.
So a fully sapient invulnerable god-like being who can never be harmed in any way is a candidate for moral consideration?
But if the needs of the harmable conflict with the non-needs of the invulnerable (as you cannot need anything if you can't be harmed, as if you cannot be harmed in general, then you cannot be harmed by lacking something in particular), then we need not consider the non-needs of the invulnerable.
So, in practice, an invulnerable being need not be considered in any situation of moral conflict.
How, then, is that different from saying invulnerable sapient beings aren't people?
I'm curious.
I feel like personhood is some kind connected to skills of interacting meaningfully with community (of humans), understand as:
- to "find" your "place" in social structures and "act" within given restrictions
- to build/maintain relations with community and it's individuals by intended and self-motivated actions
- to be able to grasp abstractions of "god" and "evil"; of obligations and assumptions
- to use logic for predicting community reactions and it's perceptions of given actions
- to process feedback from actions and react to it "somehow" accordingly
Because we understand consequences of improving cognitive skills with growing, learning and healing; we (community) "give" presonhood to children and unconscious persons because we expect them to reach a "fully person" status in near future. Sometimes it won't happen, but once we gave it in advance, we get used to "leave it that way" and treat other similar exceptions accordingly.
My definition of personhood is neither based on biology nor morality, but POTENTIAL INTELLIGENCE. My definition is: any being who can or can potentially learn to, during its lifespan, form opinions on things AND in some way express those opinions for the consideration of others, is a "person."
However I believe personhood is irrelevant in morality. If humans were the only animals on Earth, some people would be vegetarians, some people would be cannibals.
I think personhood is something every living human is entitled to. From as soon as the human organism comes in being until they cease to exist (conception until death), regardless of their actions. The only criteria for possessing the 'right' to personhood should be being human and existing, the rest just determines how good or moral a person we are. I believe they each human deserves to hold the status of 'person', and therefore merit our moral consideration. Even the worst of our criminals should still be considered persons, in my opinion. They may be incredibly evil persons but they must still be given moral consideration; of course, they should have to face justice in doing so. But every human, to me, should possess the core and essential rights of personhood and life - the latter only being waivered where they threaten another's right to life. It should not be up to other persons to determine whether a given human has the right to personhood or not, it should just be every human's core a basic 'possession'.
What is the difference between 'self-awareness' and 'consciousness'?
in refernce to gradient personhood
what about potential personhood? a coma patient who had minimal brain function, but has a chance of recovering, or a baby who we can predict will grow into more advanced conciousness with age?
Thank you for letting me know the "the gradient theory of personhood" was actually a thing with a name; I've subscribed to it for years.
However, I disagree that personhood should be the yardstick of moral consideration in the first place. To me, personhood is determined by Warren's five criteria (or something very similar), whereas qualification for moral consideration is determined in the way Singer described; as Jeremy Bentham put it: "The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?" And both are on a gradient. For example, a young (human) child is _much_ less of a person than an adult because they can barely think or communicate, but they are only slightly less morally important because their ability to feel pain is (AFAIK) only slightly diminished compared to that same adult.
For me its easy to forget cars on the road contain personhood. I get frustrated because those hunks of metal seem lack human consideration for what is around them. Keeping in mind that those objects hold actual people in them (people who are imperfect but most likely have personhood) helps me to not become so irritated during rush hour.
I love these Philosophy courses... so good.
If "deserving of moral consideration" is what makes a person then Peter Singers view would be closest to my own. Being a person just requires the capacity to suffer. Though the gradient theory also seems obviously true to me. There are degrees of capacity to suffer.
I love this series so much.
The pain thing is flawed if we are only talking about physical pain, because it instantly excludes people who suffer from congenital insensitivity to pain. So it would have to be expanded to include emotional pain as well. And how can we tell if someone is emotionally suffering? Sometimes you can't see if someone is under emotional pain or not and if that person also happens to be unable to communicate because they are deaf and mute, then you can't say "well they told me that they are under emotional pain". This means you have to presume that the person is in fact capable of feeling some kind of pain.
I really enjoy this video, but it also depends on a societies moral spectrum. Hearing the perspectives you referenced I couldn't help but think of exceptions to this. Taking a look at societal people can be overlooked (minorities via ethnic or skin color differences and the poor) and thus exempt of personhood. On the final perspective I can see where that plays out in society as men are often granted more "personhood" or used as the baseline compared to women, as well as straight to lgbtq, white to virtually any other race, etc. The underlying issue I have with this (which I assume you may address is the ethics video) is that morality on a social level, though historically passed down via a social subset (ie religion, government, or interest groups), dictates norms but often is unaware or unconcerned with whom it excludes. If you will it functions as a type of Borg...assuming it is doing the best and aiming for the right affects on society but often steamrolling any sort of critical thought against it....even if said critical thought is an attempt to improve it.
Society cannot be the determinate of personhood, as then a country - which may or may not be representative of all people and can make mistakes - gets to influence public opinion of what a person is. Personhood is the collection of the thoughts and beliefs a person can hold. Can the potential/almost certainty of personhood be considered personhood?
I think a person is a living being that can have self awareness either in the present, past or future
Please do a math course!
Also, the gradient proposal can be found in very ancient sacred texts such as the vedas
I follow my own rule of If it can feel, try not to make it feel bad.
Therefore, personhood is relative from person to person, group to group and group to person. Variations and shifts in the appraisal can occur over time. A murder is a relative concept, a soldier can murder and be both glorified and villainized and afterwards be appraised with personhood, remain without it, or have it taken away. A consumer too can be addressed like this, if you eat meat you accept that a sentient being, that feels pleasure and fear was murdered for that meat. To some that would constitute grounds for having personhood taken away, or not depending on a case by case basis which involved interpretation and an appraisal. So therefore personhood is in fact a relative concept, dependent on the matrix of your interpretive model i.e. how you think and feel about things. To think that animals like cattle, sheep, and pigs do not feel or are not sentient is not factually accurate and is based on an ignorant understanding of the facts but that doesn't stop individuals from making conclusions and appraising things in any way they choose, freedom is afforded to many regardless of group think i.e. an appraisal. Appraisal of personhood is often biased and therefore you have to reduce it down without making moral or personal interpretations.
I would have started off that it usually framed as having 3 versions of personhood: legal, moral and cognitive. But I've always had a more fundamental problem with the functionalist perspective requiring and active or present capacity. Move away from that and some of the other problems disappear.
I think personhood extends to anyone you would assign an identity to. For instance, your dog would have an identity but the random cow in a field would not. This allows for personhood to change not only between people but within the individual. Therefore, once you pick a certain cow out of the herd and give it a name, it gains personhood because you recognize it as an individual rather than a random cow. Also, just because you have identified this particular cow as a person, it does not mean that they are a person in my eyes, as they are still a random cow.
I have read a lot of the comments listed way before mine. The topic of this lesson was and is "Personhood", is it not? So whenever we start referencing other things such as the environment I think we start to get a bit off topic. Just my opinion. As in regards to "Personhood" I am of the mindset that like many other issues in life, it is not all or nothing. It is a bit of a gradient or spectrum of sorts. I think it does have something to do with cognitive ability and I think that an adult is more of a "person" than a child...HOWEVER....That doesn't mean that we should minimize the importance of a child's life in spite of an adult's life. I agree with others comments that the more "personhood" one holds, the more individual responsibility should be expected for his or her actions. The environment effects people/persons and is affected by persons but the environment in itself is not a person. I think that to be a person of any sort one must be human first. But that's not to say that other living organisms don't matter...just not as much as people.