Being Human

“If I was once a fetus -and this human organism was, once- it seems to follow that I once
wasn’t a person. To be a person you need to have some significant mental lide, or at least
that is how most people would understand the notion of person. Maybe there will come a
time when this physical organism is still operating as an organism but has no conscious life.
Maybe at the end of my life this will be a physical organism, after the personhood has gone.
So it might seem to follow that being a person is an accidental property of mine rather than
an essential property, and that may seem to be rather an uncomfortable position, to think of
myself as not necessarily a person…

Could we not then identify the person with the developed functioning brain rather than the
whole organism? So in other words maybe we want to say that the person only comes into
existence not when the embryo is formed, not at conception, not even when there’s a very
early fetus, but when the brain starts developing, when consciousness emerges, that’s when
a person comes along, and the person is to be identified with the developed functioning
brain rather than the whole organism.”
— Peter Millican

“We present this individual for your consideration: She communicates in sign language,
using a vocabulary of over 1,000 words. She also understands spoken English and often
carries on “bilingual” conversations, responding in sign to questions asked in English. She is
learning the letters of the alphabet, and can read some printed words, including her own
name. She has achieved scores between 85 and 95 on the Stanford-Binet Intelligence test.

She demonstrates a clear self-awareness by engaging in self-directed behaviors in front of a

mirror, such as making faces or examining her teeth, and by her appropriate use of self
descriptive language. She lies to avoid the consequences of her own misbehavior, and
anticipates other’s responses to her actions. She engages in imaginary play, both alone and
with others. She has produced paintings and drawings which are representational. She
remembers and can talk about past events in her life. She understands and has used
appropriately time-related words like “before”, “after”, “later”, and “yesterday”.

She laughs at her own jokes and those of others. She cries when hurt or left alone, screams
when frightened or angered. She talks about her feelings, using words like “happy”, “sad”,
“afraid”, “enjoy”, “eager”, “frustrated”, “mad” and, quite frequently, “love”, She grieves for
those she has lost —a favorite cat who has died, a friend who has gone away. She can talk
about what happens when one dies, but becomes fidgety and uncomfortable when asked to
discuss her own death or the death of her companions. She displays a wonderful gentleness
with kittens and other small animals. She has even expressed empathy for others seen only
in pictures.

Does this individual have a claim to basic moral rights? It is hard to imagine any reasonable
argument that would deny her these rights based on the description above. She is self
aware, intelligent, emotional, communicative, has memories and purposes of her own, and is
certainly able to suffer deeply. There is no reason to change our assessment of her moral
status if I add one more piece of information: namely that she is not a member of the human
species. The person I have described —and she is nothing less than a person to those who
are acquainted with her— is Koko, a twenty year old gorilla.”
—Francince Patterson and Wendy gordon

1.​ In the stimuli above, what characteristics define what a person is?
2.​ Which one of these characteristics do you think is the most important one?
3.​ Can you think of characteristics of personhood that are not identified in the extracts
above?

What is a person?

In many conventional dictionaries, a person is defined as a human being. In this essay,

however, we will unpack this view and ask whether non-human entities could also be called
“people”. We will also wonder whether absolutely all human beings could also be considered
“people”. In order to do this, we will examine the characteristics of personhood. What is it,
exactly, that makes someone or something a person? What qualities does an entity need to
possess in order to be granted personhood?

A historical perspective

It's worth noting that equating personhood with humanity in its entirety, although it may seem
obvious to most of us now, is a fairly recent phenomenon. Throughout history, many human
beings have been excluded from personhood and from the rights it could have conferred on
them. From women, disabled people and children to slaves and foreigners, it is fair to say
that in many centuries, including the most “advanced” of their time, human beings that were
considered “people” were a minority.

This is well illustrated by the following extract from an 1856 Law dictionary:

PERSON. This word applies to men, women and children, who are called natural persons. In
law, man and person are not exactly synonymous terms. A human being is a man, whether
be a member of society or not, whatever may be the rank he holds, or whatever may be his
age, sex, etc. A person is a man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with
all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties it imposes.

2. It is also used to denote a corporation which is an artificial person.

3. But when the word “persons” is spoken of in legislative acts, natural persons will be
intended, unless something appears in the context to show that it applies to artificial
persons.

4.​ Natural persons are divided into males, or men; and females or women. Men are
capable of all kinds of engagement and functions, unless by reasons applying to
particular individuals. Women cannot be appointed to any public office, nor perform
any civil functions, except those which the law specially declares them capable of
exercising.
5.​ They are also sometimes divided into free persons and slaves. Freemen are those
who have preserved their natural liberty, that is to say, who have the right of doing
 what is not forbidden by the law. A slave is one who is in the power of a master to
whom he belongs. Slaves are sometimes ranked not with persons, but with things.
But sometimes they are considered persons, for example, a negro is in
contemplation of law a person, so as to be capable of commiting riot in conjunction
with white men.
6.​ Persons are also divided into citizens (q.v.) and aliens (q.v.) when viewed with regard
to their political rights. When they are considered in relation to their civil rights, they
are living or civility dead; vide civil death; outlaws and infamous persons.
7.​ Persons are divided into legitimate and bastards, when examined as to their rights by
birth.
8.​ When viewed in their domestic relations, they are divided into parents and children;
husbands and wifes, guardians and wards; and masters and servants, as it is
understood in the law.

Answer this question

Can you think of people who, despite being human, are still not granted full personhood [in
the sense of full legal rights and responsibilities] today?

Why is personhood important?

It is very important to be able to define what makes a person, because personhood tends to
imply rights. Once a being is granted personhood, it is granted a certain dignity, respect and
basic rights such as protection from harm.

Because of the rights that are given to persons, some groups campaign for the personhood
of certain beings in order to change their social and legal status.

For instance, there are currently pro-life movements, such as Personhood USA, that
demand that embryos be recognized as persons from conception in order to ban abortion
completely. In such a case, the personhood debate has huge moral, political and social
implications. Philosophically, it is also interesting, because it asks us to think about the limits
between personhood and non personhood:when does one become a person? Do fetuses
become persons when they acquire a functioning brain, or perhaps consciousness? Or
does personhood come at birth? Or even later, when reason and cognition develop? Equally,
when does one cease to be a person? Are people in a coma or a vegetative state still
people? Are severely mentally disabled people or people with dementia persons?

Non-human beings have also been part of the personhood debate. For instance, groups
have been fighting to have certain animals. such as apes, included in the definition of
personhood, i order to protect them from torture, experimentation and captivity. Others would
like to see all non-human animals considered as persons, simply because they can suffer
and feel emotions. These people are often, politically and philosophically, at odds with those
who want embryos to be recognized as persons. Philosophically, of course, this raises the
interesting question of whether human belongs are the only ones who can be granted
personhood, and whether some animals deserve personhood more than others.
Giving non-humans personhood and rights has been a fascinating debate for a long time,
and is popular as ever today, as illustrated by science fiction and fantasy literature, films and
TV series. Many plots revolve around the treatment of vampires, human hybrids, mutants
and even aliens. Now that we touched aliens, what characteristics would aliens need to
possess for us to treat them like people?
This shows the extent to which personhood is intimately tied to rights and the protection of
the law. In this case, our usual logic is somewhat reversed: Protection by the law grants
personhood, instead of the opposite.

Of course, governments, corporations and organizations are still composed of human

beings, which can justify such an approach. However, a day may come when the
personhood debate goes much beyond human beings and even animals: with the rapid
progress of artificial intelligence, computers and robots, it is worth asking ourselves if there is
any way machines could ever gain personhood, and under what conditions. Again, this topic
has been explored in many works of science fiction, perhaps because it threatens the idea
that personhood is exclusively human and forces us to explore the limits of our humanity.

Given the implications, hopefully you can now understand why the question of “what makes
a person” is a crucial and contemporary one. Before we expire some of the characteristics
associated with personhood, here are some philosophical tools you may find particularly
useful in this chapter.

Philosophical terms

Sufficient and necessary conditions

Sufficient means “enough” and sufficient condition is a characteristic that is “enough” to

make something belong to a category. For example, being a woman is a sufficient condition
of being a human being. This means that being a woman is enough to make someone a
human being; no other condition or characteristic is required.. When you hear the word
“woman”, you know we’re talking about a human being. All women are human beings,
therefore being a woman is a sufficient condition of being a human being.

Be careful: it only works one way! For instance, being a woman is a sufficient condition of
being a human being, but being a human being is not a sufficient condition of being a
woman. In other words, to be a human being is not quite enough to be a woman because, of
course, a human being can also be a man.

A necessary condition is a characteristic that is absolutely required for something to belong

to a certain category. For instance, being male is a necessary condition for being a monk.
You can’t be a monk unless you are male. if you are female, you would be a nun, and men
can’t be nuns either.

Examples can also be used to understand how necessary conditions are different from
sufficient conditions: being male is a necessary condition for being a monk, but being male is
not a sufficient condition to be a monk. In other words, you have to be male to be a monk,
but not all male individuals are monks.
In some cases, though, a characteristic is both a necessary and sufficient condition. This
means that sufficient and necessary conditions are not mutually exclusive. For instance,
having a child is both a sufficient and necessary condition to be a parent.
These concepts are useful tools when we think about the attributes of a person.

For instance, we can ask ourselves how important reason is to the definition of a person.
The first question we can as ourselves is: is the ability to reason a sufficient condition of
personhood? In other words, is it enough to possess reason in order to be a person? Is
every rational being a person? You can see that this immediately leads to very interesting
philosophical points, which will be tackled in this chapter.

Similarly, we can ask if rationality is a necessary condition of personhood: does a being need
to be rational in order to be called a person?

The Concepts of sufficient and necessary conditions can help redefine definitions and lead
to in-depth philosophical discussions. Remember, however, that these concepts are fairly
complex: use them in essays only if you can do so clearly and concisely, without losing track
of your initial argument.