The IEET is a 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt organization registered in the State of Connecticut in the United States. Please give as you are able, and help support our work for a brighter future.
A number of Sentient Developments readers have asked what I mean when I refer to non-human persons and the personhood spectrum. It’s a fair question, and to be honest, I have yet to see a satisfying personhood taxonomy with an attendant list of traits that fully circumscribe the personhood continuum. I consider this an incredibly important issue as we move into a ‘transhuman condition’ and as we work to give non-human animals greater moral consideration. If I ever go back to school I think this will be a likely topic for a thesis.
A big question I would like to answer is, should personhood status be described as a spectrum or as a definitive, fixed state. In other words, are dolphins and bonobos as much persons as a genetically modified and cyborgized transhuman? And is such a distinction even necessary? Should persons, regardless of where they are situated in the personhood spectrum, all have the same moral and legal considerations? More philosophically, given the space of all possible minds, how can we begin to identify the space of all possible persons within that gigantic spectrum? As for defining and circumscribing personhood, a number of thinkers have tried to give it a shot. First out the gates was Joseph Fletcher, an Episcopalian theologian and bioethicist, who argued for a list of fifteen “positive propositions” of personhood. These attributes are:
minimum intelligence
self-awareness
self-control
a sense of time
a sense of futurity
a sense of the past
the capability of relating to others
concern for others
communication
control of existence
curiosity
change and changeability
balance of rationality and feeling
idiosyncrasy
neocortical functioning
Many of Fletcher’s traits are fairly subjective, open to argument (e.g. how do you measure intelligence, and how intelligent is intelligent enough?) and difficult to test scientifically (at least by today’s standards). But what’s interesting about this list is that not all human beings qualify as persons, and not all persons qualify as human. Moreover, individuals, at one time or another, are not persons. Fletcher argued that some severely developmentally challenged humans were not persons, and that chimeras and cyborgs might someday qualify as persons (what he called “parahumans”).
Looking to the future, and as we move forward with NBIC technologies, we run the risk of denying essential basic liberties to intelligent and sentient beings should we fail to better elucidate what it means to be a person (whether they be non-human animals or artificially intelligent agents). As Glenn notes, we need to be prepared to ask, “How can we preserve our human rights and dignity despite the fact that our ‘humanness’ may no longer be the exclusive possession of Homo sapiens?”
Thankfully there appears to be a trend in favor of widening the circle of moral consideration to some non-human animals. We obviously have laws against animal abuse, some animal experimentation, and unacceptably constrained levels of confinement. More significantly, however, a number of countries are looking to see highly sapient and emotional non-human animals like the great apes be given proper personhood status along with all the attendant legal protections.
Ultimately, what a lot of people need to realize is that their status as persons will not be diminished should “lesser” animals be granted personhood status. This is a common concern—that it would be undignified for humans to have to recognize the presence of other persons who are not human.
There are two things I’ll say to that: First, it’s our humaneness and sense of social justice that’s important—not that we’re “human,” and second, as we work to develop greater-than-human artificial intelligence, we are poised to lose our exalted status as the the most “highly evolved” creature on the planet. We better position our laws and social mechanisms in such a way that all persons will be protected when the time comes (the caveat being that we’ll actually have a say in the matter once we hit that Singularity point).
Thank you, George, for picking up and continuing the discussion on this -- I think that it makes more sense to have more expansive definitions of persons and humans (as in H+), rather than continuing outdated hierarchical notions. Love your blog, btw! :>)
I had posted the following comment at
http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/comments/treder200904027/
but it seems just as appropriate here:
"For 25 years, I have asked high school seniors whether they would first save their drowning dog or a drowning stranger. Only one out of three ever votes to save the stranger. I have always attributed this to the secular culture's reduction of human worth to that of animals, and to raising personal feelings ("I love my dog") above moral values (human life is sacred). But there is a third reason -- the fear of strangers that their parents and society have bequeathed to them. Many of those who vote to save the animal tell me that the stranger may turn out to be an evil person." -- Dennis Prager
Do the readers of IEET have any thoughts about this study, related to Mr. Dvorsky's article?
As I had commented on this on Mike Treder's article, it seemed appropriate here, too, in response to the above post :
this is not necessarily to be attributed to a "secular culture's reduction of human worth to that of animals," but rather something that feminist bioethics have recognized a long time ago -- it's the relationship that counts. Ask any parent if they would choose to save their child, even if meant several others would die. You also might want to ask your high school students, 'if you had a choice between saving a sibling or saving 2 strangers" and see the response.
Placing a stranger's life above the life of another sentient being also reflects a form of hierarchical thinking, something which, when applied exclusively, has led to a lack of respect for other life forms, sentient or not. Our responsibilities/moral obligations do not stop at the species border -- which, by the way, is not fixed or immutable.
We are interdependent -- not just with other humans, but with other things and beings; humans do not exist in a vacuum. Interdependence has many aspects -- The hierarchical relationship is vertical; but it is horizontal relationships that help to establish links with what is around us, including animals, the earth, and our fellow creatures. There is a relationship between the horizontal and vertical; one without the other leads to an incomplete picture.
Interesting though, that the students picked up that persons maybe evil, but their dog is definitely not. :>)
I'm always astonished by this unquestioning dedication to humanism within the H+ 'movement'. We are a located at a unique political/ethical juncture, where the borders of the human are being remapped - both technological interventions like xenotransplantation but also interspecies viruses (like swine flu) are forcing us to reassess our relationship with animals.
Time and time again commentators fall back on the same humanist logic instead of taking the opportunity to reassess the usefulness/validity of humanism and human rights discourses in dealing with our relationships with both technology and animals. Why when our very bodies are auto-deconstructing do we cling to such limited and insufficient understandings?
Yes, JCM, I am advocating for rather a more holistic, interdependent approach. That is, advocating for re-assessment and re-evaluation of our relationships with technology, as well as all living beings.
@hector - In most cases I would save my dog because I love her. This reaction is instinctive and I have never really analyzed it, but now that you mention it, it is true that I value personal feelings much more than "moral values".
I am, generally speaking, a somewhat educated person; however, not so much on this particular topic, but I found this discussion truly intriguing and would like to follow further threads.
When I was a child I had an innate "knowing" that all things were living: the flowers in my grandmother's garden, the pine trees that I loved to climb and sit in for hours, the wind that blew through them all around me, even the rocks beneath my feet on the ground that led to that stand of trees. I never considered any of those "things" to be less or more important than my cousins, teachers, the nice man at the general store, or the stranger that drove by and waved with a smile. Bottom line: ALL living things were equal. Perhaps, the question is, who decides what defines "living".
As I grew older, I learned the hard lesson that we all do: not all people are kind and safe. That being said, I'd like to say, in my opinion, "evil" is not something people are born with. Babies do not come into this world with feelings of aggression, jealousy or possession, which are the attributes that, in the extreme, become "evil". These things are learned. I think what makes us "human" is the capacity for compassion... first and foremost. I have compassion for people whether they are kind or unkind... safe or unsafe... good or evil. I feel sympathy for those who are unkind, unsafe, evil and project thoughts of hope that they will learn a better way. Personally, I feel the lack of compassion for things (or people) unknown has been a huge factor in all the problems our entire world is facing today.
I would do everything in my power to save both the dog and the stranger... even if that meant sacrificing myself to do so, simply because it would be the right and compassionate thing to do.
I would be interesting in what high school students would say to that being a possible solution. Would the answer be different with younger children who haven't learned to fear people?
Thank you, to all the people who are educated enough to hold this discussion and thank you for sharing it with the public. I'm glad I found this.
IEET Blog |
email list |
newsletter |
The IEET is a 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt organization registered in the State of Connecticut in the United States.
Contact: Executive Director, Dr. James J. Hughes,
Williams 119, Trinity College, 300 Summit St., Hartford CT
06106 USA
Email: director @ ieet.org phone:
860-297-2376
IEET Blog