Person

A person (pronounced /ˈpɜːrsən/, from the Latin persona "mask"^[1] ) is any individual human being.^[2][3][4] The direct plural term is "persons." The term people is the general plural of "person," and is used to refer to person plurally in a range from 'a few persons' up to 'all people' (cf. humanism). "People" is often used to refer to an entire nation or ethnic group, and in this context "people" can be used as a singular to refer to specific ethnic or national groups (ie. "a people").

The term personhood refers to the state or condition of being an individual person and conceptualizes the essential meaning and constituent properties of "person" — i.e. what does it mean to be "a person," or a being within human society? Boethius gives the definition of "person" as "an individual substance of a rational nature" ("Naturæ rationalis individua substantia").^[1]

In philosophy, "person" may apply to any human or non-human actor who is regarded as self-conscious and capable of certain kinds of higher-level thought; for example, individuals who have the power to reflect upon and choose their actions.^[5] This could also extend to late fetuses and neonates, dependent on what level of thought is required.

In the fields of law, philosophy, medicine, and others, the term has specialised context-specific meanings. In many jurisdictions, for example, a corporation is considered a legal person with standing to sue or be sued in court. In sociology, "person" is an abstract concept, to study individuals as they exist as functioning or non-functioning components within a society. In a legal context, a "person" is designated either a "citizen" or "non-citizen" and as such the individual person has certain designated rights and responsibilities under the law.

Contents 1 What is a person? 1.1 Personhood by domain 1.1.1 Philosophy 1.2 Identity and personhood 2 Implications of the person/non-person debate 3 Scientific approach 4 See also 5 Notes 6 References 7 External links

[edit] What is a person?

[edit] Personhood by domain

• In statutory and corporate law, certain social constructs are considered legally as persons, for example some corporations and other legal entities. This is known as legal, or corporate, personhood.
• In animistic religion, animals, plants, and other entities may be persons or deities.

[edit] Philosophy

• Persons - In contemporary global thought, once humans are born, personhood is considered automatic.
• Animals - Some philosophers and those involved in animal welfare, ethology, animal rights and related subjects, consider that certain animals should also be granted personhood. Commonly named species in this context include the great apes, cetaceans, and elephants, because of their apparent intelligence and intricate social rules.

The idea of extending personhood to all animals has the support of legal scholars such as Alan Dershowitz^[6] and Laurence Tribe of Harvard Law School,^[7] and animal law courses are now taught in 92 out of 180 law schools in the United States.^[8] On May 9, 2008, Columbia University Press published Animals as Persons: Essays on the Abolition of Animal Exploitation by Professor Gary L. Francione of Rutgers University School of Law, a collection of writings that summarizes his work to date and makes the case for non-human animals as persons.

There are also hypothetical persons, sentient non-human persons such as sentient extraterrestrial life and self-aware machines. The novel and animated series Ghost in the Shell touch on the potential of inorganic sentience, while classical works of fiction and fantasy regarding extraterrestrials have challenged people to reconsider long held traditional definitions.

Peter Singer defines “person” simply as being a conscious thinking being. He also notes that a person must know that they are a person (Self-awareness).

Philosopher Thomas I. White argues that the criteria for a person are as follows:(1) is alive, (2) is aware, (3) feels positive and negative sensations, (4) has emotions, (5) has a sense of self, (6) controls its own behaviour, (7) recognises other persons and treats them appropriately, and (8) has a variety of sophisticated cognitive abilities. While many of White's criteria are somewhat anthropocentric, some animals such as dolphins would still be considered persons.^[9]

[edit] Identity and personhood

Speculatively, there are several other likely categories of beings where personhood might be at issue:

• Unknown intelligent life-forms - for example, should alien life be found to exist, under what circumstances would they be counted as 'persons'?
• Artificially created life - at what point might human-created biological life be considered to have achieved personhood?
• Artificial intelligence - assuming the eventual creation of an intelligent and self-aware system of hardware and software, what criteria would be used to confer or withhold the status of person?
• Modified living humans, cyborgs - for example, how much of a human can be replaced by artificial parts before personhood is lost, if ever?
  • Further, if the brain is the reason people are considered persons, then if the human brain and all its thought patterns, memories and other attributes could also in future be transposed faithfully into some form of artificial device (for example to avoid illness such as brain cancer) would the patient still be considered a 'person' after the operation?
  • If the person (or "individual") could go back in time and relate to his/her earlier self. Would it then be two persons yet the same being. Or one person in two bodies?
  • Are the surgical separations of conjoined twins cases more complicated, challenging and controversial than abortion?
• Do we have to consider any "willing and communicative (capable to register its own will) autonomous body" in the universe, no matter the species, an individual (a person)? Do they deserve equal rights with the human race?

Such questions are used by philosophers to clarify thinking concerning what it means to be human, or living, or a person, or an individual.

[edit] Implications of the person/non-person debate

This section may contain original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding references. Statements consisting only of original research may be removed. More details may be available on the talk page. (September 2007)

The personhood theory has become a pivotal issue in the interdisciplinary field of bioethics. While historically most humans did not enjoy full legal protection as persons (women, children, non-landowners, minorities, slaves, etc.), from the late 18th through the late 20th century, being born as a member of the human species gradually became secular grounds for the basic rights of liberty, freedom from persecution, and humanitarian care.

Since modern movements emerged to oppose animal cruelty (and advocate vegan philosophy) and theorists like Turing have recognized the possibility of artificial minds with human-level competence, the identification of personhood protections exclusively with human species membership has been challenged. On the other hand, some proponents of human exceptionalism (also referred to by its critics as speciesism) have countered that we must institute a strict demarcation of personhood based on species membership in order to avoid the horrors of genocide (based on propaganda dehumanizing one or more ethnicities) or the injustices of forced sterilization (as occurred in many countries to people with low I.Q. scores and prisoners).

While the former advocates tend to be comfortable constraining personhood status within the human species based on basic capacities (e.g. excluding human stem cells, fetuses, and bodies that cannot recover awareness), the latter often wish to include all these forms of human bodies even if they have never had awareness (which some would call pre-people) or had awareness, but could never have awareness again due to massive and irrecoverable brain damage (some would call these post-people). The Vatican has recently been advancing a human exceptionalist understanding of personhood theory, while other communities, such as Christian Evangelicals in the U.S. have sometimes rejected the personhood theory as biased against human exceptionalism. Of course, many religious communities (of many traditions) view the other versions of the personhood theory perfectly compatible with their faith, as do the majority of modern Humanists (especially Personists).

The theoretical landscape of the personhood theory has been altered recently by controversy in the bioethics community concerning an emerging community of scholars, researchers, and activists identifying with an explicitly Transhumanist position, which supports morphological freedom, even if a person changed so much as to no longer be considered a member of the human species (by whatever standard is used to determine that).

[edit] Scientific approach

As an application of social psychology and other disciplines, phenomena such as the perception and attribution of personhood have been scientifically studied.^[10][11] Typical questions addressed in social psychology are the accuracy of attribution, processes of perception and the formation of bias. Various other scientific/medical disciplines address the myriad of issues in the development of personality.

[edit] See also

Legal fiction Surety Anthropocentrism Anthropology Beginning of human personhood Being Consciousness Corporate Personhood Debate Great Ape personhood Juridical person Juristic person

Kant Nonperson People People (disambiguation) Personoid Phenomenology Subject (philosophy) Theory of mind Citizenship Capitis deminutio

[edit] Notes

[edit] References

• The category of the person. Anthropology, philosophy, history Edited by M. Carruthers, S. Collins, and L. Steven. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1985
• Cornelia J.de Vogel The concept of personality in Greek and Christian thought. In Studies in philosophy and the history of philosophy. Vol. 2. Edited by J. K. Ryan, Washington: Catholic University of America Press 1963. pp. 20–60

[edit] External links

Look up person in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

• Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
• The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
• Carsten Korfmacher, 'Personal Identity', in the IEP
•  "Person". Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. 1913. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catholic_Encyclopedia_(1913)/Person. 

v • d • e Particular human rights Note: What is considered a human right is controversial and not all the topics listed are universally accepted as human rights. Civil and political Freedom from discrimination · Right to life · Right to die · Security of person · Liberty · Freedom of movement · Freedom from slavery · Personhood · Right to bear arms · Equality before the law · Adequate remedy · Freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention · Freedom from torture · Freedom from cruel and unusual punishment · Right to a fair trial · Presumption of innocence · Right of asylum · Nationality · Freedom from exile · Privacy · Freedom of thought and conscience · Freedom of religion · Freedom of expression · Freedom of information · Freedom of assembly · Freedom of association · Right to protest · Universal suffrage · Marriage · Family life Economic, social and cultural Labor rights · Fair remuneration · Equal pay for equal work · Trade union membership · Right to social security · Leisure and rest · Right to work · Right to property (intellectual) · Right to culture · Right to public participation · Right to education · Right to adequate standard of living · Right to housing · Right to development · Right to health · Right to healthcare · Right to water · Right to food · Right of return · Right to Internet access Reproductive Family planning · Reproductive health · Abortion · Freedom from involuntary female genital cutting War and conflict Civilian · Combatant · Freedom from genocide · Prisoner of war · War rape Related philosophy Negative and positive rights · Claim rights and liberty rights · Freedom versus license · Desert claim · Social contract · Meritocracy · Equality before the law