personhood

[Undertoad]

conscious, i.e., awake and alert, and consciousness, i.e., the cognitive state of being where you are self-aware etc. are different things. You can be in a dream state and still have consciousness. Call it a sense of selfhood?

[Undertoad]

A comatose person is a person with self-consciousness who is currently unconscious.

[henry quirk]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

A comatose person is a person with self-consciousness who is currently unconscious.

So: does the possibility the comatose may regain consciousness figure into their personhood or does personhood persist even if someone is permanently in a coma?

What about a brain dead person (once self-aware, now not)?

[Undertoad]

If there's a possibility they can be woken, they are still a collection of experiences from consciousness and must be considered a person. If not, their consciousness has come to an end and so has their personhood. This is why we allow for things like Do Not Resuscitate orders.

[henry quirk]

consider...

Stan's wife has cancer. It eats away at her, transforms her from vibrant sexy woman into withered embryo-thing in three months. It kills her. Stan hates that disease but it's doubtful he ascribes immorality or moral depravity to the cancer.

But, if instead of cancer, a hoodlum beats her to death for her pocketbook, Stan will hate the hoodlum precisely for his immorality, his depravity. That is: Stan will hate the hoodlum because that monster 'is' a person.

[henry quirk]

I may be wrong, but: isn't DNR generally the call of the patient (don't bring me back) or the patient's loved ones (my husband wouldn't want this, let him go)?

In other words: DNR isn't about the cessation of personhood but about the wishes of the ill or the ill's trusted spokesperson, yeah?

[Undertoad]

Stan will hate the hoodlum because that monster 'is' a person.

True and it's interesting, there's a huge difference between being killed by a tiger and being killed by a person.

A tiger is just looking for lunch and answering its instincts. A person, because they are self-aware, is aware of what they're doing... not only that, but also, aware of what it means to be the other, suffering person.

Unless the perpetrator is sociopathic. But also interestingly, sociopaths' worst acts are described as inhuman, for that lack of awareness.

"monster" is similarly a description of something non-human. (Not you, monster)

[monster]

The definition of a person is a human being regarded as an individual. So if you regard a fetus as an individual then it's a person.

I don't regard a fetus as an individual until it can physically survive without a host. ymmv

A goldfish is not a person because it is not a human being. The rest of your questions are also answered by the definition of the term.

[henry quirk]

"I don't regard a fetus as an individual until it can physically survive without a host."

I take that as a vote for 'personhood is bestowed", yeah?

[henry quirk]

No one can.

Notions of 'self' & 'personhood' have been on the table since (probably) before (proto)man fell out of the trees. There's no agreement on: what comprises 'self' or 'person', whether or not personhood is intrinsic or bestowed, is non human life capable of personhood (the answer depending heavily on whether personhood is intrinsic or bestowed), and on and on.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

is non human life capable of personhood (the answer depending heavily on whether personhood is intrinsic or bestowed), and on and on.

This is absolutely correct.

I don't think animals are persons, just because that's where I want to draw the line. To draw it anywhere else makes things messy. But some animals are clearly self-aware and can think.

If personhood is intrinsic, then some animals are persons.

I fall into the camp of personhood being bestowed. That way I can say that it's fine to eat pork, even though pigs are smart.

[henry quirk]

If a cannibal is one who eats his own species, what would be the word for the self-aware who eat the self-aware (assuming pigs are)?

[Flint]

I struggle to justify a definition of the human experience which claims that what we think/feel about ourselves is-- in any objective sense-- different than what we refer to as "instinctive" behavior in "lower" life forms.

Our highly-vaunted ability to use logic and reason for problem-solving has been proven ineffective when compared to the unconscious deliberation that occurs on auto-pilot. Our emotional experiences are literally nothing more than a complex soup of hormones and neurochemicals—physical substances with predictable properties! Our feelings and therefore actions are dictated by a rush of impulses that drives us forward, just like an ant. The ant "experiences" this, no differently than we do.

The entire western view of man as a perfect "thinking, reasoning" entity with "self-awareness" is built on bluster and hubris. And, irrespective of the inconvenient implications, there’s no evidence to suggest we’re different in any meaningful way from other vertebrate, insect, or even "inanimate" plant life. We’re running a program written in the code of unfolding proteins.

So if we’re talking about objective definitions, there is no necessity for the concept of a "person" if based on "unique" properties –it is imaginary from its very inception.

[glatt]

I would point out that babies are just eating, shitting and crying machines until they are a few months old. They are not consciously aware of themselves for a period of time that will vary from child to child, but is a few months.

You can see the change in them. There's a point where a light comes on inside and they actually look AT things instead of just have their eyes open.

I think they are persons at birth, but only because it is a convenient place to draw the line.

[Undertoad]

I think they are persons at birth, but only because it is a convenient place to draw the line.

There is no fixed point.

I think this is all true; I personally draw the line at where their brain has developed to the point where consciousness is even *possible* - and I believe that happens at about the sixth month in utero, when neocortical brain activity begins to ramp up.