Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Can a Non-Human be a Person?
At the end of the latest Law Talk, Professors Epstein and Yoo (not atypically) disagree. Prof. Epstein appeared to have based his view on the topic on an assumption that is widely held, rarely stated, and that logically leads to shocking conclusions.
The subject was legal action proposing that an ape be recognised as enjoying certain ‘human rights’. Prof. Epstein suggested he’d be willing to entertain the idea when the chimpanzee could argue its own case. This suggests that the rights attach to the creature as a result of its intellectual (and communicative) abilities.
Prof. Yoo wisely noted that this was a category error: that a human enjoys human rights because he or she is a human, not because he or she can act like a human (my words rather than his). A human baby, he noted, is entitled to human rights although such a child could not represent him or herself in a court.
In certain philosophical and scientific circles it is an article of faith that rights attach to intelligence, even though many of the same people deny that measures of intelligence have any value. This leads to weird — and, in my view, evil — hierarchies of rights-holders of the kind promoted by ‘ethicist’ Peter Singer, wherein an intelligent dog has more rights than a newborn baby, especially if the latter is intellectually disabled.
The problem with Singer’s view — aside from the evil outcomes it facilitates — is that it is logically unassailable … If, that is, you accept the premise that our rights are based on intelligence.
Thought experiment: if the space aliens that Professor Yoo mentioned in the podcast were to appear tomorrow and they were our equals or superiors in intellect, how would we be obliged to regard them? Automatically embrace them in the spirit of personhood? Should they be granted the full range of ‘human’ rights or negotiated with to develop a set of reciprocal, enumerated rights?
It’s far more likely that we’ll have to deal with these issues closer to home. In the Robert Heinlein short story ‘Jerry Was a Man’ ‘enhanced’ chimpanzees, capable of speech, have been developed to perform menial tasks. A court finds that they entitled to human rights.
Likewise, machine intelligence may one day reach the stage of being comparable with that of humans. If they possess self-awareness (or such a reasonable facsimile of self-awareness that we are unable to tell the difference), would they no longer be property but persons?
Published in General
If we consult Merriam-Webster, we get:
Person : a human being
Human being : a person
I agree with this. A human being is a person, a person is human being.
So, no a non-human being can’t be a person.
In Catholicism, angels are decidedly not understood as people. They are understood to be as beings of a spiritual nature. They may be represented as “persons” but that is just a mere device.
As for the Holy Trinity, completely different understanding and could use it’s own thread.
If we consult the OED, on the other hand:
Person
1 – A role or character assumed in real life, or in a play, etc.; a part, function, or office; a persona; a semblance or guise. Hence: any of the characters in a play or story.
2 – A human being, and related senses.
3 – The self, being, or individual personality of a man or woman, esp. as distinct from his or her occupation, works, etc. Formerly also as a term of respectful reference: e.g. the king’s person for ‘the king’.
4 – The living body or physical appearance of a human being.
5 – In general philosophical sense: a conscious or rational being.
6 – Each of the three modes of being of God which together constitute the Trinity.
7 – An individual or corporate body recognized by the law as having certain rights and duties.
8 – A category used in the classification of pronouns, possessive determiners, and verb forms, according to whether they indicate the speaker, the addressee, or someone or something spoken of.
9 – Each of the individual zooids of a colonial organism.
http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/141476
That makes sense. My understanding of Thomas Aquinas is that he identified vegetable souls and animals souls. I think any living creature has some kind of soul. I’ve heard different people use “spirit” and “soul” to distinguish different kinds of souls, but the terms seems to mean different things to different people. It makes sense to have specialized terms like “Neshamah” to keep definitions clear.
Then, of course, there’s Occam’s razor.
If space aliens visited Earth then I think we can safely assume that they would be intellectually superior to us…unless the alien race had sent spaceships laden with tyrannical, ferocious dimwitted alien creatures for the sole purpose of munching on the human race and other earth creatures with their big nasty teeth while they watch the sport from a safe distance. Hmmm…I think there’s a novel and a screenplay there somewhere.
What happens when at some point in the distant future if bonobos, chimps or gorillas are genetically modified with neurologically enhanced brains and become conversant with human beings either verbally or through computer-aided speech? Will we need to ascribe rights to these modified beings? Do you want to argue with a 400 lb. gorilla? I mean Al Gore is bad enough.
And yes, there’s already a few movies about that scenario. Is it likely? Perhaps not in 25 or 50 years…but I don’t think it’s beyond the realm of possibility. So, what then?
They’ve already been written.
We already have gorillas who can use American Sign Language. Koko is the most famous.
http://www.koko.org/world/
Really? “…while they watch the sport from a safe distance.” Sport being the operative word. I don’t recall that one? I’m not talking about the run-of-the-mill alien invasion films. Can you direct me to that book or movie?
Yes…but a lot of people aren’t convinced that this is true converant speech. To me it demonstrates a great deal of potential.
We’re probably going to be there in the not too distant future with robots. I bet they will be able to make robots with feelings and thinking and speaking abilities and with sentient self awareness. Will they be considered persons with human rights?
I thought it was obvious that certain animals exhibit remarkable intelligence. Apes and other mammals use tools to extract ants and termites to eat. Honey badgers are pretty crafty creatures as noted here.
With humans and primates we’re talking about degrees of intelligence. Clearly the great apes are intelligent and even a cursory examination of Jane Goodall’s work demonstrates that they exhibit a great deal of human-like social behavior.
If an ape can learn (maybe with some genetic retooling) to communicate and express its feelings or pose questions about a future state of reality or ask why something happens or something should happen, then wouldn’t that call for at least some special rights to be conferred?
We’re already there. They’re called Democrats.
Even a chimp may not have made Lois Lerner’s mistake…well, if properly coached by a smart primate attorney anyway.
LIKE. Uppercase for emphasis.
I enjoy science fiction, and one of my favorite authors is Orson Scott Card. In his book, Speaker for the Dead he identified 4 ‘levels’ of ‘otherness’ that may require the granting of the same benefits we recognize as ‘human rights.
When I think of what rights we give aliens, I use that ranking as a place to start.
Michael Z Williamson, in his book, Contact With Chaos, introduces the reader to an alien civilization that has a longer history than any human civilization, but lacking any access to metal has been unable to leave their own gravity well. The humans mistake a lack of metal with a lack of sophistication and attempt to negotiate as though the aliens were ignorant of science (or even the periodic table – they have one, just no samples of metal – just the theory of the material properties of the stuff).
In Orson Scott Card’s parlance, these would be Raman.
Ansonia was experiencing technical difficulties, so on Ansonia’s behalf:
These traits seem to me to distinguish us from all other animals.
(1) Human beings have–to accept, reject, or to remain undecided about–the idea of God (or gods). And only human beings have the experience of deliberately choosing to disobey, or obey, a real or imaginary supernatural being.
(2) We’re intermittently conscious of the fact that we’ll die one day.
(3) In different ways, we try to leave some record or lasting effect of our existence.
LOL. Too funny. :)
Ayn Rand thought that individual rights existed, or were derived, or were invented, to protect an individual’s freedom to make moral choices in a society.
If that’s the case, then an entity’s rights would depend on that entity being able to have a moral code. That would seem to require that entity to be able to choose between alternatives, else a moral code would make no sense. I.e., they’d have to have some sort of free will.
That’s one point of view, and the clearest derivation of rights I remember seeing.
I don’t know if that’ll do anyone else any good.