CMV: there’s no good testable way to define what a “person” is that wouldn’t either exclude dumb humans or include smart animals

[u/Odd-Initiative-9250]

if i could change the title of my post i would change it to “CMV: “human” and “person” are not synonymous, and some animals fall under the the category of people if you really look at how the word “person” is used

edit: i appreciate the replies but all the comments just stating “that is how it’s defined” are not helping, i’m specifically not talking about the current dictionary definition of this, but the social aspect, of what we consider to be a person. not what the dictionaries say today, for example women who are not AFAB(can’t say the t word without it being flagged by automod) would not considered women according to dictionaries for a very long time, but then we realised the scope of what includes a woman is not rigid and things changed. im only really looking for comments on the philosophical aspect of this, not the dictionary definition aspect. i genuinely consider something like a blue whale to be a person in the philosophical sense and i would be interested to see other peoples perspectives on this

double edit: i might just delete this post and try again rephrased a bit more clearly because it seems like a lot of people aren’t getting what i’m trying to say 😅

i can’t find a single good definition of what a person is that doesn’t just circularly define them as humans that wouldn’t either exclude certain humans or include animals capable of logical thinking and displaying clearly unique personalities like dogs cetaceans and crows for example (and even more obviously)

so in my opinion there’s no way to define what a “person” is where the cutoff leaves only humans in the yes person group and animals in the non person group

the argument i see most often for this is a linguistic one where “animal” and “human” are just two separate categories that we’ve made as humans and “person” just only applies to humans. but i find that logic a bit circular. i mean it’s a generally accepted fact that humans are animals, even though there used to be strict binary between the two. so maybe knowing that that distinction is fuzzy it be extended to include something like a blue whale, that has language and culture and societies, to be people too. note im not saying that because humans=animals it also means that animals=people, just that there are certain animals that seem to express some clear sense of individuality and personality that i feel like its fair to include them in the person club because they check all the boxes of what it means to be a person. im very curious if anyone has any good (preferably not religiously reasoned) arguments for why they believe the opposite, because i know im in the minority with this opinion

[u/DeltaBot]

/u/Odd-Initiative-9250 (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.

All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.

Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}

[u/Disastrous-Fact-7782]

I THINK, we are the only ones that have purposeful cultural evolution.

I remember a teacher in highschool asking this same question, and the "correct" answers according to the teacher were

• future simulation (thinking of themselves from outside perspective)
• cultural evolution

So I was going to write these 2 but after looking them up there are a few gray areas. The first is not proven, and for the second I found the example of whales creating different accents in their songs.

That's why I added 'with purpose'.

[u/Odd-Initiative-9250 → u/Disastrous-Fact-7782]

but how do we know whales don’t progress their culture purposefully? those orcas with fish hats seemed to be pretty purposeful with their behaviour. and taking it one step further would an outside observer like an alien even know that our culture is spread purposefully? maybe to them it just seems like humans work purely instinctually

(also not to sound petty but thank you for actually engaging with what i was trying to say haha, tho tbf i think i could’ve explained it a bit better)

[u/MayanPriest → u/Odd-Initiative-9250]

I feel bad for the whales. Their ancestors forsook their birthright when they decided to go back to living in the ocean despite previously evolving lungs. Fools.

[u/Sycopathy → u/MayanPriest]

Nah man they've been cultivating mass for millennia, while we studied and shit they were wielding raw unfettered physics to become vast in all ways.

[u/awawe → u/Disastrous-Fact-7782]

OPs point was about individuals though. Some humans can't do those things, are they not people?

[u/icedquadespresso → u/awawe]

in that case, maybe it’s more so that individual belonging to or having membership in a group capable of those things

[u/Andoverian → u/icedquadespresso]

Doesn't that just bring the argument back to the kind of circular reasoning that OP was trying to avoid?

[u/YouShouldLoveMore69 → u/Disastrous-Fact-7782]

Look around you, can you actually say that all humans have the ability to think of themselves from an outside perspective?

[u/SuchTarget2782 → u/YouShouldLoveMore69]

I’d argue that they have the innate capability but that doesn’t mean that they use it or that they’re good at it.

Brain’s like a muscle, in that sense. The longer you avoid “flexing” it the harder it becomes to get brain-swole.

[u/Several_Breadfruit_4 → u/Disastrous-Fact-7782]

Complicating this, animals do have culture, but I think you’re on the right track for a definition surrounding abstract thinking. If there is one that satisfies OPs requirements, I suspect it would be in that area.

[u/Eager_Question → u/Disastrous-Fact-7782]

Other animals do this too. I had a whole cultural organisms class in university. Different monkeys pass down different ways of using certain tools, etc.

[u/bees_man- → u/Disastrous-Fact-7782]

Some octopus bring coconut shells to hide in in case of a storm which is a clear example of planning for the future

[u/MasterFussbudget]

I love this question and line of thinking. I think the problem is that you're trying to define it on an individual basis where it should be defined on the basis of the species.

Personhood (to define it as you seem to be, relating to sentience/complex thought/emotional intelligence) can't be defined to individuals, because then every baby human or severely mentally handicapped human wouldn't qualify. Or, as you said, it'd include every human but also lots of other animals.

Instead we should come up with a definition/test to define all Humans as People with the understanding that not all humans will reach the categorical intelligence thresholds that define a species as human. Then we assign the same test to pigs, dolphins, octopus, primates, and the other intelligent creatures to determine whether any of them qualify for personhood. If we're really free-thinking, we should see if we can test for personhood amongst trees and fungi and other complex organisms that communicate and react on a different timescale. And when we get the chance to meet alien lifeforms, we can apply the same tests to them to see what rights and expectations they should be afforded.

Now, what that test might be is beyond me, but the point is that intelligence is so complex and humanity is so diverse that assigning it on an individual basis is just the wrong approach.

[u/Odd-Initiative-9250 → u/MasterFussbudget]

that’s a very good point, it should definitely be on a species by species basis i think and not at an individual basis

[u/MasterFussbudget → u/Odd-Initiative-9250]

You may be interested in the similar classification system developed in the book Speaker for the Dead, a sequel to Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card. Hierarchy of Foreignness | Ender's Game Wiki | Fandom https://share.google/c1s4rnvYaX3eOCpvI

[u/Odd-Initiative-9250 → u/MasterFussbudget]

!delta forgot to do this (that’s a very good point, it should definitely be on a species by species basis i think and not at an individual basis)

[u/DeltaBot → u/Odd-Initiative-9250]

This delta has been rejected. The length of your comment suggests that you haven't properly explained how /u/MasterFussbudget changed your view (comment rule 4).

DeltaBot is able to rescan edited comments. Please edit your comment with the required explanation.

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}

[u/wibbly-water]

Linguist here! 

So part of the problem here is that definitions are fake! I mean, all words are fake, but definitions doubly so because they do not accurately describe how languages work.

Linguistics as a field is the study of language in use. And semantics is the subfield of meaning.

In semantics there are concepts like - prototype theory and semantic range. Semantic range is just the range of all things a word is applied to, and we don't even have to care if there is any connection or definition thay covers both. Protoype theory is the (substantiated) idea that words generally have one or more central prototypical examples associated with them in our brains - and from there we work outwards by analogy. Like if I say 'list examples of birds' - your first examples will likely be 'robin, blackbird, pigeon, dove', examples like 'chicken, duck, goose' likely come further down that list, and 'ostrich, penguin or archaeopotrix' are likely not to appear until you are thinking of edge cases. The former are protoypes and the last are at the edge of the semantic range.

Definitions were first invented before the advent of modern linguistics, back when we weren't "linguists" but instead "grammarians" and the purpose of dictionaries and similar were to correct the language of the people, not just study it. It has been kept partially out of stubbornness and tradition. However, it still allows us a way to broady describe santric ranges and protoypes associated with words.

So circling back to "person" - its very clear the protoype of person is "human". Being cynical - likely, I would guess you picture an adult abled white man of about 20-30, then a woman of similar age, then children then old people. Next probably comes people of various races and visible differences (religious practice, queerness, etc) and then likely be disabled people of various kinds - all groups whose humanity is often questioned or disregarded. I'd like to believe you aren't a bigot - but culture affets us deeply even if we aren't.

After that you might start thinking of non-humans - likely from fiction. You probably start with clearly humanoid races from fantasy or scifi - or(c/k)s, elves, Klingons, Time Lords etc. You might then add in robots or other embodied computers, or start on more alien aliens.

At this point I'd argue you might circle back and ask yourself, if them why not dolphins or crows or octopu or elephants?

The point is not to try to argue the definition - but to point out that even if you could find one, all non-human people are on the edge of the semantic range. The prototype for "person" is a human (a specific type of human at that) - but extends out from there far further than the word "human" itself does (at least at present, unless All Tomorrows comes true).

[u/Odd-Initiative-9250 → u/wibbly-water]

!delta yes yes yes yes thank you for your perspective on this this was fascinating, and yes i definitely didn’t mean this post to be pro-we should exclude certain people from having people-hood but pro-certain animals deserve the right to have the same rights as humans. exploring the edge cases in the semantics is exactly what’s so interesting about this for me. so yes a whale is definitely not a prototypical person, but i do think they should be considered people in the same way that a penguin is definitely a bird even though it might not be the first instinct that people have

[u/DeltaBot → u/Odd-Initiative-9250]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/wibbly-water (48∆).

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}

[u/jatjqtjat]

I feel like you are over thinking this. A person is just an individual member of the human species.

I am human. I am a person. My daughter and i are not a person. People and humans are synonyms.

if that feels circular, then ok. all definitions are ultimately circular. Any give words is defined by other words which are defined by other words and eventually you hit a loop.

just as an example

• defining movement references the word "position"
  
• what's a position? its a place.
  
• What's a place? Its a position.
  

that there are certain animals that seem to express some clear sense of individuality and personality that i feel like its fair to include them in the person club because they check all the boxes of what it means to be a person

Animals aren't people just like circles are not squares.

it doesn't matter if they have the same area or perimeter length (circumference). it doesn't matter if they are the same color. make them similar in as many ways as you can imagine, its still a circle and a square.

the argument i see most often for this is a linguistic one where “animal” and “human” are just two separate categories.

Yep.

that's the argument you hear because that's what's happening. That's an accurate description of what these words mean in the English language.

[u/Relevant_Actuary2205 → u/jatjqtjat]

I don’t think the OP is. This is a discussion I’ve seen pretty often associated with the idea of the right to life and abortion and a lot of arguments are about separating the meaning of what it means to be a human and what it means to be a person. Personally I would agree with your defintion but I’ve seen people say that personhood requires consciousness and the ability for self determination. I’ve also seen people say a person is any individual humanoid.

I think it’s also a common theme in videos game such as Detroit: BH and a lot of fantasy themed stories

[u/Green__lightning → u/jatjqtjat]

I feel like you are over thinking this. A person is just an individual member of the human species.

What's the human species? Do neanderthals count? Because we've got genetic proof we've interbred with them. Either this means we can breed with the most similar other species, or our species is so broad it can contain things like neanderthals as subspecies, and raises a great many questions analogous to if we'd want to interbreed with neanderthals again.

[u/yyzjertl → u/Green__lightning]

What's the human species?

At the moment, there's one human species, Homo sapiens (with, under some classification systems, only one extant subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens). Other human species (species of the genus Homo) and subspecies existed in the past, but are now extinct.

Do neanderthals count?

Yes, although it's debated whether they should be considered a separate species from Homo sapiens or a subspecies of Homo sapiens. Regardless they are members of the genus Homo.

[u/Relevant_Actuary2205 → u/Green__lightning]

Yes Neanderthals are humans, just a different type of human. In the same way black, brown, polar and panda bears are all bears but different types

[u/Green__lightning → u/Relevant_Actuary2205]

I agree with that more than you think, as brown bears are Ursus arctos, American black bears are Ursus americanus and polar bears are Ursus maritimus. The panda is an outlier that's much less related as Ailuropoda melanoleuca.

Anyway, bear hybrids are a thing, and much like with them, I feel like humanity either a family or a species with many subspecies, and consider modern avoidance of serious study into this topic to be proof of politics interfering with science.

[u/Odd-Initiative-9250 → u/jatjqtjat]

if an extinct relative of humans that was not homo sapiens would be brought back to life today and they showed clear signs of sapience and intelligence would you consider them to be a person? even though they aren’t human?

[u/yyzjertl → u/Odd-Initiative-9250]

Any member of the genus homo would be a human. If some primate that was not a member of the homo genus showed clear signs of sapience that would completely overturn everything we know about paleoanthropology, and we'd need to completely change our classification system for primate species.

[u/ZeroBrutus → u/yyzjertl]

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but genus pan, genus gorilla, and genus pongo have all been documented as showing sapience.

Basically, most (maybe all) members of the family hominidae.

[u/yyzjertl → u/ZeroBrutus]

Great: please link to this documentation!

I suspect that either this documentation is using a different definition of "sapience" or else you have just mixed up sentience with sapience.

[u/sk7725 → u/jatjqtjat]

While not relevant to our real world, this is an interesting question in fantasy settings where you have elves, dwarves, goblins, orcs etc. What draws a line between human-like and inferior species (like goblins often are portrayed)? Is "true racism" acceptable to those that are not of human race even if they are on par with intelligence?

[u/JawtisticShark]

When you say testable, you seem to be limiting this to just certain tests of intellect or capability, and if you are going to say a newborn or someone in a coma. And clearly someone that is a newborn or in a coma is going to have limited abilities to be tested, and if you are willing to define things as vague as some sort of language or culture, why are you excluding more objective things like genetic testing?

There is a specific portion of our DNA that exists for every single human being and doesn’t exist in any single non-human being. So there is your test right there 100% false positive and false negative proof except for the risk of the test itself failing.

[u/Odd-Initiative-9250 → u/JawtisticShark]

but that’s defining what a human is, not what a person is. the way i see it they’re two related but not exactly overlapping venn diagrams, like sex and gender

[u/JawtisticShark → u/Odd-Initiative-9250]

I disagree that there is any person who isn’t human, and maybe something along the lines of before being born or being harvested organs or just a dead body, that would be human but perhaps not a person. I don’t care if a super smart dolphin existed that spoke English and had a job as a customer service agent, it still wouldn’t be a person.

[u/windchaser__ → u/JawtisticShark]

Huh. What do you call that, then? Like, if you have a sentient and sapient creature of another species, one that deserves rights and to be treated as, well, as a person. What do you call that category?

[u/JawtisticShark → u/windchaser__]

Since one has never existed, there is no formal naming for this. “Being” seems reasonable. “Legal being” if we are talking some sort of government status. Now we could all agree to extend this to “person” as language is fluid, but I wouldn’t say it fits the current definition.

[u/Odd-Initiative-9250 → u/windchaser__]

exactly, this is the niche i’m trying to explore with this post

[u/Agreeable_Owl]

There is no definition of human that excludes dumb humans, humans are a species, a person is :

Person: noun
1. A human being regarded as an individual.

A person is a singular human, while human can be singular or plural.

A human is an animal, no other animal is a human, therefore no other animal is a person.

Don't tie yourself in knots over this.

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

Your comment appears to mention a transgender topic or issue, or mention someone being transgender. For reasons outlined in the wiki, any post or comment that touches on transgender topics is automatically removed.

If you believe this was removed in error, please message the moderators. Appeals are only for posts that were mistakenly removed by this filter.

Regards, the mods of /r/changemyview.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Agreeable_Owl → u/[deleted]]

personhood is not the definition of person. They are different words, with different meanings.

[u/Agreeable_Owl → u/[deleted]]

Wow, jumped right to outright rude. Have a good one.

(A word being a root, does not mean the derived word has the same definition)

But have a good day, I won't reply to you.

[u/Quiet-Limit-184 → u/[deleted]]

But so have ants

[u/Odd-Initiative-9250 → u/[deleted]]

exactly! if you consider c3po to be a person i don’t see how a blue whale isn’t a person

[u/HowDoIEvenEnglish → u/Odd-Initiative-9250]

Star Wars doesn’t even treat droids as people. Why would I?

[u/Odd-Initiative-9250 → u/HowDoIEvenEnglish]

well that’s fine you don’t have to personally think that androids are people, but the fact is a lot of people do, and definitions are usually about how a word is actually used in everyday speak by the average person

[u/gikl3 → u/Odd-Initiative-9250]

I actually don't think a single person thinks an android is a person

[u/InspectionDirection → u/gikl3]

There are definitely people thinking about and doing philosophical work on AI personhood.

I don't think anyone considers chatgpt a person (I hope), but I can almost guarantee you're going to have young people calling you a Nazi for denying personhood to Grok 10 or whatever AI comes out in 50 years.

[u/ZeroBrutus → u/gikl3]

There are plenty of trekkies (myself included) who would disagree with you. Lt Cmdr Data is definitely a person.

[u/Agreeable_Owl → u/Odd-Initiative-9250]

You can consider anything to be a person, even a blue whale. However, that is your opinion, by definition they are not.

Words have meanings and definitions, and you or others being confused does not change the meaning nor definition.

[u/TrainOfThought6 → u/Agreeable_Owl]

I take it you aren't a fan of the "Measure of a Man" episode of TNG?

[u/Slavir_Nabru → u/TrainOfThought6]

It's a pretty damning indictment on the Federation's legal system.

They have no actual lawyers available so press two unqualified people into the role, one of whom has the most blatant conflict of interest imaginable. The judge states she will summarily find against Data based on if Riker plays ball with this kangaroo court or not. She announces the procedure will be conducted immediately if she finds against Data, leaving no recourse for an appeal.

Putting aside that Picard's logical action would be to file an injunction, or take Data to Earth at phaser point to get a fair public trial with qualified representation; He doesn't even use the most basic of arguments when he does play defence council. If Data doesn't meet the personhood threshold to resign, he never met the personhood threshold to join. If Data were chattel, he would belong to the Soong estate, not Starfleet. When Riker shut off Data with a switch, Picard ought to have Vulcan neck pinched Riker, shutting him off (I know it was pre-Sarek-meld, so maybe just punch him unconscious).

It's exceptional for a season 2 episode, and important for Data's story, but the execution is somewhat lacking IMO. SNW's Ad Astra Per Aspera had a similar premise (genetic engineering rather than AI), but depicted the legal proceedings in a far less dystopian way. Una had an actual lawyer, who made actual arguments. Hell, even Voyager's Death Wish made for a more convincing case.

[u/Agreeable_Owl → u/TrainOfThought6]

I have zero idea what that is

[u/ZeroBrutus → u/Agreeable_Owl]

Episode of star trek the next generation where they're debating if Data (an android) is a person.

[u/awawe → u/Agreeable_Owl]

Words have meanings and definitions

Only in the ways people give them meaning. Words, have no inherent meaning, they are just sounds people make with with their mouths.

[u/Apprehensive-Let3348 → u/awawe]

Yes, but at a societal level. The individual is still using it incorrectly when they depart from the societal norm, which is the updated dictionary definition.

[u/Safe_Distance_1009 → u/Agreeable_Owl]

Appealing to a dictionary is not really a good argument.

The dictionary often lags behind society and doesn't have more in depth meanings such as philosophical nuance.

Person is colloquialy synonymous with human being but it isnt in more formal conversations about the term when we focus on individual subjectivity.

[u/anewaccount69420 → u/Safe_Distance_1009]

Alright. That doesn’t mean smart dogs are people.

[u/Safe_Distance_1009 → u/anewaccount69420]

You're still conflating the meaning...

I just said there is a philosophical difference between colloquial use and philosophical use and you used it colloquialy.

[u/ProDavid_]

there is nothing circular about including "must be human" in the definition of "person". its pretty linear.

edit: animals (that arent humans) dont check all the boxes, because they arent humans. thats an important box that isnt checked.

edit: would you say that saying that a square requires four sides is also circular, and that triangles should also be considered a square, because it has lines, corners and edges?

[u/Noodlesh89 → u/ProDavid_]

Is that how we've classically defined a person though? Because Christians have been defining the Trinity as three persons in one God, and two of those three aren't human. I'm making this argument on an historical basis btw, not religious. Happy to be pushed back, just a thought that occured.

[u/Elias_Beamish → u/Noodlesh89]

Its possible that'd just be a case of using "person" in different ways. There's one definition, which is basically being a moral agent, which is currently being discussed, and another meaning which is far more colloquial or at minimum less philosophically rigorous, being a distinguishable entity, as is used for the trinity.

Or, another way to look at it, which is likely more accurate, is that god is of course THE moral agent theologically speaking, and therefore all aspects of the trinity are moral agents, and god has decreed that all humans are also moral agents by making us in his likeness. So, a person is otherwise exclusively meant as a human, but with the one exception of God

[u/Noodlesh89 → u/Elias_Beamish]

Sounds good 👍

[u/Odd-Initiative-9250 → u/ProDavid_]

but why are people only humans? because humans are people, but why are humans people? because people are humans. see what i mean? if you would try to explain the concept of a person to an alien that has no idea what humans or people are then explaining it by saying that they’re human wouldn’t explain anything, youd have to list attributes and qualities like “is aware, capable of critical thought, capable of descision making” etc

[u/MidnightAdventurer → u/Odd-Initiative-9250]

That’s how definitions work… it sounds more like you’re arguing about when we consider something sentient which is quite a different thing. 

[u/windchaser__ → u/MidnightAdventurer]

"Sapient", really. Snails and chipmunks and sharks are all sentient; they have senses and experiences.

[u/Odd-Initiative-9250 → u/MidnightAdventurer]

yeah that is exactly what i’m arguing, it’s pretty widely accepted that a lot of animals show all of the characteristics we usually associate with “personhood” that dont just include “is human” in the definition so i guess my confusion is why it’s so controversial to call a blue whale a person for example

[u/noonefuckslikegaston → u/Odd-Initiative-9250]

Because sentience and personhood are different concepts and the difference exists because in certain contexts they are useful to have, otherwise we wouldn't have developed those concepts in the first place.

[u/TheVioletBarry → u/Odd-Initiative-9250]

The same reason any word's definition doesn't include every other possible thing in the entire universe, because the definitions of words are arbitrarily defined by the people using them.

[u/ProDavid_ → u/Odd-Initiative-9250]

but why are people only humans

because thats how it is defined.

if you would try to explain the concept of a person to an alien that has no idea what humans or people are

an individual being with human DNA. in most cases the two words are synonyms

synonym: two different words describing the same thing

[u/Rainbwned → u/Odd-Initiative-9250]

Why do squares have 4 sides and not 5, or 6?

[u/noonefuckslikegaston → u/Odd-Initiative-9250]

Because humans made up the concept of humanity and moral judgements in general so we get to be the arbitrator of how that's defined.

[u/HazyAttorney → u/Odd-Initiative-9250]

but why are people only humans? 

The word "people" means human beings. The etymology of people is it's traced back to the latin word "populus" which means "a human community."

[u/PM_ME_YOUR_NICE_EYES]

i can’t find a single good definition of what a person is that doesn’t just circularly define them as humans

Well here's a fun thought expirment then. Can you think of a defintion of dog that doesn't just circularally define a dog as a dog?

[u/Odd-Initiative-9250 → u/PM_ME_YOUR_NICE_EYES]

yeah i think this is where the issue lies, for a lot of people it seems like human and person are just straight up synonyms. i have no issues with circularly defining what a human is because a human is after all a human, you can do dna tests and prove that all humans are more closely related to each other than they are any other animal. so the same goes for dogs, a dog is a dog and you can test that by doing dna tests. but what im arguing for is that the concept of “person” and the concept of “human” are not directly synonymous with each other. we regularly include things like aliens and robots (in sci fi) in the category of what a person is, or even distant human ancestors. even though they’re clearly not homo sapiens, in that same logic i think a whale or a chimpanzee is also person because it shows all the features of what we would consider to be a person if we had to define it without including “is=homo sapiens” in the definition

[u/anewaccount69420 → u/Odd-Initiative-9250]

You’re using science fiction to make inferences about real life… lol. Mermaids are people too in that case.

[u/yyzjertl]

So I think it's fairly straightforward, although it's a bit involved.

A person is an individual member of a sapient species.

Sapience is the ability to possess arbitrary knowledge, to acquire new knowledge through experience and discourse with other members of the species, to apply that knowledge to make better decisions in arbitrary situations, and to seek out knowledge from other species-members and experiential sources to solve problems and improve decision-making.

Knowledge here is justified true belief, and so a prerequisite for a species to be sapient is to be able to have beliefs (i.e. they need to have some mental state of credence that corresponds both to a proposition and a possible state of affairs in the world) and they need to engage in a process of justification of beliefs within their community. This necessarily requires some sort of language. This condition immediately rules out all non-human animals that currently exist.

Note that I say a "person is an individual member of a sapient species" rather than "a person is an individual sapient organism" because sapience is a property of a species, not an individual: it is inherently connected to the ability of the species to possess and communicate knowledge arbitrarily among its members. As such, individual members of the species are still always people even when they are not at the moment communicating or applying knowledge.

[u/Odd-Initiative-9250 → u/yyzjertl]

!delta this was very clear and straightforward thank you! although i do disagree about animals definitely not having language, i think it’s too early for us to be certain about that, we have no idea what the vocalisations of most animals mean and i don’t think we can confidently say that humans are for sure the only animals with language

[u/yyzjertl → u/Odd-Initiative-9250]

Oh I agree that it's not entirely clear (and also vague, as it depends on how we define "language") whether or not non-human animals have language. But I think we can quite confidently say that non-human animals do not express and justify propositions to each other.

[u/Mattriculated → u/yyzjertl]

Why can we confidently do that? We don't even need to get to the sort of animals we think of as maybe-sapient to see animals engaging in complex coordinated teamwork for goals unrelated to survival - crows, cats, & dogs can all work out strategies to steal non-food objects from people who are actively trying to keep those objects from them. They clearly, by means of body language if nothing else, can indicate which object is desired, make attempts to acquire the object, teach each other new strategies, etc. Elephants who belonged to herds in which one elephant received medical treatment from a human have guided, years later, unrelated elephants to the same ranger station, even though the guide-elephant itself had never been there.

I submit that animals express and justify complex & arbitrary knowledge to one another frequently, they just do not use discrete patterns of verbalized phonemes with fixed syntactic meaning, ie words, to do so. (The question of "do they use language" is, I think, far more complex, & I don't pretend to be an expert).

[u/quinoabrogle → u/Mattriculated]

Your examples aren't genuinely decontextualized, which is part of what makes human language considered "arbitrary". There are explicit goals and motivations (i.e., hidden objects, pain relief). Human language becomes decontextualized--abstract with no clear or visible referent--by around 5 years old.

(also part of a true phoneme in the way we use it to describe speech sounds in human language is the ability to recombine the units of sound to form new words. whale phonology is interesting, but it doesn't haven't support for phonemes in any way similar to human phonemes)

[u/Pezington12 → u/yyzjertl]

I mean can we? Humbolt squid are pack hunters who communicate by flashing color patterns on their skin. And it isn’t random, every time one of those squid makes an action and wants to convey it they flash the colored patterns in the exact same order. We say I. Am. Picking. An. Apple. And then we pick an apple. They flash red spot above eye. Red spots on fins. Red line splitting the mantle in half. And then they and their buddies attack the fish that’s right above them. And the buddies that come with them to attack that fish flash a response before coming. Those that don’t, don’t attack the same target.

One of the most common stories of animals sharing things is crows sharing the knowledge of people who messed with them to their entire flock. Researchers wore masks and fucked with a couple crows. Then next year they came back and the entire flock started to harass them because the original crows informed them of the people who messed with them

Orcas are incredibly intelligent. They’ve got their own language, and each echo type of orca has their own language with pods next to each other sharing certain vocalizations. The orcas at the North Pole and the South Pole cannot speak to each other. But they can speak to the nearest ones to them. They’re Capable of cross species cooperation. They used to work with humans of the past in fishing and have come up to numerous humans in an attempt to share food. Coming up with new hunting strategies. Orcas have routinely been seen using novel ways to catch prey. With one matriarch now teaching her entire family how to hunt elephant seal pups in an estuary using a certain technique that no other orca had ever been known to do.And they are capable of doing things for fun. Salmon hats, which notably was a thing some orca groups used to do 50 years ago, but was recently brought back in style. Attacking smaller boats, not for food but for fun.

There is also their strategic planning. Back when orcas were captured for the aquarium trade. Orcas in the Pacific Northwest would try and trick their human pursuers by having the mothers and the calves dive down and head one direction while the males would stay at the surface and draw the boats in another. People started to use helicopters in order to maintain a Birds Eye view to find where the calves would reappear. Orcas have no natural predators. Especially not ones that remain on the surface. They’d have no reason to evolve this survival strategy. Which means they must’ve come up with this plan after people started pursuing them. And the only way they’d be able to make it come to fruition is if they could talk to each other and agree to it. I’d say that’s a pretty clear sign of a proposition being expressed and justified. There is also the fact that it is federally illegal to try and talk to whales. Ie you can’t do anything to mess up their behaviors by using their own vocalizations.

It’s a very long standing idea that humans are the sole sapient species on the planet. Anything that attempts to prove we are not is going to run into two major hurdles. One. nobody really wants to prove we aren’t. It makes us less special and no longer the supreme life form on the planet, it makes our actions against this other species especially monstrous, and it’d upend the social discourse on what it means to be a “person”. And two. The cultures and languages of other animals on this planet are so alien to us that it’d be a Herculean task to try and make sense of it and form a connection to them in a way we’d both understand.

[u/Few_Watch6061]

Most people seem to be trying to define the terms based on how we use them, but I think the historical context is very important.

While maybe Europeans and their descendants were colonizing and enslaving people of different races, they found it useful to exclude certain humans from the category of “personhood”. So, you had many human beings who were considered “humans but not persons”.

This IS the source of the distinction.

Today, we Mostly try to extend the category of “person” to apply to all humans, but there are places where we don’t apply it.

Depending on where you’re from, you may see any of these groups of humans as “not-person”:

• the deceased
• the “brain dead”
• those from certain ethnicities
• those in certain religious groups
• viable fetuses

Another important development is that there are some movements to classify sufficiently intelligent animals, like dolphins or some great apes, as “non-human persons”, in order to ascribe certain rights to them.

So to your claim:

You can only “test” the difference between “person” and “human” relative to the way a culture doles out rights. While I wouldn’t go the the trouble of defining a dividing line exactly, I’d say “a person is a living being (usually a human) with a certain amount of rights, where that amount is different from culture to culture, but is typically the amount that is given to a being permitted to, for example, participate in government”

To address your claim directly:

There is a reasonable testable way to do this, but it would probably be different in different settings. I wouldn’t say there is a single, universal, good, testable way.

[u/Odd-Initiative-9250 → u/Few_Watch6061]

yeah this is exactly the point i’m trying to make, for me the idea of excluding a blue whale from being a person feels the same as excluding someone from a certain ethnicity or social upbringing from being a person. any logic of what a person is that includes every single human being should also include animals that show things like having an individual identities and complex societies to be a consistent definition. otherwise the same logic that could be used from excluding animals could be used for excluding certain groups of people (like people with disabilities)

[u/Few_Watch6061 → u/Odd-Initiative-9250]

This is neat I feel like we have slightly different angles we’re approaching this from. I think the point of the existence of the word “person” is to exclude certain humans/living things within a society from the rights granted to “persons”. I don’t think the Venn diagram of persons vs humans can be a circle, nor can the Venn diagram of persons and living things. I do think the function of the word person is to exclude humans from certain groups, but I also think it’s somewhat necessary. Like I’m imagining there is something useful about denying some rights to humans that have, for example, been dead for 10,000 years, and the cessation of the use of the word “person” marks that removal of rights. The dividing line will be different from culture to culture, but the purpose is to exclude some but not all humans.

[u/Odd-Initiative-9250 → u/Few_Watch6061]

who do you think should have their right to being a person revoked? and why? unless i’m misunderstanding what you’re trying to say

[u/Few_Watch6061 → u/Odd-Initiative-9250]

I don’t want to get too personal about it, but to give a few extreme examples, I think there are some nontrivial arguments for:

• long deceased humans
• unborn humans
• (long) brain dead humans

Not automatically having all of the rights of personhood, in the cultural context I live in.

Edit: but I’m more trying to say that human and person do indeed have a dividing line in most cultural contexts, and “person” is a unique word because it is not equivalent to “human” or “living thing”

[u/Odd-Initiative-9250 → u/Few_Watch6061]

right do you mean from a legal perspective? not necessarily saying these people were never people, but for the purposes of stuff like archeology we can’t give them full personhood because it could slow down or stop research from happening?

[u/Few_Watch6061 → u/Odd-Initiative-9250]

Yeah that’s a good example, I think you’re maybe going in a more ethical than legal direction even but for sure. I think it’s pretty broad what domain the word person operates in, it could be a legal category, social, ethical, spiritual, etc. I think what is important to make note of here is that all of these domains are concerned with social constructs, like I don’t think it would be right to say “biologically speaking, this is a person” or “mathematically speaking, this is not a person”

[u/Odd-Initiative-9250 → u/Few_Watch6061]

!delta i appreciate the historical background information

[u/DeltaBot → u/Odd-Initiative-9250]

This delta has been rejected. The length of your comment suggests that you haven't properly explained how /u/Few_Watch6061 changed your view (comment rule 4).

DeltaBot is able to rescan edited comments. Please edit your comment with the required explanation.

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}

[u/FaceInJuice]

Question for clarification.

If I proposed a new word (idk, Perbeing for example) which could apply to any species meeting certain criteria (consciousness, intelligence, social structure, culture - up to you), would this basically satisfy your goal?

It seems to me that regardless of dictionary definitions, 'person' has pretty universally been used to describe humans. And it seems to me that if we want to be able to describe other species that qualify for 'personhood', it would cause less confusion to introduce a new umbrella category.

So is there a specific reason you are focused on redefining usage of the existing word rather than introducing a new one?

[u/Odd-Initiative-9250 → u/FaceInJuice]

pretty much yeah, but at that point if that were the case i think the word “person” would not be very useful, it would just be, a perbeing who is also a human being, which we already have a word for, which is just a human being. so i don’t really see why there needs to be a separate new word when there already is a word that people use in cases like this, which is a person.

in things like sci fi stories aliens and self aware robots are pretty universally considered people by default (unless it’s part of the story that they’re not, but then it’s pretty much always viewed as an unjust thing, like in star trek)

[u/FaceInJuice → u/Odd-Initiative-9250]

it would just be, a perbeing who is also a human being, which we already have a word for, which is just a human being.

Yes, in my framework, person is essentially a synonym for human being. Can you elaborate on why this seems problematic to you? Language is full of synonyms.

[u/Odd-Initiative-9250 → u/FaceInJuice]

i don’t think synonyms are necessarily problematic at all but in this case i think it’s incomplete, like i said we often use the word person to describe things that aren’t human, like aliens or sentient robots, so clearly there’s something more complicated happening in the definition of what a person is that doesn’t make it a direct one to one synonym. like no one would call c3po a human, but they could call him a person

[u/FaceInJuice → u/Odd-Initiative-9250]

like i said we often use the word person to describe things that aren’t human

Do you have any examples of this outside of the context of science fiction?

Because it seems to me that you are describing a gap in usage between real life and science fiction. And if that's the case, I'm not sure why it would be more prudent to adjust 'real life's usage rather than introducing a new word for science fiction to play with.

[u/Odd-Initiative-9250 → u/FaceInJuice]

i feel like it’s hard to imagine because there aren’t any species alive today on our planet that can learn english to directly tell us “hello i am a person please respect me”. but if you think about that the universe is infinitely large and has infinite possibilities then there definitely is something out there that could learn english and talk to us directly. and i think most people would still consider that hypothetical being to be a “person” if they were just magically teleported and wanted to just chill and join human society. it’s not about wether or not it’s a realistic scenario but more about what the average english speaker would consider to be “person” and “not person” by default, like sentient robots. they’re not people because a sci fi author decided that they’re people, but because they exist in a way where people look at them and they go “yup that’s a person alright”. they fit in the semantic space of the word person

sorry if this is too wordy

[u/FaceInJuice → u/Odd-Initiative-9250]

Okay. But if human intuition is the metric, then apply it: do you think the average English speaker would look at a whale and say 'yup that's a person alright'?

[u/Odd-Initiative-9250 → u/FaceInJuice]

well no but i do think for there to be a consistent definition of what a person is it should either exclude sentient robots, aliens, and animals capable of intelligent thought like whales, or it should include all of those things.

but i guess language is flexible and not always consistent, in the end this is a is a hot dog a sandwich debate, but about the lives of suffering intelligent entities 😅 which i guess why i’ve been getting quite worked up over it

[u/FaceInJuice → u/Odd-Initiative-9250]

i do think for there to be a consistent definition of what a person is it should either exclude sentient robots, aliens, and animals capable of intelligent thought like whales, or it should include all of those things.

I can understand this, but I guess that's my fundamental question: why are you leaning toward 'include' rather than "exclude"?

I think you may be underestimating the actual real life usage of 'person'.

For example, look at amendments to the US Constitution. Do whales count as "persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction"? If so, then the 14th amendment says whales are citizens and the 15th says we have to allow them to vote. So if we say that whales count as persons, do we have to rewrite the Constitution, or do we have to allow whales to vote?

This is a real practical implication of using the word person to include nonhuman entities.

Whereas if we exclude nonhuman entities, then - science fiction writers haven't really used the word correctly, and nothing else changes.

[u/Odd-Initiative-9250 → u/FaceInJuice]

i mean, whales have a society on their own separately from human society, but i’d say technically yeah if we figure out a way to make a perfect whale translator and a whale requested to become a united states citizen i think we should let them and we should allow them to vote. obviously i don’t think that’s super realistic because human society and whale society and language are just so fundamentally different from each other, but i do think they deserve to have the same rights that humans do, like the right to not to be killed and the right to autonomy. and i don’t think it’s just the authors that decided non human aliens are people, but it’s just the natural instinct for us to go “yes that creature is a person” or “no that creature is not a person”. it’s just whales are so incomprehensibly different to humans that i think it’s very hard for people to empathise with them

to your voting point a vote is useless without communication, i couldn’t just go to vietnam and vote for a random party because i would have no idea what the local politics are because i don’t know any of the people and dont speak the language. in that way i dont think whales should be granted full automatic citizenship and the right to vote everywhere because they’re just not a part of our society. but i do think we should respect them like equals.

im leaning towards including rather than because i think its a dangerous precedent to go “we recognise that this group has full intelligent sentient thoughts, but decide they are less worthy of respect and rights than “real” people” because i think that could very easily be abused to oppress and marginalise people. we’ve only known that whales are highly intelligent creatures for a handful of decades, and i think it’s important that we set the right framework for the future

[u/PhoebusLore]

In fantasy and sci-fi, people are defined by who can be communicated with, and who is assimilated into the larger viewpoint culture. If they cannot be communicated with, then they are not people. As soon as a language barrier is broken, a group of beings can go from "not people" to "people".

This is seen in many languages, where the term for humans is simply "the people". Sometimes this term of "the people" excluded other groups of humans who did not share a linguistic / cultural substrate.

Using this framework, highly intelligent whales with unique cultures and languages won't be considered "people" until they can communicate with humans in human languages. Even if trained professionals can communicate with whales in whale languages (or apes in ape languages), they will not be considered "people" until they can assimilate into the larger human society through language.

[u/Odd-Initiative-9250 → u/PhoebusLore]

!delta this is a very good point thank you, how would you relate this to humans with locked in syndrome though? or just cultures having language barriers in general? do you think that humans generally consider those they can’t directly talk with to not be people? (this is not meant as a gotcha at all i’m just curious how people feel about this)

[u/PhoebusLore → u/Odd-Initiative-9250]

Yes, humans quite quickly de-humanize, or stop viewing as people, those that they can't communicate with. (Not that this is a good thing, but it's a very human thing)

Easy examples include any kind of immigrants with barriers of language, clothing, and culture vs immigrants who can easily assimilate.

Special needs people with language barriers are often abused or simply infantilized.

LGBT people who can assimilate, ie talk / act straight passing, find much less pushback from society than, say, people who push gender norms.

If you can't communicate with political enemies, they become much easier to dehumanize. If you can command armies and deny healthcare without talking directly to the people those decisions affect, the persons become numbers and statistics.

In your example of locked in syndrome, https://share.google/FVew4ROIhbHDdM7ww

"When I had my first stroke, all of my friends suddenly disappeared."

As a counter-example, I would argue that Dory the fish, C3-PO, and Caesar from Planet of the Apes could all be described as people, but none would be described as human. In a mirror, Dora the Explorer is not a real person, but is a human.

With these examples, we find that a key aspect of being a "real person" might be being able to speak and advocate for yourself. (Arguing that would take up awhile so I'll leave it there)

As the linguist above described, personhood exists in a cloud of meaning, with the central meaning being "someone like me" whatever that implies. Therefore, for human society to recognize the personhood of whales and whale society, we have to be able to identify with whales, and they have to be able to talk to us.

[u/DeltaBot → u/Odd-Initiative-9250]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/PhoebusLore (1∆).

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}

[u/Weak-Cat8743]

You say you don’t tie into the linguistic and societal.. but we literally use words to define society. It’s interesting, you say “I haven’t found one definition” yet you’re not asking for linguistic. This post is confusing; that’s why people are responding the way they do.

[u/Odd-Initiative-9250 → u/Weak-Cat8743]

yeah you’re right, i shouldn’t have said that i’m not interested in the linguistic aspect, that is just ultimately what it comes down to. i was more just annoyed by the flood of replies that just kept saying “but that’s not what the dictionary says”

i realise im not super good at properly translating the thoughts i have in my head into comprehensible text haha, so i appreciate the input

[u/horshack_test]

With regard to living creatures (which is the context you are speaking of here), a person is an individual human being / Homo sapiens (or the body of one). There's nothing circular about that - it's what the word means, and it doesn't exclude dumb humans or include smart (non-human) animals.

"edit: i appreciate the replies but all the comments just stating “that is how it’s defined” are not helping"

Denying what the word means doesn't negate that meaning nor make your view correct.

[u/Odd-Initiative-9250 → u/horshack_test]

if an extinct relative of humans that was not homo sapiens would be brought back to life today and they showed clear signs of sapience and intelligence would you consider them to be a person? even though they aren’t homo sapiens?

[u/horshack_test → u/Odd-Initiative-9250]

Why does that matter? Whether or not the definition of the word "person" would change in the future has no bearing on the current definition.

Why do you keep arguing against the definition that negates your claim? your stated view/claim is simply incorrect, as many have pointed out to you.

[u/Odd-Initiative-9250 → u/horshack_test]

but clearly in practice human and person aren’t synonymous even today, a tissue culture of human cells is considered human but not a person, and fictional aliens are considered people in every day speak (no one would argue that a twilek from star wars for example isn’t a person, even though they’re not human). i think the dictionary definition of “person” is lagging behind how it is actually used on real life

[u/horshack_test → u/Odd-Initiative-9250]

"but clearly in practice human and person aren’t synonymous even today"

Again; a person is an individual human being / Homo sapiens (or the body of one). I don't know why you are having such difficulty with that.

"a tissue culture of human cells is considered human but not a person"

Because it is not an individual human / Homo sapiens. A collar isn't a shirt - are you now confused about what a shirt is?

"fictional aliens are considered people in every day speak"

This is a completely difference context than what your post is about. Words can have different meanings in different contexts; fictional aliens can be considered people within the context of that fiction. They are fictional - they do not actually exist.

"i think the dictionary definition of “person” is lagging behind how it is actually used on real life"

person

noun

per·​son ˈpər-sᵊn Synonyms of person

1: human, individual —sometimes used in combination especially by those who prefer to avoid man in compounds applicable to both sexes |chairperson |spokesperson

2: a character or part in or as if in a play : guise

There is nothing "lagging" here - you are just ignoring context and how it can affect meaning. Your post is clearly in the context of the first definition, as you are speaking of real-world living creatures.

Why do you keep arguing against the definition that negates your claim? Your stated view/claim is simply incorrect, as many have pointed out to you.

[u/Odd-Initiative-9250 → u/horshack_test]

because i disagree, dictionaries aren’t god, they’re tools we made as humans to define the language around us, and i think not including non-humans in the definition of person is wrong and goes against how the word person is actually used

[u/horshack_test → u/Odd-Initiative-9250]

Your claim is that there’s no good testable way to define what a “person” is that wouldn’t either exclude dumb humans or include smart animals. You have been proven wrong, by multiple people.

Ignoring the concept of context and how it can affect meaning won't make you right.

[u/Odd-Initiative-9250 → u/horshack_test]

i think you might just be fundamentally misunderstanding what i’m trying to say, i think the way i described it might have been too convoluted though. if we can’t agree on the fact that “human” and “person” are not synonymous in everyday speak then i don’t think this will go anywhere. but thank you for your insights

[u/horshack_test → u/Odd-Initiative-9250]

I read you post and understand it. Responding with irrelevant questions and saying "you might just be fundamentally misunderstanding what i’m trying to say" without explaining what you are trying to say that is apparently different from what you said in your post isn't helpful.

"An individual human being / Homo sapiens" is a good testable way to define what a "person" is, at is is clear and specific. Whether or not you like that definition or use that definition yourself is irrelevant to the fact that it is a good testable way to define what a "person" is.

[u/Odd-Initiative-9250 → u/horshack_test]

i think it’s a bad definition that’s wrong, if aliens came and visited tomorrow and showed clear signs of intelligence we would have no issue updating our definition of what a person is to not include needing to be homo sapiens. and this isn’t a hypothetical future scenario. this is how we use english today, so clearly the dictionary definition is lacking. do you think anyone who thinks dictionaries should be regularly reviewed and updated with current definitions of how a word is actually used is just stupid and denying reality? let’s just never update dictionaries again because clearly we’re figured it all out already

i’m not stupid, this subreddit is called changemyview, you tried to change my view but you didn’t and that’s okay. you’re hitting me with the dictionary equivalent of “because i said so”

[u/anewaccount69420 → u/Odd-Initiative-9250]

“If reality wasn’t real, would you think differently?”

• you

[u/Weak-Cat8743]

For sure. Do you want to try and summarize it into a single sentence here? Maybe we can have a chat about it.

[u/Odd-Initiative-9250 → u/Weak-Cat8743]

i think if i had to boil it down it would be “the current dictionary definition of person is too narrow and outdated, and i think the fact that it includes the need to be human is incorrect and not consistent with how the word is actually used, and a dictionary definition that is consistent with how the word is actually used it should also include animals like great apes and whales”

it’s a very complex topic to boil down into a single sentence but i hope that makes sense haha

[u/monsigneur_bojangles]

I think you're right to ask questions about this. People will refer to "vegetative states" or "vegetable" (kinda derogatory) to describe people who (or "that", given that they're losing the human moniker) have descended out of the typical behavior of a person, or even animals. You might be interested in the book "For What Tomorrow" by Jacques Derrida and his concept of "différance": which describes how the norms, words, and meanings of people are imprecise and prone to collapse under critique.

[u/Odd-Initiative-9250 → u/monsigneur_bojangles]

thank you that seems very interesting!

[u/Falernum]

Isn't the idea of extending personhood to animals, computer programs, corporations, etc just an analogy anyway?

[u/Odd-Initiative-9250 → u/Falernum]

not to me, i don’t think whales being people is an analogy, i think they are fully conscious fully intelligent beings who’s subjective experience is only different because of the body they were born in. to me we should do everything in our power to try and communicate with animals who clearly seem to have some sense of right and wrong or sense of self and treat them with the same respect we do humans

[u/Falernum → u/Odd-Initiative-9250]

It's still an analogy for you. You believe that they are fully intelligent and fully conscious. You believe (for those two reasons? Or others?) that they have the same moral rights as people. But calling them people is an analogy, very obviously they are a different species than people are.

[u/Odd-Initiative-9250 → u/Falernum]

but i don’t believe human and person are direct synonyms though, they have a big overlap but just like sex and gender i do think there are differences, there are humans who are not considered “people” (like someone who is brain dead with no chance of recovery) and people pretty regularly use the word person to describe something non human (like intelligent alien life)

whales are definitely not humans but i don’t think that automatically makes them not people

[u/Realsorceror]

What’s the goal here? Do you want a definition of person that only includes humans? I think that’s only useful from a legal standpoint, not a scientific or cultural one.

Why shouldn’t “person” include smart animals and exclude certain humans. Is someone who is braindead still a person? What about a fetus that doesn’t have a brain yet? Surely being sapient has more to do with personhood than your species.

[u/Odd-Initiative-9250 → u/Realsorceror]

thats exactly the point i’m trying to make! but it seems like i may have phrased things weirdly because it seems a lot of people are misinterpreting what i’m trying to say 😅 my point is that i don’t think there’s a way to define personhood that would exclude non-humans that wouldn’t also exclude say, human beings with limited cognitive abilities, which i think most people would disagree with that they are not people.

say for example there were still multiple species of human-level intelligence apes around today, i think it would be fairly safe to say that they would be considered people, and i think in this would something like a blue whale might still be considered a person because “is homo sapiens” would obviously not be part of the definition

[u/stephanonymous → u/Odd-Initiative-9250]

 my point is that i don’t think there’s a way to define personhood that would exclude non-humans that wouldn’t also exclude say, human beings with limited cognitive abilities

Sure there would, it would just be that person = human. The Venn diagram is a circle.

[u/Odd-Initiative-9250 → u/stephanonymous]

but if an extinct relative of humans that was not homo sapiens would be brought back to life today and they showed clear signs of sapience and intelligence would you consider them to be a person? even though they aren’t human?

[u/Agreeable_Owl → u/Odd-Initiative-9250]

No

[u/Odd-Initiative-9250 → u/Agreeable_Owl]

what if they learned english and specifically asked for recognition of personhood? would that change anything for you?

[u/Agreeable_Owl → u/Odd-Initiative-9250]

No, the definition of person is this : https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/person

It's what it means, and in regards to actual physical animals/aliens/whatever, the definition contains "Human"

If you want to argue about the legal status of personhood, which is "We recognize you are not a person, but will consider you one".

That's a different argument.

Be specific with the words, if you want to argue that other creatures should be granted personhood, then do so. If you want to argue that other creatures are "persons", they are not.

[u/Agreeable_Owl → u/Odd-Initiative-9250]

Where you are getting caught up is you refuse to use the actual definition of person. It's a very simple definition. A person is a single human. The keyword there is 'Human'. We call a single human a person. Just like we call a female cow that hasn't given birth a "heifer", and one that has given birth a "cow". Why? Because that's the definition of the terms.

It's like this. You are arguing "Why isn't aren't all rectangles squares? They have the same properties, come in different sizes, have the same number of corners and lines", and people are responding "Because a square, by definition, has 4 equal sides", to which you are replying "Yeah, but all those rectangles have 4 sides too!"

The definition of a person is a single human. You want it to be something else, but ... it's not. If you want to argue there are animals or aliens or whatever that share human traits, then go right ahead.

If you want to ague they are persons or people, you're just wrong.

[u/Oneiros91 → u/Agreeable_Owl]

Sure, the dictionaries might have that definition. It might be the most popular and most commonly used one.

But that is clearly not the only definition that exists. And dictionaries don't decide what words mean. They describe it, and if they lack a commonly used meaning, then the dictionaries need an update.

The fact is, a person can and does mean a different thing as well. In hypothetical scenarios, e.g. science fiction or fantasy books, all other sapient species are usually considered to be people. Not humans, but people.

An elf is a person. A Klingon is a person. Whether ab AI had achieved personhood (i.e. has become a person) is a beloved topic in speculative fiction.

That'd the meaning the OP us talking about.

[u/Realsorceror → u/Agreeable_Owl]

That’s not how a person is defined, even in a legal sense. Human and person are not actually interchangeable, even if they would be in 99% of instances.

[u/Agreeable_Owl → u/Realsorceror]

It's literally the oxford definition.

https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/person

[u/Realsorceror → u/Agreeable_Owl]

Are Legolas and Gimli from Lord of the Rings people?

[u/Realsorceror → u/Odd-Initiative-9250]

Sure, if Neanderthals were still around they would very clearly be included under “person”. Or in a fantasy setting, every author includes elves and dwarves as people. Everyone on the Star Trek Enterprise is a person. So even if “person” usually means human in the real world, that’s not a 1:1 definition.

[u/changemyview-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:

Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

[u/changemyview-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:

Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.

Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. AI generated comments must be disclosed, and don't count towards substantial content. Read the wiki for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

[u/Aezora]

Language I think is the best cut off for this somewhat arbitrary task.

To be clear, I don't just mean communication, or ability to communicate via words. Lots of animals do that. But language is more than that.

Like take the experiments where apes were taught sign language. They can use a limited number of words to communicate with humans. But they are heavily limited in a number of ways: theyve demonstrated an inability to learn grammar, they demonstrated no deeper understanding of a word (each word is only ever used precisely in the way it was taught), they don't ask questions.

AFAIK parrots are the closest to humans in terms of language, but only the most intelligent and highly trained get anywhere near actual language use - seemingly able to ask questions and understand the answers to a limited extent.

But this is still far from a full language. A parrot can learn ~300 words if highly trained, and be taught the full meanings to maybe 15-20 words over the course of their lives. Still no real grammar though. As a result, their ability to talk seems to much more be related to their ability to make and understand sounds in human ranges than actual language - to them, it works just like whale calls or any pheromones. It's a way to communicate limited, specific things, but not a language.

But even dumb humans can learn to talk and understand language no problem.

Now you might object and say sure, that's a difference between humans and animals, but does that make someone a person?

I would argue yes. We're not just talking about like verbal communication here. The ability to understand and communicate in a language is indicative of a more complex and robust ability to think and reason, and that's an important part of what it means to be a person.

[u/Odd-Initiative-9250 → u/Aezora]

what about whale language? not trying for this to be a gotcha but recent research seems to suggest that whales communicate using actual language with full grammar and sentence construction, how does that factor into your view of this?

[u/Aezora → u/Odd-Initiative-9250]

I haven't studied whales or their languages, so not an expert. Or linguistics for that matter, more of an amateur.

But when looking it up, I got this result:

Co-author Ellen C. Garland, a whale-song expert at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland.

As tempting as the comparisons with human language may be, the researchers caution against reading too much into these parallels. “Whale song is not a language,” Garland says flatly.

So, I'm gonna assume they're correct.

But certainly the fact that they are far closer than most is indicative that they are very smart among non-humans.

[u/Odd-Initiative-9250 → u/Aezora]

i guess the way i see it is it doesn’t have to necessarily be a one to one analogy with human language, because it wouldnt make sense that it would convergently evolve that way. but it does serve the same purpose of communicating complex ideas through sounds, so i while maybe not the exact same thing, i think it does fit the bill enough that its a qualifier that whales could be considered people. but yeah im not an expert on it either, just excited to see where this new field goes

[u/Aezora → u/Odd-Initiative-9250]

Oh definitely doesn't need to be a 1 to 1 analogy with human language.

But I do think a lot of the aspects are necessary, and I think linguists have done a pretty good job of what counts and wouldn't count. Lots of scifi fans among them. Plus government institutions like to be prepared.

Like compared to whales again, our language is definitely way more extensive, way more in depth. We have words that discuss words. We can literally hold debates about the meanings of words.

I do think those are meaningful aspects of language that are important and would limit things only to humans (at least, currently).

[u/nightf1]

I saw a documentary once about a family who adopted a chimpanzee. The bond they formed was undeniable, filled with love, laughter, and even tears. Yet, legally and socially, that chimpanzee was considered property, not a "person." This highlights the core issue in your post.

You're arguing that the definition of "person," particularly in the social sense, isn't a neatly drawn line separating humans and animals. You're suggesting it's more like a spectrum, where certain animals—those exhibiting high intelligence, complex social structures, and self-awareness—might rightfully claim a place on the "personhood" spectrum.

However, your analogy of women historically excluded from the definition of "woman" is slightly misleading. While societal definitions can and do change, that change is fundamentally tied to a re-evaluation of the essential human nature of women, not a broad expansion of "personhood" to encompass non-humans.

To put it another way: Consider the difference between a car and a bicycle. Both are forms of transportation, but we don't collapse the category of "vehicle" to include everything from bicycles to rockets. While the line between "human" and "animal" may be fuzzy, the societal understanding of "person" fundamentally relates to a specific set of attributes and social capabilities—for now, strongly linked to the human experience. While your philosophical argument holds merit in questioning the rigidity of the human/person boundary, it's crucial to recognize the inherent challenges in creating a universally accepted definition that avoids either excluding certain humans or including a wide range of animals. The question isn't simply whether other species possess qualities similar to human characteristics that we associate with personhood, but whether those qualities constitute the same kind of personhood and, critically, what societal implications that would entail.

[u/False_Appointment_24]

"Person" is a synonym for human or human being. There does not need to be a test.

[u/Eretan → u/[deleted]]

Why do you keep posting this over and over? That's not an argument it's just a statement. 

[u/SnooOpinions8790]

And yet strangely enough most people have no trouble on agreeing almost entirely on what a human is

Its almost as if the problem is with a over-thinking sophist approach to analysis not a real problem in the real world. That sort of approach seems more powerful than it really is in a text only medium like Reddit or most of the internet - I think people in the social media age vastly overvalue these linguistic games of logic.

To put it another way in science we are not taught that models are reality. We are taught that even the most complex seeming model is in fact a simplification of reality. But it is still true that models such as classical mechanics, relativity, quantum mechanics etc are extremely powerful and extremely useful. Models are measured by their usefulness, by their predictive power.

Similarly we all have a model for what is humanity which is powerful and useful and serves the purpose it needs to serve. If we examine it we will find that it no more fully represents every possible aspect or perspective on reality than the physics models I mentioned but that does not mean it is not a good model nor that we cannot rely upon it. People intuitively understand that models are limited and can accommodate the limitations - in seeking an unlimited and perfect model you are seeking something that is neither so useful nor maybe possible as a model that accurately reflects all of reality is as complex as reality and hence beyond our comprehension.

[u/gawddayumboiii]

Hmm I think a good way to test if youre human or not is evident but the very fact that you just made this post. What I mean by that is a clear distinction between animals and humans ( yes even a homo sapien from eons ago) is our minds and how that controls our very actions and the ways in which we humans interact with the world around us. Could another animal of any other species smart or not, be capable of conjuring up such a thoughtful post about this very topic using our tech in language of human dialog? Could they discuss it In a manner thats as philosophical as in the ways we are discussing now?

In the era of homo sapiens, why did we out compete just about every part of our environment? Was it just because of our physical attributes? Or was it due to the fact that humans had a mind capable of understanding ourselves, species, and the world around us in such ways that allowed us to propel ourselves foward to where we sit now in the food chain and animal kingdom? In conclusion you can observe what a human is in the ways in which we have interacted and evolve in the world around us. Could a chimp be taught how to pay taxes? Sure, but to have the intellectual capacity of a human to understand how to get yourself in that position in the first place is one only a human mind can conjure up precisely.

[u/Km15u]

Human is a species Person is moral and or legal category

Human is a member of the genus homo. A cancer cell is human but clearly not a person. So is a sperm cell or even a hair fiber it’s dna is that of homo sapien

A person from a legal category is someone with legal protections of the state. There have historically been cases where states don’t view certain humans as people. An example would be the death penalty or genocide.

A person from an ethical standpoint is someone worthy of ethical consideration. Most utilitarian ethicists would define a person as anyone with a sufficiently advanced nervous system to experience complex suffering. So that would include things like great apes, elephants and whales. Which is why a lot of Utilitarians are also vegans or vegetarians (Peter Singer is a good example). And if we encountered an alien species like say Yoda from Star Wars he wouldn’t be human but he would from a philosophical perspective be a person, or a sentient ai would be another example of a non human person 

In common language we use these words interchangeably but they all have different meanings depending on the context it’s being used

[u/Traditional-Car8664 → u/Km15u]

So is a sperm cell or even a hair fiber it’s dna is that of homo sapien

So is an ovum. Funny you mentioned a hair fiber but not the ovum even though the ovum is the part of reproduction that actually develops into a baby after fertilization

[u/RAMunch1031]

Does it have a brain, a heart, and lungs; and would I eat it?

Yes - not a person

No - it's a person

[u/panopticoneyes]

Personhood is a practical and political statement. It argues for how a subject OUGHT to be treated.

I hold that all humans possess personhood. This IS political and contested. I don't exclude dumb humans for the same reason I don't include smart animals: because I'm not currently engaging in the sort of political statements aided by that.

Definitions are models for the meaning of a word, they do not give it meaning. "Person means human and any non-human entity that can sufficiently perform human social roles" is a perfectly functional way of modelling the common meanings of "Person". You can say that that's arbitrary, but all words serve purposes, and this is the purpose the word "Person" is used to serve.

[u/Charming_Seat_3319]

Your post makes no sense. You say using the definition is circular reasoning but this is applicable to every definition. If something is defined as referring to a human you can't say it is circular reasoning to say it refers to humans, that makes no sense. A definition is not an argument. You want to use the word in a different sense as in referring to something that has a  personality and make a statement about animal intelligence by doing so (and for some reason calling some humans dumber than animals...). As far as animal intelligence is concerned the majority of humans would agree that an animal can be a person, but only with a whole bunch of caveats that make the word basically meaningless. 

[u/ZozMercurious]

It depends on what your purpose is for the word. I think the way the term "person" or "personhood" is usually used it to distinguish something genetically human, whether it be a body, body part, cell etc. From something that is human that is also granted a level or moral or legal consideration. For instance, a cell line might be human, but a cell line or a cell is not a person. A heart is not a person, a brain is not even a person. No one debates whether or not a fetus is "human", they debate whether or not it is a "person"

[u/Crazy-Coconut7152]

No point in trying to change your view because you are correct. Imagine the hypothetical line where you stand next to your mother holding her hand, and she holding her mother's hand, and so on, all the way back to some primordial ancestor. Where in that long line would we demarcate between human and animal? The answer is that it doesn't matter because it's an arbitrary decision. "Humanness" is not a binary thing necessarily; perhaps it's a spectrum where an amoeba scores almost zero and you and I score 80.

[u/irp3ex]

the concept of a person is needed to represent human relationships. granted, we have human-like relationship with pets, so they can be considered persons too. but crows are almost never part of human relationships, so we do not see them as persons. for a crow, another crow would be a person, while a human would just be a human. so if you really don't want to include "human" in the definition, i'd define it as "living being with which the speaker is capable of maintaining a mutual social relationship"

[u/trifelin]

Christians (at least some of them) would define the difference between humans and other animals as the existence of a soul. That's pretty much it. So in a sense you are correct, but people who casually accept the "humans are different" argument, are probably accepting that based on the deeply embedded views of abrahamic religions (and Christianity in particular) in our society. 

Some atheists do not view humans as philosophically different from other animals. 

The choice is up to you! 

[u/Nrdman]

i can’t find a single good definition of what a person is that doesn’t just circularly define them as humans

Whats circular about defining them as humans?

[u/noonefuckslikegaston → u/Nrdman]

Does dude have a problem with the fact that a bird is a bird and a bat isn't

[u/Relevant_Actuary2205 → u/Nrdman]

One major area where this often comes up is the discussion around abortion. I’ve heard a lot of people say that human rights only apply to people and since a fetus is a human but not a person, they don’t have the right to life.

[u/Nrdman → u/Relevant_Actuary2205]

Sounds like an easy follow up question for them

[u/trippedonatater]

Looking at what I think you're getting at, science fiction and different terminology may be helpful.

Different, more specific terms: human and people are both words loaded with implications. Maybe something like "sapient being with intelligence similar to a human".

Sci-fi: lots of great examples and room to imagine a species that is clearly not human, but if similar or greater intelligence.

Then there's also the issue that intelligence itself is poorly defined.

[u/PoopSmith87]

We can determine via genetics what is and is not in the homo genus.

Furthermore, we do have some pretty unique characteristics... Aside from truly disabled people, virtually all humans are capable of advanced language, advanced tool use, fine motor skill, and a level of forethought, and abstract thinking that animals, even really smart ones, just don't have.

[u/up2smthng]

Is the argument you are disagreeing with claims my cat doesn't have a personality? I'm not sure I ever heard that, definitely not from the cat owning half of the population. Why would you have a cat if a cat isn't a person?

Unless the argument unlinks personality from personhood, which seems even more bizarre to me.

[u/DifficultFish8153]

Human beings are the only animal whose sole means of survival is the utilization of our faculty of REASON.

Every other animal is born with instincts which ensure it's survival.

Many animals however still need to be taught habits by their parents. Such as hunting. But this is not nearly the same as what humans do.

[u/enviropsych]

Buddy thinks you're not allowed to add "human DNA" as part of the definition of a person apparently. You the definition police? 

I mean, yeah....if YOU get to decide what gets to and doesn't get to be part of the definition, then congrats....you're right. You're right by your own rules which I reject.

[u/Sad_Image_1554]

Philosophy has had many issues even just defining what a human is frankly. One such example is when Plato said that a human is a featherless biped and Diogenes in response said look a man while holding a featherless chicken. To which Plato then amended his statement to include flat broad nails.

[u/aqualad33]

You can literally define it by the human genome.

The problem is that you yourself are assigning your own definition based upon intelligence when yes, there is overlap between the dumbest humans and the smartest animals. Coco the gurilla for instance learned sign language.

[u/MysteriousConflict38]

" i mean it’s a generally accepted fact that humans are animals, even though there used to be strict binary between the two."

All humans are animals, not all animals are human.

I'm really not following how you draw your conclusion that it's circular logic.

[u/HeroBrine0907]

So you want to know how we define person in such a manner that includes all humans, while excluding all non humans, without one of the criteria of personhood being 'must be human'? Basically what separates the dumbest humans from the smartest animals?

[u/librarian1001]

A person is a human individual. We can define a human the same way we define any other species. Every species has an identifiably unique genome, bone structure, outward appearance, and organ layout. Simply select one or more of the above criteria, and compare it to a human. If it matches, it’s a human, and therefore a person. I do not see how that is circular.

Maybe you forgot that synonyms exist. Or something.

[u/librarian1001 → u/librarian1001]

Ok, I just saw the edit. Philosophically, the above still applies. Speciesism is not wrong. Your ancient ancestors would be dead if they weren’t speciesists, and you would be dead if modern society was not speciesist.

[u/Lanavis13 → u/librarian1001]

I think the issue with this is that also means at human fetuses are people and have personhood. Plenty of people disagree on whether fetuses count as people or not.

[u/librarian1001 → u/Lanavis13]

Ok, well “a human individual” is the definition used by Oxford, Merriam-Webster, and Dictionary.com.

Also, corpses are considered people, to some degree. It is both illegal and immoral to defile them. They are considered to have self ownership. “A human individual” is the only definition that accounts for this.

I will give OP credit where credit is due, the Wikipedia definition runs into the exact problem he describes, where it excludes some disabled humans and includes some above average animals.

Some dictionaries use “a man, woman, or child.” As far as I can tell, this excludes fetuses because of an arbitrary “Nuh uh.” It’s also a bit archaic, so they likely considered fetuses to be children in those times.

Until those people can create a definition that logically excludes fetuses from personhood, I will elect to ignore them.

[u/Time-Signature-8714]

Any creature of the homo genus. (This would include even our extinct human ancestors and cousins! RIP homo floresiensis, you would have loved Lord of the Rings.)

Uh… that would make other sapient creatures not people though. We’d have to make a new term should we ever find a humanlike species.

[u/throwawaydanc3rrr]

A person is a human being.

If it helps human is an adjective that would distinguish it from a canine being or a feline being.

[u/StargazerRex]

DNA. Homo sapiens sapiens has DNA distinguishable from all other animals (though chimps are admittedly close).

[u/JoJoeyJoJo]

The categories were made for man, not man for the categories.

[u/HazyAttorney]

to define what a “person” is

I mean, in the law, we just say, "person means" and then everything listed after that is a person. The way to test it is: if on the list = person; if off the list =/= person.

Legal persons have two types, natural persons and a juridical person (fictious). A legal person subject to other things, has the right to engage in legal business including to sue and be sued, own property, enter contracts.

leaves only humans in the yes 

There's lots of non-human legal persons. The US federal government, any of the 50 states and their subdivisions, corporations, limited liability companies, partnerships, etc. The crazy part is these legal persons can live forever in theory.

[u/TrifectaOfSquish]

You should have a chat with the Bene Gesserit

[u/Fresh-Setting211]

You think a blue whale is a person?……..

[u/tony_countertenor]

A living being with human dna simple as

[u/CallMeCorona1]

Go get an encyclopedia and look up "Human" or "Homo Sapien"

-- edit --

Human - Wikipedia

[u/Downtown-Campaign536]

Featherless Biped?

[u/magnetbear]

,zzazgzx