personhood

[henry quirk]

No one can.

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

[glatt]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

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

This is absolutely correct.

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

If personhood is intrinsic, then some animals are persons.

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

[henry quirk]

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

[Flint]

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

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

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

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

[henry quirk]

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

Well, that's one view.