Persons: (see text pp. 133-39)
General Considerations:



Our most certain knowledge is often our most vague
o e.g. That life is, is quite clear; what life is, is very vague
 Something similar is true of persons: that they
exist is clear, but how to define them is not
There is no one legal definition of person to help us here
o In law, “person” is defined in each piece of legislation as
needed, for that legislation alone
YIKES: In the absence of a precise definition, some (especially
in bioethics) are defining certain human beings (e.g. so-called
“idiots”) as “non-persons”, while others speak of extending
personhood to some (or all) non-human animals
TIME 2006
Criteria:

some philosophers try to narrow the definition of “person” by listing criteria a
being must meet to be classed as a person
Locke
Dennett
Warren
* rationality
* rationality
* consciousness of objects
* thought
* conscious mental states
* ability to feel pain
* consciousness
* seen as a “subject”
* reasoning/problem-solving
* self-consciousness
* views others as “subject”
* self-motivated actor
* self-identity
* verbal
* communicative
* self-conscious
* self-concepts & awareness

whatever the value of these lists, there is a sense in which they miss the point:
o they make “personhood” a test that one can either pass or fail – a test
that may say more about the perspective or bias of the tester than the
personhood of the one tested
o they fail to recognize that “personhood” is not merely a thing or quality one
possess, but also a process of development

Historically, philosophers have inclined to the view that a person is “an individual
capable of moral agency.” Although the details of their theories of human
nature differ widely, Descartes, Locke, Kant, and others all accepted a functional
description of the person that includes both mental and physical features: the
attribution of responsibility to a moral agent requires both the ability to choose
and an ability to act on that choice.
Question:
The Catechism of the Catholic Church speaks often of the dignity of the human
person. In articles 1700 ff., we read such things as: “The dignity of the human
person is rooted in his creation in the image and likeness of God ... the divine
image is present in every man ... by virtue of his soul and his spiritual powers of
intellect and will, man is endowed with freedom, an outstanding manifestation of
the divine image ... living a moral life bears witness to the dignity of the person.”
Do you like this way of speaking better than the lists above? Why/why not?