NCM108
WEEK 1
THE HUMAN PERSON – PERSONHOOD
CONCEPT OF PERSONHOOD
SUBSUBSUB
• The concept of personhood is widely involved in
biomedical ethics discussions about abortion, stemcell
research, euthanasia, etc., though it is not always
discussed explicitly. It also has other philosophical and
legal relevance.
• Some thinkers use the term “person” in such a way that
one is either a person or not, but the situation is not that
simple. It will be useful to distinguish among different
types, contexts, or meanings of personhood:
DIFFERENT TYPES OF PERSONHOOD
MORAL PERSONHOOD
• The moral sense of personhood denotes individual
beings who are moral agents. Moral agents engage in
behavior that can be evaluated as moral or immoral, as
morally right or wrong, as morally permissible or morally
impermissible. Their acts are blameworthy or
praiseworthy. It makes sense to hold them morally
responsible for their intentional actions. Ordinarily,
human beings are considered moral agents and moral
persons. Nonhuman animals, such as dogs, cats, birds,
and fish, are commonly held not to be moral agents and
not moral persons.
METAPHYSICAL PERSONHOOD
• Metaphysics can be characterized as the study of the
nature of reality, in its most basic forms or categories,
such as discussion of whether everything that exists is
physical (material), or whether there are two ultimate
kinds of irreducible stuff, mind and matter. Sometimes
the term “metaphysics” is taken to refer to a transcendent
realm beyond the physical. But modern secular
philosophers commonly talk of personhood in a
metaphysical sense without implying the existence of any
such transcendent realm.
• The concept of metaphysical personhood would be to
use personhood as a basic category of reality
encompassing beings of a certain type: rational, moral
agents, using language, etc. There is no consensus
about the exact criteria. Adult human beings are
commonly considered persons, and a very interesting
question to ask yourself is that of exactly what it is about
us that makes us persons. Clearly not having a particular
hair color, or even having hair, or being a particular
height, or weight, or having a brain, etc. Here are some
suggested commonly-suggested criteria:
o Rationality or logical reasoning ability
o Consciousness
o Self-consciousness (self-awareness)
o Use of language
o Ability to initiate action
o Moral agency and the ability to engage in moral
judgments
o Intelligence
1|Page
• We commonly say a human being is a person even while
asleep or unconscious, for instance, even though at that
moment the individual is not exhibiting all the criteria
necessary for attributing personhood. Rather the
individual has to have the disposition or capacity to
exhibit such features. Some people (materialists or
physicalists) believe that human beings are purely
physical and that the mind is just an elliptical way of
referring to the brain, with any immaterial soul an old
wives’ tale or religious superstition. Others (property
dualists) believe that there are mental properties that are
not reducible to physical properties, or (dualists and
idealists) that we each have a mind that is not simply the
brain, it is some sort of nonphysical stuff or substance.
Others go further and believe that apart from the physical
body and the nonphysical mind there is a further
immaterial soul. (Some equate the mind and soul.) Those
who believe the mind and/or soul are not reducible to the
physical body would hold that they are essential to
metaphysical personhood. They might even refer to the
transcendent soul or mind as the metaphysical person.
PHYSICAL PERSONHOOD
• Physical personhood is a concept rarely discussed by
ethicists because all the heavy lifting is usually done by
the notion of metaphysical personhood. As mentioned
above, materialists or physicalists believe that a human
being is essentially a physical being, with no
metaphysically distinct soul or mind. In this view, physical
personhood and metaphysical personhood are going to
be pretty much the same thing.
• Dualists or idealists believe that human beings are more
than just the physical, with the involvement of a
metaphysically distinct mind or soul. On this view a
human being on earth inhabits a physical body,
possesses a physical body, or possesses an apparently
physical (but really not) body, so on this view one could
interpret physical personhood as just the way a person
has a continuing presence in this world through the
physical body. Perhaps life continues after natural death
as the metaphysical person or some aspect of it
continues on.
LEGAL PERSONHOOD
• The law often recognizes that certain groups of
individuals can be considered as a unit, an actor, a legal
person. This sort of legal personhood allows the unitary
group, for example, a corporation, to enter into contracts
and engage in other legal matters as if it were a natural
person. To most thinkers, useful as this is, it is an artificial
type of person and not metaphysically significant.
Corporate personhood may be a very useful legal
concept without necessarily implying anything about
corporations being metaphysical persons.
 DIFFERENCE OF PERSON AND HUMAN BEING
PERSONS AND HUMAN BEINGS just an historical question but one of the present
• It is common to assume “person” and “human being” intentions in upholding this principle with such wording.
mean the same thing, but from what has been
described above, this may not be true and in fact most
RELATIONSHIP AMONG THE VARIOUS CONCEPTS
It may be that in our reasoning we assume the presence of some
philosophers distinguish between these two types of
sense of personhood is required for an entity to have a certain
entity.
status or property. This may have relevance for controversies in
• “Human being” is a biological designation for those of
biomedical ethics, such as in abortion, stem cell research, and
the species Homo sapiens (or related). Many thinkers
euthanasia. For example, some people consider the embryo or
hold that a person may or may not be a human being,
fetus to have a certain moral status of possessing a right to life
and a human being may or may not be a person. This
and base that not only on it being human but on it being
may sound very odd to you at first, but please pay
considered a (metaphysical) person from the time of conception.
attention to how we are using these terms.
Others disagree with the claim that the embryo is a person at all
• For example, in the future imagine that we learn of
because it fails to meet what they consider necessary criteria of
aliens living on another planet, and these aliens,
personhood.
though not human, behave much as we do, are highly
intelligent and rational, use language, talk of moral DEGREES OF PERSONHOOD
responsibility, etc. We might grant they are persons; • Along with the questions of which criteria we consider
they just aren’t human persons because they aren’t necessary for personhood (to be a person you must
homo sapiens. On the other hand, imagine an have them), and which we consider sufficient
individual who loses a large amount of brain conditions of personhood (if you have them then you
functioning. Kept alive through ventilators and artificial are a person), one might come to the conclusion that
nutrition and hydration, this unfortunate human being personhood might come in degrees. That is, there can
might be considered no longer a person. Such be partial persons and one individual is more of a
examples are meant to show that we may not be using person than another. This might seem nonsensical, but
the concepts of human being and person to mean consider the possibility of aliens from another planet
exactly the same thing. that seem to be between chimpanzees and human
• Most individuals believe we owe other human persons beings. Are they persons or not? It might be hard to say
obligations, such as the duty not to harm them, or that and we might allow they are partial persons. The same
human persons possess certain natural moral rights, might occur if nonhuman animal species evolve to such
such as the right not to be murdered. The question an extent that we recognize them as having some kind
arises as to whether these duties and rights stem from of personhood. At what point did they gain it? Along the
such human persons in virtue of their being persons or way were they partial persons? Or consider the
because they are humans. Many thinkers believe it is example of a severely brain damaged individual,
because they are persons, that is, a certain moral clearly still a human being, but possibly not fully a
status depends on a metaphysical status of person in the metaphysical sense. The same questions
personhood. On the other hand, some thinkers instead arise when we consider the ordinary development of
believe it is because human persons are human that human beings from conception through infancy and
they possess such rights and are owed such into adulthood. At what point does an individual
obligations. Complicating the question is the fact that become a person, metaphysically and morally? Some
we might believe nonhuman animals to have some would say at conception, some would say while an
rights, be owed some obligations, and have some embryo or fetus, others would say at birth or shortly
moral status as moral patients. One might claim that before, while still others would say during infancy or as
they have the right not to be gratuitously tortured, for the infant becomes a young child. But it might be
instance. But they are not persons. So, if one believes difficult to point to one moment in time when an
this and also holds that moral rights accrue to human individual went from nonperson to person, and perhaps
persons because of their personhood, then it must be there is room here for the concept of partial
that this is the case for only some rights, because personhood.
nonhuman animals who are not persons have some
moral rights too.
• Further consider the view that special treatment is
owed human persons in virtue not of their being
persons but in virtue of their being human beings. One
might hold this view to be a kind of prejudice, a
“speciesism” (in the words of Peter Singer), that can be
compared to racism. A commonly accepted principle of
biomedical ethics is respect for autonomy. This is
sometimes called respect for autonomy of persons or
considered an aspect of respect for persons. One
should consider the question of whether “person” here
was chosen over “human” for a reason and whether it
means the same as or different than “human.” It’s not

2|Page