Bridget, I understand and agree with your first point about fundamental properties being a mandatory part of a defniition. In fact I agree with most of what you just said, but I simply think the word "person" in the English language is not appropriate for a robot or an alien or any non-human, regardless of their intelligence (of course, language evolves and should we discover such intelligent beings and people commonly refer to them as "people" then the term itself would change). However, I disagree with what you said regarding equality: "So, if you don't consider it a person, it implies it is not equal to you." That's not correct: Just because I consider something as a "non-person" does not mean that I consider it equal or inequal to me (or to other "persons"), it just means I consider it different.
Yet you have not qualified why the definition should follow as you imply because remember, a non-person according to law has no rights. According to all ethical theories a non-person has no moral considerations nor obligations. And so forth. I think the fact that you dwell on what a dictionary says instead of what a logician or a philosopher says proves my point. Words are not static, they evolve. Women use to be considered non-persons not only in law, but also in philosophical theory until other people recognized this division, this claim to difference to be a farce. I call what you say to be difference a farce as well, nothing personal on your part, but it is what it is in that regard. To make a special category for humanness apart from non-humanness by calling us people and others non-people is not only erroneous in the construct of personhood, it is also erroneous in the nature of all rational agents. A rational agent in philosophy is a person, period and end of story and for the reasons I've stated. From the Utilitarians to the Objectivists, this is a universally agreed upon definition, you seem to be the only one in the whole world of philosophical giants, of scientific paragons that holds out. You need to substantiate why, beyond the dictionary.
-- Bridget
I think we're saying the same thing, but coming from different angles. I think you're saying that a foreign intelligent being, currently unknown to us, becomes a "person" once we determine that it is intelligent/rational. I am saying that once we determine the a foreign intelligent being is intelligent/rational, we need to create a new word to properly define the new being
and humans
as a group. Indeed we will have common traits - common fundamental traits, such as rationality and intelligence - but we also have differing traits such as our biology, our anatomy, our moral goals as living beings, our lifespans. We could logically be grouped and called "neopeeps," the definition of which might be "rational beings" (and "neopeeps" would consist of human "persons" and aliens), but I still contend that a "person" is defined as a "rational human being."
If we define something properly, integrating it with all of our other knowledge, appropriately identifying its essential characteristics (Rand's Conceptual Common Denominator), then when we gain more knowledge (e.g. learn of a new type of intelligent being) our previous definition is not incorrect (it does not cease to be correct in the context of our knowldge at the time, before we knew of intelligent aliens), it just needs to be refined to fit our new knowledge. In the example of women being considered "non-persons" legally until society evolved and realized they are "persons" and therefore are equal (legally in that case, not morally), the word "person" was appropriately applied to them, since "person" meant "human being" - it's just that before that time, society misused the word "person" to refer only to males (rather, the law did).
As for being the only one in the whole world of philosophical giants who is holding out, I'm not sure how to take this. As a compliment, since you're placing me with philosophical giants (
) or as stupid for not conforming to a universally agreed upon definition (which isn't universally agreed upon since at least one person disagrees: me).
- Mike