- Joined
- Oct 24, 2011
- Messages
- 23,122
- Reaction score
- 10,882
- Location
- Where faults collide
- Website
- doggedlywriting.blogspot.com
But is personhood an all-or-nothing thing, or does it exist on a sort of continuum? Legally, we have to draw lines, of course. That creates a sense (artificial, imo) that all these things are binary. 100% yes or no.
For instance, the age of majority. In the US, in most respects, you become a legal adult on your 18th birthday. You can vote, have sex, marry without your parents' consent, enter into contracts, must register for the draft if male (stupid unequal law that really seems unconstitutional) and serve in the military. Each right conferred by the law on your 18th birthday is all-or-nothing.
But do any of us really believe that every 18 year old becomes imbued with adult abilities and knowledge at midnight on their birthday, or that their brains and bodies are done developing? And do they believe that every eighteen-year-old is more mature than every seventeen-year-old? It's a line of adulthood (maybe based on averages but probably somewhat arbitrary) that's been adopted for legal convenience instead of subjecting each young person to a series of tests to determine which rights and responsibilities they're ready for every few months or so.
If we come up with some legal definition of personhood that applies to one situation, like an artificial intelligence, or an intelligent animal, or alien life, those probably won't apply to all humans (even ones that aren't fetuses). A newborn baby is less intelligent and autonomous than a dog, but a baby is legally considered a person, and a dog isn't. We can say that's because the baby has the potential to develop into a being who has human intelligence, but even if the baby is profoundly brain damaged and will never be more intelligent than it was at birth, it's murder in most cultures for a doctor to put it to sleep as if it were an incurably sick dog.
We obviously do grant extra weight to human species membership, though not everyone agrees about where to draw the line, even so. So when we assign personhood, we have a sliding scale that's based on situation.
For instance, the age of majority. In the US, in most respects, you become a legal adult on your 18th birthday. You can vote, have sex, marry without your parents' consent, enter into contracts, must register for the draft if male (stupid unequal law that really seems unconstitutional) and serve in the military. Each right conferred by the law on your 18th birthday is all-or-nothing.
But do any of us really believe that every 18 year old becomes imbued with adult abilities and knowledge at midnight on their birthday, or that their brains and bodies are done developing? And do they believe that every eighteen-year-old is more mature than every seventeen-year-old? It's a line of adulthood (maybe based on averages but probably somewhat arbitrary) that's been adopted for legal convenience instead of subjecting each young person to a series of tests to determine which rights and responsibilities they're ready for every few months or so.
If we come up with some legal definition of personhood that applies to one situation, like an artificial intelligence, or an intelligent animal, or alien life, those probably won't apply to all humans (even ones that aren't fetuses). A newborn baby is less intelligent and autonomous than a dog, but a baby is legally considered a person, and a dog isn't. We can say that's because the baby has the potential to develop into a being who has human intelligence, but even if the baby is profoundly brain damaged and will never be more intelligent than it was at birth, it's murder in most cultures for a doctor to put it to sleep as if it were an incurably sick dog.
We obviously do grant extra weight to human species membership, though not everyone agrees about where to draw the line, even so. So when we assign personhood, we have a sliding scale that's based on situation.
Last edited: