4 ms·
I'm more interested in who we classify as people. Remember, the word person comes from persona, meaning an actor's mask. In 2014 it was discovered that a speci
by oniMaker 11y ago
I'm more interested in who we classify as people. Remember, the word person comes from persona, meaning an actor's mask.
In 2014 it was discovered that a species of Long-finned pilot whales (a type of dolphin) has more neocortical neurons than humans by a factor of two! The neocortex is an area of the brain associated with language and conscious thought.
Do these dolphins count as people? Should we afford them "human" rights? What about other species?
The pig you eat has the same amount of neurons in her cerebral cortex as your cat and dog put together. The cow, more than all three put together. Are they people?
- Spivak 11y agoTrying to define personhood using any sort of scientific analysis is a dangerous road that was/is used to justify horrific acts of racism, violence, and subjugation, including Social Darwinism in the early 1900s, and the eugenics movement that followed. I can think of no objective testable definition of person which is both meaningful (i.e. non-trivial) and not horrific for corner cases or those that would be excluded. I know this wasn't your intention because you're using it to grant personhood to more entities but the implications aren't great regardless.
- oniMaker 11y agoNo, this is the wrong approach. The object is not to define personhood through some objective set of criteria which can then be used to justify evil; it's to use our observations about the world to arrive at a broader and more humane outlook. The argument itself is wrong as well. If some method X is used for evil, it does not mean X is intrinsically evil. This is essentially the same flawed argument that's used against many areas of science.