4 ms·

I find this philosophical debate very fascinating. What actually is a person? e.g. one definition claims PERSON = "any entity that has the moral right of self

by yayr 8y ago

I find this philosophical debate very fascinating. What actually is a person? e.g. one definition claims PERSON = "any entity that has the moral right of self-determination." http://www.mind.ilstu.edu/curriculum/what_is_a_person/what_is_a_person.php http://www.mind.ilstu.edu/curriculum/what_is_a_person/what_i... so can a confinable area of nature like a river, a mountain, a planet etc. be such an entity with those rights? Who grants those rights? How is self-determination recognized? For humans the latter is leading to the free will debate, see e.g. here for a start https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Introduction_to_Philosophy/What_is_a_Person https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Introduction_to_Philosophy/Wha... so in essence, if a significant amount of humans agree, that the criteria for self-determination are not only the strict ones expressed by humans, why should a natural entity not be treated like a person? edit: the initial reaction so far has been: it can not stand up in court so it cannot be a LEGAL person. So one could challenge: a company can as well not speak in court. The only ones speaking in court are representatives that got somehow chosen. Why could the same not be applied to the person in discussion here?

pan69 8y ago
Not "person", but "legal person": > an individual, company, or other entity which has legal rights and is subject to obligations.
cperciva 8y ago
why should a natural entity not be treated like a person? The obvious answer here is "ok, they're all persons, and as soon as they can stand up in court and tell us what they want, we'll listen to them".
- peeters 8y ago
  To which the obvious counterpoint is "ok, so mentally incapacitated people shouldn't have rights because they can't articulate them?"
  - refurb 8y ago
    To which I would reply “Disabled people are humans, so there are non-disabled humans who have articulated universal rights.”
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  We have well established systems in law for persons without capacity to either represent themselves or even designate a representative to have their legal interests represented, because this happens with existing legal persons (even natural persons) with some regularity.

by yayr 8y ago

pan69 8y ago

Not "person", but "legal person": > an individual, company, or other entity which has legal rights and is subject to obligations.

cperciva 8y ago

why should a natural entity not be treated like a person? The obvious answer here is "ok, they're all persons, and as soon as they can stand up in court and tell us what they want, we'll listen to them".

peeters 8y ago
To which the obvious counterpoint is "ok, so mentally incapacitated people shouldn't have rights because they can't articulate them?"
- refurb 8y ago
  To which I would reply “Disabled people are humans, so there are non-disabled humans who have articulated universal rights.”
dragonwriter 8y ago
We have well established systems in law for persons without capacity to either represent themselves or even designate a representative to have their legal interests represented, because this happens with existing legal persons (even natural persons) with some regularity.