Discussions
Redefinition of the human person
Posted by harveyavatar • 3/25/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: ethics, human person
Having spoken rather extensively to someone who contributed to the discussions of a national ethics committee here in Europe, my understanding of the modern(re)definition of the human person is as follows.
The Western World, considering that the Judaeo-Christian culture could no longer be the norm given the multiple convictions ranging form atheism to all sorts of different positions, has decided to renounce the two pillars defining heretofore the “human person”, i.e. that each human is the image of God on the one hand (and thus sacred regardless of race, convictions, origins, social status…), and having a soul which resists to death on the other hand.
A number of Western philosophers, lawyers and doctors pondered over this problem which constitutes the redefinition of the human being putting aside these two dogmatic points: soul and image of God.
Here is what they arrived at: man is man when he is autonomous on the one hand, and conscious on the other hand. They have therefore substituted the notion of autonomy to that of image of God, and the notion of consciousness to that of immortality of soul.
Thus, is considered a “non person” (that is the term employed) any new born infant, any handicapped person, any senile person, any human being assisted in one way or the other, medically and even socially, any individual not integrated, not desired, not loved, etc.
On this matter, one of the principal proponents of this redefinition is called Tristam Engelhardt, and his book “The Foundation of Bioethics” is a worldwide reference.
Tristam Engelhardt speaks of a handicapped person as “a non human person” , whereas Peter Singer speaks of an animal as “a human non-person”. Therefore, on the one hand the status of man is lowered and on the other hand that of the animal is raised, which would necessarily lead to a quantifiable point of contact, i.e. to a juncture where the “non human person” and the “human non-person” are identified, in other words and more clearly, we are heading towards a measurable equivalence between an impaired human being and a healthy animal.
I suppose my question goes more to the non-Christians here. Are you agreeable with this redefinition of the human person, or do you think we should stick to the former definition?
Also, I havent followed the debate on ethics too closely over the past couple years, so if anyone else has, I'd be interested in hearing about that.
User Comments
-
I don't like either definition. I don't believe a god exist so I don't believe that man was created in the image of a god. And I don't like the other definition because among other reasons, I am not so certain that humans act autonomously. I am skeptical we have free-will and believe our actions are determined as a result of causality. -
I don't think either definition is correct.
A human being is a living entity that contains specific types of DNA making the entity part of a particular species - homosapien.
Philosophically speaking to be a "human" can range from the wild to the mild - religious or otherwise. But the definitions you've provided do not address what a human is, it adresses what a life is.
Apples and oranges.-
I agree! Clear, simple.
-
-
Please address any complaints to Tristram Englhardt or Peter Singer... lol
Forgot to say that any reference to natural moral law was proscribed in this particular Ethics Committee - natural moral law which does not have a religious foundation.
Gettin mighty late here, will address senseful comments later on.-
I don't know who is that Tristanm Engnglhardt or Peter Singer...But I found this strange and dangerous!! It reminds me the time when a certain Catholic priest( I forgot his name...but I can find it ) decided that black people where non human, and wrote an explanatory text about it that served as an argument for proslavery to do their job
-
-
@Morgan,
Leaving the question of the existence of a First being aside, in my eyes there is no comparison between the two positions. Tristram Engeldhart believes the destiny of "non persons" to rest on the shoulders of the communities to which they belong. There are "non persons" for whom the memory of an affective or social relation justifies them to be assimilated to persons. However, this is entirely variable and relative to their milieu. I see here the grains of a future culling or genocide, especially in times of economic dire straits. -
Homo Sapien-
"Wise human"? hummm
-
-
AngelsHair,
Actually, I have a text on ethics (in French) which delves into this question which may interest you and/or give you food for thought.
If you remember the name of the priest, please do share. -
Wait i have to re-read the article.. get off my phone & turn on the laptop.
Coming Soon.. -
What can Science do without Human?
What can Religion do without Human?
What can Faith do without Human?
And What can Humans do without The Creator.
-
-
Woot! I found this musing of Avatar, which means I had a bit of translating to do tonight. Very a propos
The limit between animal and man is sometimes tenuous in the realm of nature. One needs only to consider a mentally handicapped person to convince oneself of this. De facto, it is not easy at all to distinguish animal nature from human nature, which is something science increasingly shows.
Nonetheless, an animal is not a person, and you are right in underlining that humanity is reputed to deal with intelligence and will, but if we remain at that level we will not find the exit. By the way, what someone like Peter Singer seeks to demonstrate is that an animal is a person (a human non-person).
In reality, as long as we do not seek to define the person on the metaphysical plane, ie as long as we remain on the biological and psychological levels, we turn in circles, because nature, be it that of the animal or the human, is immanent. If we remain on the sole level of life, thus nature, we reduce animal and man to each other. In other words, human intelligence remains submerged in itself, it is but the immanent aspect of itself, so too love... which is generally reduced to emotion.
It is I believe absolutely imperious to look at the human being (key word, being) under a metaphysical light in order to see that he has a substantial autonomy in the order of being. This is not the case of the animal, who is but an individual of the species.
I am increasingly convinced that what the world is lacking most is a metaphysics of reality, ie Aristolian metaphysics, not so much to discover Substance and Act, but to see how Substance and Act play out in a unique fashion in the human "person". Regretfully, the question of the person has been abandoned to psychologists and biologists.
I insist some more. We must ask the question: should the person be considered under a metaphysical light, in other words does metaphysics have anything to say about the person? Either the answer is yes, and we must then understand that, ultimately, metaphysics must say what the human person is, or the answer is no, and we must ask ourselves what metaphysics is... -
"There will never be a really free and enlightened State, until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all its own power is derived, and treats him accordingly... to treat the individual with respect as a neighbor; which even would not think it inconsistant with its own repose, if a few were to live aloof from it... A state which bore this kind of fruit, and suffered it to drop off as fast as it ripened, would prepare the way for a more perfect and glorious state, which I have imagined, but not yet anywhere seen."--Henry David Thoreau
-
Nice, Agit. Actually, in first philosophy, the individual is distinguished from the person. "For a while now, I have climbed up this tree that we call "Nature and Person". It is amazing what one sees from up there. Almost everything. But one needs a few prerequisites to climb up this sycomore. One can see including politics... it is almost frightening. lol"
-
distinguished how?
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
