I define human vs. other as thus. Humans have certain feelings, characteristics, and defining actions that make them human. Other is the anti-human. It does not feel like us, it does not look like us, and it does not act like us. It is not us, thus it is not human.
I think when referring to what is "human" then we must first determine whether or not it is living in which I think self-sustained autonomy is a huge factor. Then I agree with Ida in that when determining human we must determine whether or not the organism is sapient and portrays human like qualities. Though Professor GIlchrist brings up a good point because there are exceptions to the rule in which we are then defining human as a being that has been classified as homo sapien sapien, which is defined as an individual members of the species Homo sapiens with an appearance consistent with the range of phenotypes in modern humans.
Being able to "define" who is human or not is quite challenging. One might say "being human" means one is fully functioning and another might say it is being able to convey feeling and emotions to the world around them but what about wheelchair-bound people? Or those with antisocial personality disorders? Being human, also, cannot be defined based upon the biological body parts one has in their body. This is so because, like in the Smithsonian episode, does "body parts" mean engineered in a laboratory or parts that were created in the womb? People with body parts that somehow do not work from birth, accidents, or diseases are still considered human if they were to get a transplant. Elephant Man's most resounding and impacting words were "I am still a human." Although his face and body were severely distorted and he was forced to hide away or face public ridicule, he was still a human. He had thoughts, feelings, emotions, ideas, likes and dislikes. If being human is defined as having a beating heart or a pulse, then the newest bio-engineered Bionic Man would meet the qualifications and definition of being human. If being human is defined as someone who is responsible for their own actions then no, the Bionic Man would not fit that requirement, but neither would babies. If being human is defined by someone "who portrays human-like qualities" then the Bionic Man would indeed count. The Bionic Man was able to walk and talk and had his own essential, internal organs as well as extremities. As we advanced in technology and our understanding of what is possible, the definition of what or who is human becomes more and more muddled.
I define human vs. other as thus. Humans have certain feelings, characteristics, and defining actions that make them human. Other is the anti-human. It does not feel like us, it does not look like us, and it does not act like us. It is not us, thus it is not human.
ReplyDeleteDoes this mean that a child with anencephaly or similar neural disorders are not human?
ReplyDeleteI would argue that "is it human" is less the relevant question than "is it intelligent/sentient/sapient."
ReplyDeleteI think when referring to what is "human" then we must first determine whether or not it is living in which I think self-sustained autonomy is a huge factor. Then I agree with Ida in that when determining human we must determine whether or not the organism is sapient and portrays human like qualities. Though Professor GIlchrist brings up a good point because there are exceptions to the rule in which we are then defining human as a being that has been classified as homo sapien sapien, which is defined as an individual members of the species Homo sapiens with an appearance consistent with the range of phenotypes in modern humans.
ReplyDeleteBeing able to "define" who is human or not is quite challenging. One might say "being human" means one is fully functioning and another might say it is being able to convey feeling and emotions to the world around them but what about wheelchair-bound people? Or those with antisocial personality disorders? Being human, also, cannot be defined based upon the biological body parts one has in their body. This is so because, like in the Smithsonian episode, does "body parts" mean engineered in a laboratory or parts that were created in the womb? People with body parts that somehow do not work from birth, accidents, or diseases are still considered human if they were to get a transplant. Elephant Man's most resounding and impacting words were "I am still a human." Although his face and body were severely distorted and he was forced to hide away or face public ridicule, he was still a human. He had thoughts, feelings, emotions, ideas, likes and dislikes. If being human is defined as having a beating heart or a pulse, then the newest bio-engineered Bionic Man would meet the qualifications and definition of being human. If being human is defined as someone who is responsible for their own actions then no, the Bionic Man would not fit that requirement, but neither would babies. If being human is defined by someone "who portrays human-like qualities" then the Bionic Man would indeed count. The Bionic Man was able to walk and talk and had his own essential, internal organs as well as extremities. As we advanced in technology and our understanding of what is possible, the definition of what or who is human becomes more and more muddled.
ReplyDelete