Are There Non-human Persons? Are There Non-person Humans? | Glenn Cohen | TEDxCambridge

Summary

In this thought-provoking talk, the speaker challenges the conventional definitions of 'human' and 'person,' arguing that they represent fundamentally different concepts. By examining moral responsibilities toward non-human entities—such as animals and artificial intelligences—the speaker calls for a re-evaluation of personhood based on capacities rather than species. Highlighting the dangers of speciesism, the talk encourages audiences to confront complex ethical questions and recognize the rights of all beings, regardless of their biological classification. Ultimately, it advocates for a more inclusive understanding of morality that prioritizes protection for all entities capable of suffering.

Takeaways

• 😀 Moral teaching often begins with how we respond to children's questions about right and wrong.
• 🤔 Distinguishing between 'human' (biological category) and 'person' (moral and legal status) is crucial.
• 🐦 Big Bird is used as a thought experiment to question moral standing based on appearance versus capacity.
• 💔 The speaker reflects on the dangers of depersonalization, citing historical atrocities as examples.
• ⚖️ Rights and duties of a 'person' can extend beyond humans to include non-human entities and AI.
• 🌍 Understanding 'personhood' requires a species-neutral perspective that assesses capacity, not just biological traits.
• 🍗 Ethical considerations regarding animal rights and consumption of animal products are addressed.
• 👶 Potentiality views suggest that entities with future capacities should be treated as persons, complicating definitions around embryos and fetuses.
• 🔍 The need for complex discussions around rights encourages deeper moral reasoning rather than simplistic categories.
• 🧠 Ultimately, the speaker urges an inclusive approach to personhood that transcends species boundaries.

Q & A

What is the primary distinction the speaker makes between 'human' and 'person'?

'Human' refers to a biological category (Homo sapiens), while 'person' denotes entities that possess certain moral rights and capacities.

Why does the speaker caution against using biological differences as a basis for moral standing?

The speaker argues that focusing solely on biological differences has led to historical atrocities, as it promotes depersonalization and justifies discrimination.

How does the speaker use the example of Big Bird in their argument?

Big Bird serves as a thought experiment to challenge listeners' perceptions of personhood, prompting them to consider whether moral standing should be based on biological traits or capacities.

What ethical dilemma does the speaker raise regarding animals and artificial intelligences (AIs)?

The speaker questions whether animals and AIs that can reason or communicate should be granted the same moral considerations and protections as humans.

What are 'capacity X' theories, and how do they relate to personhood?

'Capacity X' theories define personhood based on specific capabilities, such as the ability to feel pleasure or pain, suggesting that many animals might qualify for moral consideration.

What are 'potentiality views' in the context of personhood?

Potentiality views argue that an entity should be considered a person based on its potential to develop certain capacities, such as reasoning, even if it does not possess them yet.

How does the speaker suggest we should approach ethical considerations regarding non-human entities?

The speaker advocates for a person-centric approach, urging listeners to evaluate entities based on their moral capacities rather than their species.

What implications does the speaker suggest arise from treating species membership as the basis for moral rights?

Treating species membership as the sole basis for moral rights is likened to racism, as it unjustly prioritizes one group over others based on arbitrary differences.

What is the speaker's perspective on the ethical treatment of humans with severe developmental disabilities?

The speaker raises concerns that if personhood is strictly tied to certain capacities, it may lead to the conclusion that some humans with disabilities are not persons, which challenges the notion of universal human rights.

What overall message does the speaker convey regarding moral philosophy and ethics?

The speaker encourages confronting complex moral questions directly rather than retreating to simplistic categorizations, emphasizing the importance of compassion and ethical responsibility across all entities.