7th l o s t s o u l ~ [Voice]
[The last event left Cheyenne in a weird place and since then, she's been rather scarce around the village. Aside from getting food at one of the village restaurants, she's spent most of her time either in her apartment or in the forests just outside the village. Today, she's actually back to her usual spot: sitting on the edge of one of Luceti's
( Read more... )
I think that a person is any individual or collective-being who possesses sapience, by Terran definition. A person does not have to look, act like, resemble or in any way emulate a human to be a person - a common misconception by those of my own species.
Additionally, there are many kinds of sapience; not all of them are human-like. In fact, many kinds of sapience are much different from human sapience.
[As an astrobiologist - and the boyfriend of a non-human sapient - these questions are extremely important to him.]
Reply
Reply
[He pauses here, and adds almost sheepishly:] Terran scientists are constantly discovering species that push the definition of sapience to new realms that were previously thought unlikely or impossible.
Reply
...so, you believe a creature possessing these qualities would therefore be considered a person?
Reply
... Rather, I would argue it would be impossible not to acknowledge the personhood of such an organism.
[After a pause, Robert adds, rather lamely:] I am not certain what arguments could be made against that...
Reply
Do you think it would be possible for a creature to possess those qualities and still not be considered a person?
That is to say, if I may be more direct, that the creature in question was a monster?
Reply
[As if to clarify, Robert continues in an almost explanatory tone.] The Malnosso, for example, in general are monsters in the highest sense. They have no regard for our personal autonomy, or bodily integrity, or our rights to consent or freedom or anything of the sort. They commit acts of atrocities against us, they manipulate us like puppets, and they abuse us to the highest degree. They are undoubtably atrocious and horrifying, to be able to do that...
... But they are still people. Horribly twisted people, but people.
However, that does not give them the right to do what they do to us... [Robert stops, and then his tone softens.] But I could never do it to them...
And I still have hope that they... are not all monsters.
Reply
A monster could still be a person?
Reply
Being a monster and being a person are not mutually-exclusive concepts.
... It all rather depends on what one considers a monster, as well. After all, monstrous behaviour can be... subjective.
I doubt that the Malnosso consider themselves monsters.
Reply
Reply
A truly monstrous person - someone with no remorse, with no compassion, with no ability to atone for mistakes - would not question zir actions. Would not consider zirself a monster.
It is the ability to question it that, I think, allows such a person to at least try to redeem zirself. In some way.
Reply
Would such a creature be in the wrong to consider itself a monster?
Reply
Incapable of feeling? Biologically incapable? Can a person - or creature, as you say - be blamed for something that zie is incapable of?
... Yet, such a lack of judgment could be dangerous to others. However, there is still a difference. If one does not know the harm one is doing, one lacks intent behind one's actions. The actions themselves may be reprehensible, and not intending them does not excuse them, but it is a very different matter when one intends to cause harm, and one simply causes harm without knowledge.
[Robert himself has hurt people without realizing. It didn't stop him from hurting people just because he didn't know - but it wasn't like he meant to.]
Reply
[She's slowly growing more specific here.]
If a creature does something they know will cause harm, and yet still feels no regret for their actions, would they not be considered a person?
Reply
Causing harm to survive...
In some ways, I suppose all creatures cause... some harm to something to survive. Barring open systems, all things need cycles to sustain themselves; to keep nutrients flowing, for example. Death must occur for life to occur, and vice-versa.
Yet... unnecessary suffering should always be reduced. That is the most ethical thing.
But in the case you outline - causing harm for means of survival - would... would it be considered necessary suffering?
I am not certain... Yet, when you describe that situation, the instigator of it still sounds like a person to me. Zie may not be the... most pleasant individual, but zie still fits the definition of "person"...
Reply
I suppose I would have to disagree with you.
Reply
Leave a comment