I am looking for a good defintion of human or human being. Because at what point does something become human. At what point do you say “that is human” and say “that is something else.”
I have heard many arguement. Like…
The definition of ‘human’ by Joseph Fletcher, a Prtestant Theologian. In his list of what he calls ‘indicators of humanhood’ include th following: self-awareness, self-control, a sense of the future, a sense of the past, the capacity to relate to others, concern for others, communication, and curiosity.
But the problem with this is that a new born baby fails at being human or what about a person sleeping or in a comma then they do not qualify as human.
Or people say when the “heart starts beating.”
Well then anybody who has a stroke or heart attack (sorry can’t remember which one the heart stops beating) then they would fail to qualify as human.
So I am looking for other defintions and trying to find the one that is the most absolute.
In a philosophical sense, I think this definition is promising, but it needs some refinement and broadening if it is to encompass our intuitive notion of what sorts of beings count as “human.” The definition ought to be amended, I think, to include those entities with the potential to achieve those criteria listed in Fletcher’s definition. A newborn has this potential, as does each of us when we are sleeping. Someone in an irreversible coma or persistent vegetative state (that’s right, I’m bringing Schiavo back to beat the dead horse some more ) don’t qualify as fully human. While they still may have certain rights due to their past humanity and others may feel certain obligations to them, they are as good as dead for most purposes.
This is maybe more scientific, though of course it would have to be refined as being limited to Homo sapiens. A living being with human characteristics is in the most basic sense “human,” even if it exhibits none of the characteristics above. Someone who’s had a heart attack that stops the heart for very long isn’t going to be alive long enough to care whether he’s human or not. And once he’s dead I don’t think he’s human either.
Of course the intended use of the definition makes a difference as well. If we’re debating abortion, it makes a difference when human life starts. If we’re debating animal rights, it might matter more what is close enough to being human to deserve some sort of rights of its own. As prove-it noted, there’s probably no unassailable single definition for humanity. Although you should let us know if you find one.
There is no definition that will cover all the possibilities of that we would call human. The definition lies with those who have the political power to create an arbitrary definition that may or may not include your personal views. Regardless the scientific or theological explanation, agreement isn’t likely to ever happen. The basis of disagreement will always be with us: no one is willing to allow others the power to play God.
Being human must be described as a matter of degree, not a simple binary position of human/not human. Being human is not some single monolithic quality nor is it even a simple combination of qualities. Take the list that has been suggested: self-awareness, self-control, a sense of the future, a sense of the past, the capacity to relate to others, concern for others, communication, and curiosity. Are these binary descriptions? Does a person either have or lack these things? Or can each person be evaluated to have different degrees of these qualities? I would argue that everyone has these qualities to different degrees. Everyone has some self-awareness, some self-control etc. etc.
Now would we describe an infant as inhuman, or less that human? No, but neither are they exemplary of humanity. So it is with all of us. None of us is complete. We are each a work in progress. Only after death might we be evaluated in terms of the direction of our striving and our particular achievements.
Then, what we might be looking for is not what makes someone human but what makes someone a paragon of humanity? What is the best in humanity? What might we strive for and achieve that would move us closer to that goal?
I’d really like to believe that, for it implies a sense of right and wrong. But abstracted far enough, amorality can do anything conceivable, without any justification whatsoever.
“I’d really like to believe that, for it implies a sense of right and wrong.”
Actually I formulated the defintion so only to imply that “human” is a sociological category that is marked by the necessity for dispensation when that which is regarded as “human” is killed by others regarded as “human”. I did not mean to be speaking outside of societal norms, granting transcendent status to what’s human, but rather to the structuring of those norms. “Human” is a projection of our relations, a projection no more or less important than the projection of what is “sub-Human”.
) don’t qualify as fully human. While they still may have certain rights due to their past humanity and others may feel certain obligations to them, they are as good as dead for most purposes.