Relation between Being Rational and Being a Person - Essay Example

According to you, what is a person? What is the relation between being rational and being a person? Is being rational sufficient in order to be aperson? Or is it only necessary? Likewise, what is the relation between belonging to the species ‘homo sapiens’ and being a person? Is ‘humanity’ in the biological sense sufficient for personhood? Or only necessary? Or not even necessary? Generally, people give definition to “person” in different ways; soul attached with mind and ego or an ego centered consciousness with mind and intelligent to operate with it. But in reality what is a person, it is one subject on which many theologians, philosopher and psychiatrist pondered over a long period of time. Since we are discussing about an intangible identity, one cannot establish the truth, even when one is definite about its true nature. We could say that person is an identity, with certain capabilities and abilities to perform sanely at a given situation or circumstances. Some people are reluctant to accept a mentally defective human being as a person due to their deficiencies in intellectual power. According to (Dennett,14)“For instance, infant human beings, mentally defective human beings, and human beings declared insane by licensed psychiatrists are denied personhood, or at any rate crucial elements of personhood” Now just because a human being have a defective mental system, he should not be losing his right to be called as a person. So are we a person just because we possess a well defined intellectual workability. It really seems absurd, for a human being with a soul and mind to be disregarded just because he cannot work rationally and logically .Then it would make also sense to call these mentally defective and immature people as animal. As we know animals does not have rational thinking, and same is the case with infants and mentally ill people. So why is it that we do not address these mentally immature and insane people as animals? Here we can explain that being a person is more about the genetic structure we possess. Otherwise the mentally ill person or animals are not guided by intellect a d they act abnormal in our view. We can understand here that the genetic make up or the body structure and his surviving pattern make him a person. People say that we are designated as a person because we have certain capabilities and abilities which we use in support with our intellect and logic. Being rational means, we act according to our reasoning or as per the guidance of our intelligence .A being can be a person and still cannot be rational, just because he is weak in his brain or working ability. But a rational being cannot exist as a non person, because to be rational he very much has to be a person. It is seen that a mentally insane person is not given the same accountability and responsibility as a normal person .He is not considered as a whole personality ,as he lacks the ability to sort out things with his intellect .So it could be understood that intelligence and rational behavior offers a human being a personhood. Another aspect to being a person is the awareness and consciousness which a person experience in his personhood. The awareness or the consciousness is what is lacking in mentally ill or infants which make them less of a person. The consciousness is the center to the self and a personality and a human being which is not connected to his consciousness can be regarded less of a person. Most of the people nowadays know that we have evolved from the species called homosapiens. A person is a being with logic, morality and ethical behavior which is obviously lacking in a homosapiens .As per(Rosenberg, 11)“ To regard some being as a person, in shorter, is to grant to that being the sort of respect and treatment due persons, to acknowledge it as having to certain ethical or having standard “.We as persons are more evolved than homosapien species. For example, if we see a human raised in a forest from his childhood, we might hesitate call him a person but might address him as a barbarian or uncultured human. This is because he has no etiquettes, moral ground or ethical standards in his behavior or attitude. A person is not someone who only possess logic, but a human being who also conduct himself in a refined and diplomatic way in a social group or society. However, just being a homesapien, one cannot be categorized as a person. In a personality concept there come some implications like manners, refinement, behavioral pattern, attitude, intelligence and rational behavior. Homesapiens can be crude in his behavior and way of living, but a person is much more evolved in his attitude and pattern of behavior. But it could be confidently said that, homosapien is a necessity to acquire the status of personhood. It is a basic requirement to grow in to a person with etiquettes, well defined capabilities and abilities to relate himself to a society or community. Generally speaking, Homespun are in physiological manner a person, but when it gets to psychological platform they cannot be entitled to personhood.Homosapiens have all the physical traits of a person, but only when it gets to the moral ground and ethics, they lose the eligibility to be a person. However, if one thinks on a religious basis, homespun is indeed a person, as he is bestowed with a soul which is spiritually connected to God. Instead, it is the less awareness or consciousness in them which make them less of a person, in relation to the social concepts of personhood. It is also a fact to debate upon, that all entity having human DNA is entitled to be called a person. If so, why are infants barred from being called a person. This can be justified by saying that, the absence of cognitive skills and inferior intelligence makes the infants not eligible to count as a person. In this case it is also sensible to claim that an entity with maturity, precise cognitive ability and intelligence is the entity to be bestowed with the title of personhood. As humans we have evolved significantly since times of homosapeins, we cannot compare between the person of today and a homosapien of ancient times. “When we ask then why we should limit personhood only to human being, our implicit moral theory yields no answer at all”(Rosenberg,15).Here it means that whether only human have the right to being called as a person. It can be said with much confidence that human being are the only ones to have personhood because of them possessing the intelligent factor. Otherwise in a way, being a human is sufficient to have a personhood. On the contrary there was a popular belief in ancient times that people with racial difference are not person but human being with inferior quality and lack of intelligence. The Aryans in earlier times regarded only they to be human beings and the people with black skin and dark skin were considered as inhuman and inferior. It is atrocious to think this way as every human have the capacity to be a person .Frankly speaking , it is not the color of skin which makes a human being a person but the rational thinking and logical behavior and attitude of him. So generally it can be argued that a human with a maturity in age can be a person as maturity brings in quality in rational and logical thinking. A personhood is a combination of certain thinks, but the prior think for it is the rational and logical thinking. Intelligence is mandatory here as without it logic and rationality cease to exist. Work Cited Please there is lack of information to make reference .Please refer to this and make proper mla referecnes. 1. Dennett, Daniel. "Conditions of Personhood." Self & Identity: Contemporary Philosophical Issues. 14. Print 2 .Rosenberg, . "Contra : Aristotle." 11. Print. 3. Rosenberg, . "Contra : Aristotle." 15. Print. Read More