Being Human Essay – Personhood
With explicit reference to the stimulus and your own knowledge, discuss a philosophical
issue related to the question of what it means to be human.
An image of a monkey and a man both reaching towards each other depicts the similarities
and differences between these two animals, provoking the discussion concerning the moral
standing of living beings. Some would argue that life forms such as monkeys lack the
rationality and reason to be granted moral standing, whilst others suggest that any living
beings with the capacity for suffering and pain should have the right to moral consideration.
These perspectives refer to the problem of personhood, the intellectual debate involving
the identification of living beings in relation to their moral worth. What criteria make
someone a person, or worthy of inclusion in the moral community? Is it possible for an
animal such as this monkey to obtain the title of a person? In order to delve deeper into
these concepts, the notions of a person and moral community will need to be understood.
The term a person is derived from the basic meaning in the context of a drama, ‘the mask’,
referring to any character that plays a part in the performance. Hence, in relation to the real
world, a person is a being that has legal rights and the title of a juridical person. The term
moral community refers to “the network of those to whom we recognise an ethical
connection through the demands of justice, the bonds of compassion, or a sense of
obligation”. Two philosophers that have discussed personhood are Kant and Singer. Kant
proposed the idea that life forms which lack rationality have no moral worth, whilst Singer
advocates that the potential for suffering and pain which a being could experience should
allow for a degree of moral consideration. In terms of societal implications, it is very
important to identity what constitutes a person, as this recognition would imply the rights,
respect, and protection that an individual has. The question is raised to what degree should
animals, foetuses, and people in vegetative states have these basic rights that are provided
to the ‘persons’ within the moral community. This essay will critically evaluate both
perspectives, finding that whilst Kant’s proposition is thorough and raises some convincing
points, it contains faults and is defective as a description of personhood. Although Singer’s
argument contains some flaws, it will be argued that his animal rights theory is a more
plausible interpretation of personhood. Hence, the conclusion can be made that animals
such as monkeys should have the right to a significant level of moral consideration.
Immanuel Kant (1724 – 1804) was a German philosopher who held the idea that human
beings deserve absolute respect due to their rational autonomy and God-like attributes
(Imago Dei, in the image of God). As moral standing is determined by the capacity for reason
and self-governance, Kant believed that human beings have intrinsic value, whereas non-
human animals have instrumental value. Human beings are valued for themselves, while
non-human animals can be used for human purposes (this is similar to Descartes
proposition; however he claims that animals are merely 'mechanisms' or 'automata', being
complex physical machines without experiences, and thus being comparable to less complex
machines like cuckoo clocks or watches). However, Kant stated that it was wrong to be cruel
to animals, although this was simply because doing so would make it more likely that we
would harm other humans, or the animal could be the property of another human. In
summary, Kant holds that we only have duties to other rational agents, and as animals
aren't rational, they have no rights and no moral status of their own. This means we can use
With explicit reference to the stimulus and your own knowledge, discuss a philosophical
issue related to the question of what it means to be human.
An image of a monkey and a man both reaching towards each other depicts the similarities
and differences between these two animals, provoking the discussion concerning the moral
standing of living beings. Some would argue that life forms such as monkeys lack the
rationality and reason to be granted moral standing, whilst others suggest that any living
beings with the capacity for suffering and pain should have the right to moral consideration.
These perspectives refer to the problem of personhood, the intellectual debate involving
the identification of living beings in relation to their moral worth. What criteria make
someone a person, or worthy of inclusion in the moral community? Is it possible for an
animal such as this monkey to obtain the title of a person? In order to delve deeper into
these concepts, the notions of a person and moral community will need to be understood.
The term a person is derived from the basic meaning in the context of a drama, ‘the mask’,
referring to any character that plays a part in the performance. Hence, in relation to the real
world, a person is a being that has legal rights and the title of a juridical person. The term
moral community refers to “the network of those to whom we recognise an ethical
connection through the demands of justice, the bonds of compassion, or a sense of
obligation”. Two philosophers that have discussed personhood are Kant and Singer. Kant
proposed the idea that life forms which lack rationality have no moral worth, whilst Singer
advocates that the potential for suffering and pain which a being could experience should
allow for a degree of moral consideration. In terms of societal implications, it is very
important to identity what constitutes a person, as this recognition would imply the rights,
respect, and protection that an individual has. The question is raised to what degree should
animals, foetuses, and people in vegetative states have these basic rights that are provided
to the ‘persons’ within the moral community. This essay will critically evaluate both
perspectives, finding that whilst Kant’s proposition is thorough and raises some convincing
points, it contains faults and is defective as a description of personhood. Although Singer’s
argument contains some flaws, it will be argued that his animal rights theory is a more
plausible interpretation of personhood. Hence, the conclusion can be made that animals
such as monkeys should have the right to a significant level of moral consideration.
Immanuel Kant (1724 – 1804) was a German philosopher who held the idea that human
beings deserve absolute respect due to their rational autonomy and God-like attributes
(Imago Dei, in the image of God). As moral standing is determined by the capacity for reason
and self-governance, Kant believed that human beings have intrinsic value, whereas non-
human animals have instrumental value. Human beings are valued for themselves, while
non-human animals can be used for human purposes (this is similar to Descartes
proposition; however he claims that animals are merely 'mechanisms' or 'automata', being
complex physical machines without experiences, and thus being comparable to less complex
machines like cuckoo clocks or watches). However, Kant stated that it was wrong to be cruel
to animals, although this was simply because doing so would make it more likely that we
would harm other humans, or the animal could be the property of another human. In
summary, Kant holds that we only have duties to other rational agents, and as animals
aren't rational, they have no rights and no moral status of their own. This means we can use
