Person vs Human
Dec. 3rd, 2012 09:48 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
I recently realised that I'd acquired, probably from science fiction, the linguistic habit of using "human" to mean someone of this species and "person" to mean any intelligent personality. For instance, I'd tend to use "human" to mean a gamete and "person" to mean ET, but not vice versa.
Of course, there are interesting exceptions. I remember a few interesting books dealing with nonhumans in a human-dominated culture dealing with the meaning of "human" as in "only human" or "inhuman".
But does anyone else do that? Obviously 99.9% of the time the difference doesn't matter.
But I think it's useful to have this sort of distinction clear in your mind in advance. For instance: humans evolved. People have rights.
Of course, even in science fiction, it's surprisingly hard to write aliens that seem genuinely non-human. Some good examples actually come from fantasy, partly because people aren't trying.
Eg. Elves can be seen as equivalent to human sociopaths: capable of normal human behaviour, but mostly without the ability to care if they harm someone else or not. And they truly have a culture humanity can only compromise with, not really ever integrate with.
Eg. Fantasy characters unapologetically killing people from enemy tribes, or enemy species -- even if they're completely human, people go through extreme contortions to justify it, rather than accept that, in that society, that's basically the only choice.
Of course, there are interesting exceptions. I remember a few interesting books dealing with nonhumans in a human-dominated culture dealing with the meaning of "human" as in "only human" or "inhuman".
But does anyone else do that? Obviously 99.9% of the time the difference doesn't matter.
But I think it's useful to have this sort of distinction clear in your mind in advance. For instance: humans evolved. People have rights.
Of course, even in science fiction, it's surprisingly hard to write aliens that seem genuinely non-human. Some good examples actually come from fantasy, partly because people aren't trying.
Eg. Elves can be seen as equivalent to human sociopaths: capable of normal human behaviour, but mostly without the ability to care if they harm someone else or not. And they truly have a culture humanity can only compromise with, not really ever integrate with.
Eg. Fantasy characters unapologetically killing people from enemy tribes, or enemy species -- even if they're completely human, people go through extreme contortions to justify it, rather than accept that, in that society, that's basically the only choice.
no subject
Date: 2012-12-04 01:13 pm (UTC)A moral relativist - and I am one - overlays a test of consent, and applies that test in all but the most extreme conditions.
And that's the only real difference between things and people: people consent, and things do not because we do not regard them as possessing consciousness.
no subject
Date: 2012-12-04 01:33 pm (UTC)There is a continuum with a healthy adult human at one end and a housebrick at the other. Between them are things like a brain-dead human, a healthy adult dolphin, a household pet, animals reared for meat, ants, ant colonies, trees, etc.
An interesting corner case I came up with in the pub a few weeks ago: suppose A is donating a kidney to B. The surgical team removes the live healthy kidney from A and transports it to B. However, while it's in transit, C comes along and destroys it. Have they committed actual bodily harm against anyone?
Even if categorising, I'd say your things v. people should actually include at least concepts, things, organisms, animals, sentient creatures, sapient creatures, humans, with different nuances of right and wrong applying at each stage.