Precarious Personhood

Whether or not something is seen as a person is of the utmost importance in moral thinking.  While there are certainly extreme exceptions to the rule, most people in most situations will avoid doing ill to what they consider a person.  In fact, the more exposed to the personhood of the subject (ie - the more we know them), the more the moral actor seeks the subject's good.  

This being the case, it's important for this project to understand what makes a person, or rather, what makes a person seem like a person.  This seeming is for the time what we are after, since we are trying to understand the process by which a moral actor affords consideration to what they perceive as persons.

In order to be considered a person, the thing in question must have a good of its own.  A value to its thriving, apart from its instrumental value for others.  This built-in value is the foundation of moral consideration, for without it, the thing only is given respect earned by the task it can be put in service of, and it can easily be sacrificed for the good of a person.

Consider the chunk of marble.  While it may have value to an artist wanting to chisel it into a sculpture, or the quarry man who wants compensation for his hard work, the marble has no value of its own.  It may be assigned an economic value, but will never get considered beyond its usefulness to persons.

Compare that to your best friend.  While your best friend may too be part of an economy, selling time and effort for money or favors, your friend has a built-in value, a good of his or her own, that is to be respected over and above any functionalization.  This is precisely why we are outraged by slavery, and really any system that mimics slavery.

Many moral thinkers stop with inherent good as the genesis of moral consideration.  I contend there is another attribute that must coexist with inherent good in order for a thing to be a person (and afforded a persons rights).  A thing must also have consideration for the good of persons in order to be a full person.

Consider the pit viper.  The viper clearly has a good of its own.  It wants to live, eat, and bear its young.  But in the pursuit of its good, the viper has no respect for the goods of others.  It violently strikes out at the world to achieve its ends.  We have a word for creatures of this ilk.  They aren't persons.  They are beasts.

Beasts don't follow their dreams, they don't reason, they don't learn.  Rather, they have instincts that drive their actions.  This lack of inner substance, lack of consideration for others, cheapens their ends.  While often left to their hunting, when their actions jeopardize the goods of persons... well, such a violence is unconscionable.

Consideration for the good of others is necessary for personhood.  It should be noted that consideration is necessary for personhood, but not sufficient.  If a thing is simply good for others but has no good of its own... well, it can simply be put in service of that which its improves with no moral issue.  These things are seen as nurturers... nothing more.  Plants are often placed in this category.  They are living, and bear sustenance for others, but have no inherent value.

That which has a good but no consideration is a violent beast.  That which has consideration but no good is a providing nurturer.  Between these two stands the person, with its own good but capable of considering the good of others.

Now, why is this important?  Many people have had their good stripped away by being jostled into the category of beast or nurturer.  Human murderers, enemy soldiers, adversaries of any stripe, possibly dangerous strangers... once a person threatens our good, we can push them into the category of beast.  Once the shift is made, we no longer have to consider their good.  On the other end of the spectrum are voiceless laborers, mothers, subordinates, possibly useful strangers... people who's purpose seems to be to better our lives.  By making them nurturers, they become subjugated to our own good and therefore ultimately lacking inherent worth.

Knowing this, be careful you do not create beasts and nurturers from persons.  A person threatening your good should of course be stopped, but in a way that is respectful to their own good.  Similarly, someone able to help you should of course be allowed, but only in a way that its respectful of their good.

We should also to be more than beast or nurturer.  We dehumanize ourselves when we violate the sacred other by reducing them to mere function in our lives.  We also dehumanize ourselves when we violate the sacred self by reducing ourselves to mere function in their lives.

If you have any doubt that this happens, consider hundreds of years of slavery.  Consider spousal abuse and rape.  Consider ordinary men killing the faceless, monstrous enemy.  

The beast is just waiting put down; the plant is just waiting to be picked.