Defining 'person' is a very difficult task to accomplish. Nevertheless, ask anyone you meet along the street, friends or family, and they have an opinion. For most, the immediate answer is a puzzled expression and a subsequent discussion that follows something like this:

Subject: "What do you mean, what is a person? We're all people."

Philosopher: "We? We who?"

Subject: "Humans. Humans are people."

Philosopher: "Anyone else?"

Subject: "No, just humans."

Philosopher: "Why?"

Subject: "Because that's what 'people' means."

Philosopher: "So a dog couldn't be a person?"

Subject: "Of course not."

Philosopher: "Why?"

Subject: (shrugging) "Because it's not human."

Further questioning substituting aliens, computers, fetuses, coma victims, and others for 'dog' each lead to similar conclusions. 'People' are people, because everyone knows that's what the word means. Person equals human, no questions asked. Philosophers, however, argue that this conclusion may not be true. The reason that humans find it so difficult to classify exactly what things do and do not qualify as persons is three-fold.

First, our language is changeable, and perhaps through ignorance of alternative definitions, the word 'person' has come to be synonymous with the concept of 'human being'. Once this mutation of definition occurs, it is difficult to make people think otherwise. Secondly, because 'person' has come to mean 'human being' to most people, they are reluctant to cast certain homo sapiens out of the human race by classifying them as non-persons. Thirdly, humans are hesitant to include non-humans in the realm of 'personhood' as this means we are not unique, and we are not necessarily the only creatures in control of our universe.

As philosophers such as Rorty, Descartes, Gruen, and Singer have found, the qualities of a person are such that humans are not the only beings that ought to be seriously scrutinized for and, perhaps, granted the position of personhood. To understand, one must first consider the qualities indicative of a person. These qualifications seem to form an "all or nothing" list of criteria for personhood. There are no acceptable definitions of "partial-people".

The first qualification of personhood is that the individual in question must not only be alive as defined by the mechanical functioning of an organism under its own control, it must be conscious of the fact that it is alive. Consciousness implies thought, which, as used here, encompasses mind processes that result in self-questioning. A being that has a life would be capable of thinking of the world in terms of itself: I am cold. That rock is bigger than I am. Am I alive? Being conscious of one's life, however, does not necessarily mean remembering it.

A tree, for example, is alive, however, there is no evidence, as far as researchers are able to discover, that they are conscious of their lives, or even have a concept of what life might be. They are alive but do not have lives. Conversely, a chimp that calls itself by name in sign language and asks for food when it claims, "I am hungry", seems to be conscious of itself and its life.

Secondly, the object we are trying to grant personhood must recognize that it exists in an environment with which it can interact, and be capable of such interactions; it must not merely instinctually respond to actions upon it, it must interact on a social level. By these social interactions, I mean that the being in question must be able to interpret the actions and intentions of the individual with which it is interacting. It must be able to make judgements on how to respond to another individual based on past experience, such that if the being in question finds itself in a situation that it has encountered before, it will respond as it did before unless it discovers extenuating circumstances. In other words, it must exhibit a very high level of learning capabilities and not merely act upon instinct (autonomic and cognitive self-preservation techniques).

For example, perhaps a gazelle is chased by a lion and barely escapes. The gazelle will run whenever it sees a lion moving towards or near it, even if the lion has no intention of chasing the gazelle. If the gazelle can interpret a lion's bulging belly to mean that he has recently fed and the gazelle has nothing to fear, then the gazelle would be well on his way to being a person.

Thirdly, the object under scrutiny must emote and problem-solve, and must furthermore be capable of doing these things intentionally. Being able not only to reason, but also to exhibit forethought (predictive reasoning), intention, or sentience (being aware that it is doing these things)—are both important criteria for the qualification of personhood. A person must not only think and reason, but also understand that it is thinking and reasoning. It must realize that it has the capacity to acquire and retain knowledge actively as well as passively. It must realize that it can do more than merely learn from its own experience, but can also gain learning from the experiences of others of its kind, performing experimentation of sorts, and comparing analogous situations in order to obtain similar results.

So far as humans have been able to establish, in their relatively short term of existence, they are the only creatures in their known environment that fit these characteristics. However, until we are certain of our understanding of brain operation, the limits of our technology, and the existence of life in other parts of the universe, we have to keep questioning as to whether this is a correct assumption. Until we have ruled out everything else, we can't know for sure that we are the only creatures that fall into the category of personhood.

Nevertheless, the term 'person' has come, perhaps through passivity, merely to mean 'human'. Once this definition was widely accepted, the general, philosophical definition of the word fell into disuse, to avoid confusion, and if one were to try to rectify this bit of sloppiness, one would find it an almost impossible task. As an example, one could look at the history of the word 'fag'. At present, the word 'fag' is a derogatory slang term for homosexual men. Less recently, the word primarily defined 'cigarette', and before that, the word was synonymous with 'drudge' or 'servant'. However, in the present, it does not matter in what context the word is used, as people will think only of the definition meaning 'homosexual' because it is the most current. Experience seems to dictate that a word, unlike silver, once tarnished, can not be polished down to the original mettle.

As put forth in "The Metaphysics of Brain Death" by Jeff McMahan—for a ‘person’ who "continues to exist in a state of permanent unconsciousness, his life has…ceased to be worth living." Yet, humans perpetuate the continuance of the body long after it is a functional 'person'--through brain-death, and severe neurological disorders.

Anything that is remotely associated with the state of being a homo sapiens is given the label of 'person' which, seemingly cannot be revoked without great societal uproar. In cases where consciousness is lost, others continue to assume that the individual retains personhood based on its former status. Heated arguments on the subject of fetal rights spring up due to the uncertainty as to when personhood begins--at conception, or when cognitive processes actually begin (a point of which we cannot be positive). If something is predestined to become a person, is it a person from the moment it comes into existence, or only after it has achieved all of the qualifications of personhood?

Interestingly, although this means that a human, once conscious, can lose consciousness and still be considered a person, this does not open the door for other individuals that possess life and no consciousness. Even more interestingly, it does not cause humans to see non-humans (even those regarded as alive and seemingly conscious and capable of learning) as people.

As a result of the selective definition of 'person' meaning 'human', humans are reluctant to judge other humans as non-persons. To pass such judgement would be to revoke humanity from these individuals--a situation that is unpleasant to think about and uncomfortable to deal with. The human species is very protective of its members, preferring to use machines to prolong the existence of the physical body in the belief that as long as the body exists, so does the 'person'. In one sense, this is true, for most certainly, the human exists, conscious or not, for as long as its body is recognizable as a particular individual. However, this does not necessarily verify that the 'person', is still alive. It is not improbable that the human body or organism could continue long after the 'person' is disabled or dead. However, according to my definition of 'alive', this organism, once supported by a power other than itself, is no longer alive. Nor does it have a life if it is not self-conscious.

Many indications of 'personhood' are related to mental reasoning abilities and social behavior and interactions. Acting in a species-specific manner and displaying acceptable social behavior are often used as signs that a being recognizes its environment and can interact socially. However, humans do not revoke 'person' status from children who do not fit societal norms. They pardon these children because they believe that the children merely need to learn proper behaviors and mature to fit into their pre-determined status as a 'person'.

Similarly, those creatures humans find to be most intelligent are often bestowed with human characteristics. This is mere anthropomorphism, for we understand very little of the brain--especially brains of other species. This is unsurprising, as the notion of using a brain to understand a brain is rather like using a telescope to look at the Earth. We are unable to look at the human psyche objectively, because we are too close to it. Every study we do on the mind, human or animal, is tainted by the fact that we are using our minds to interpret the information. If we understood how our brains worked we could, perhaps, see more clearly the definition between the brains of 'people' and the brains of other beings. Perhaps we might even find that there are more 'people' out there than we now think.

Since we aren't able to analyze the thoughts of creatures with which we do not communicate well with, it is automatic for some to assume that other animals exhibiting humanoid characteristics, are thinking human thoughts. This is most especially true of pets, as humans are fond of saying, "Look, Rover thinks he's a people, too!" when the family dog sits upright on a chair, or watches TV. The use of the word 'thinks' identifies the perspective that humans have, however. Rover can only think he is a 'person', he can never be one. This is actually faulty reasoning, for most humans insist that the thing that separates humans from other animals is the capacity to think. For him to think he was human, Rover would then have to be human.

Others propose that it is language that separates us, but it is apparent, that some animals understand human language, as we train dogs and various other domesticated animals to respond to commands. They may not, understand the words as we do, but they recognize that a certain sound or gesture means that a certain task must be performed. Unfortunately, until they are able to respond in kind, we will never know what, if anything, goes through their minds.

The fact that other animals cannot communicate to us that they do think has led to the assumption that only humans think, and therefore can be 'persons' and, as a result, our whole view of the world is based on this one maxim. In the Bible, humans were given dominion over the animals and the right to instill order in a chaotic world. Humans were God's piÀ ce de rÀ sistance. Humans were sentient, animals were not. Humans are the height of creation, God's masterpiece, the only creatures in the universe endowed with that oddity called free will--the ability to rise above instinctual cognition to make their own decisions, and the only creatures endowed with the ability to muse upon the cogs and wheels that turn the universe.

Any ventures to add other creatures to this short list of 'supreme beings' results in the same sort of uproar that removing certain humans from the same list begets. There have been various examples of this outrage as people have tried to add apes and monkeys to the list because they can communicate through sign language. Time after time, someone finds a way to discredit either the researchers or the monkeys or both. Hundreds of years of egotism are hard to battle. To make such additions would mean that we are not as we propose ourselves to be--not God's favored creature, not the end result of eons of evolution. It would mean admitting that we are merely another phase in the development of life in general.

Similarly, to add androids or thinking computers to that list would mean that life is not sacred. It is not a God-given gift, unless we then dub ourselves gods. These revelations come too close to destroying beliefs that humans have held for centuries, honed and developed to fit our society, and molded our society around, in turn. To admit that we do not hold the favored place at the top of the pyramid of life, that others share our perch on the capstone of sentience, would mean that we would have to re-evaluate our society and our religious beliefs. Such an upheaval is frightening in its mere conception, much less its instigation.

Because we have spent so long thinking that 'personhood' was the equivalent of humanity, we are reluctant to revoke 'personhood' from humans or grant 'personhood' to non-humans. In part, this is mere egotism, for we have stood so long alone in the sun that we are reluctant to share it. However, there is another factor to this, I think, and it is that of fear. To admit that we are not the only 'people' in existence is to admit that humanity will not necessarily last forever. As a creature protective of our species--to any creature whose goal is to perpetuate the species, this is one of the most fearful prospects imaginable.

When I first considered the role of philosophy in the modern university setting I thought that, though the subject was interesting and mind-exercising, there was no use for it outside the philosophy class. Certainly philosophical books are interesting to read, and many people become 'living-room philosophers' when they want to seem intellectual, but to what end? Then I began to realize just how many realms of life philosophy pervades.

When one speaks of science or health issues, ethics invariably become a subject of discussion. To speak of law and its implementation, one must use logic. To speak of psychology, the mind of the one, one must speak of philosophy, the mind of the world. To understand a deviant, one must understand social beliefs. The list goes on and on. With such a broad reach, it is understandable that philosophy is an indispensable part in the study of any subject. But not only must we know how to implement the philosophical tools at our disposal, we must know how they were used in the past. With knowledge to build on, the tools of philosophy can be used more effectively.

The field of ethics plays a part in the advancement of the human condition. Each project proposed by a researcher must face the question of "should it be done?" Every time a new medical advance is made, doctors ought to question the methods. Without such regard, human life loses its sanctity. Ethical philosophy helps curb wanton scientific practices, preventing unfavorable results from harming the general public.

Everything we do depends on some sort of logic. Lawyers use it to show jurors or judges the right or wrong of assumptions of guilt or innocence. Mathematicians use it to prove theorems. Writers use it to author effective persuasive papers and articles. Logic is the process of making correct assumptions from collected pieces of data. Women are accused of lacking it when they become emotional. Many people cannot use sound logic in a discussion, and when the faults of their arguments are pointed out, people become frustrated and angry. Then, logic becomes a secondary concern and is often lost behind emotional defenses. Once logic is lost, the argument or point becomes muddled and it is much harder to communicate ideas effectively. In order to be successful, people need to be able to convey ideas and process thought progressions so that they make sense to others. To do this, people need to be skilled in logic.

Perhaps the first philosopher was able to build on the 'living-room philosopher' mentality, bridging the gap between merely stating common sense and proposing philosophical theories. Today, that is a bit harder to do. The first philosophers were entering uncharted territories. They were building the foundations for the future.

Today, without knowing the existing theories in the field, one cannot make significant advances. The 'living-room philosopher' makes the same mistakes the first philosophers did. Starting over after centuries is a massive undertaking, and those who study philosophy understand that many issues that seem to be cut and dried, when pored over and discussed, become more complex. In this way, many simple theories have had to be discarded.

Just as one does not track the stars without a telescope, one can not effectively use philosophy without some help. We have mapped the stars closest to us--to chart them again would be redundant. We have to look beyond what we see with little effort to that which has not yet been discovered. To do that, one must understand what others have theorized, know what comprises the field, so that when something new sparkles in the darkness, one knows that it is something worth investigating.

The study of philosophy is a stepping-stone in our path to the future. It helps define who we are, and where we are going, and defines where we have been. It is a subject that is an integral part of a multitude of other fields of study as well as being a formidable socio-political force in its own right. It is both foundation and building block and therefore, a quintessential part of the modern scholar.

Some argue that there is a limit to what we can discover, but I believe that this is only true if we refuse to build on what we know. The universe is limitless, and the possibilities endless. To think that we know almost everything there is to know is preposterous. We have spent relatively little time in the universe compared to the water that rains on us, or the mountains we walk upon. Perhaps we know our little earth as we know the back of our hands, but we know very little of anything else. We have theories that we cannot put into practice, hypotheses we cannot prove. As long as we are thus impeded, there will be more to explore, both out in the darkness of space and within the dark corners of our minds.

In order to continue this exploration, we must protect ourselves with the reason and ethics of philosophy. In order to correctly apply these practices, we must study and understand the field of philosophy. The best place to begin this formidable task of understanding is the university setting, where people are brought together to develop their minds, where people are encouraged to express and discuss their opinions, where diversity is more apparent than it would be in a work environment. Thus, it is the task of the university to introduce students to the study of philosophy that they may learn to think critically about the world in which they live, and the effect of their actions upon it.