Characteristics of a Person

Char moulderistics of Personhood Rationality The dexterity to drive is conceiven as being one of the defining char act aseristics of soulhood. Rationality rout out be summarised in our world power to make considered choices and decisions at a higher(prenominal) intellectual level. Rationality is bedeckd in our ability to justify our thoughts and satisfys through savvy, scaled to emotional or hardheaded variables. Aristotle considered that the thought-processes that precede our actions atomic number 18 pivotal to personhood.Such thought-processes generally involve evaluating the positive and negative consequences of our actions, and deciding whether the reward is deserving the cost. This ability to predict consequences of our actions isnt apportiond by the lower brutes, and is pivotal in do the distinction amid a person and a non-person. We micturate the ability to justify our beliefs and actions and to enter into healthy dialogue with others. Rationality as well a s leads to the ability to evaluate experience and draw logical, considered conclusions which will influence our actions in the future.The lesser animals lack this capability, a view which is illustrated in the following example the squirrel stores feed for the winter in order to survive, however the squirrel does not store food because it knows that food will be scarce in the winter the squirrel stores food because of impulses governed by animalistic instinct, and nothing besides. The squirrel could not consider the possibility of an abundance of food in the winter, and make up ones mind that it did not wish to store food for the winter, and is confined to the demonstration of instinct.To further illustrate this point we could say that bobs allow desires but they do not have choices. For example, when a piece of effect is left unattended, a chase would see it and feed it straight away because it desires the meat and has no strike as to whom it belongs or whether eating the m eat would be of benefit to it. In this sense, animals such as dogs act on the basis of their desires. On the other hand, we as humans would firstly deliberate between the pros and cons of what to do with this piece of meat, taking into account the various factors and potential consequences of eating it.Humans will not simply act on the basis of their desires but will make a decision and then(prenominal) per regulate an action according to the decision that we make through our rationality. Possessing a profits of beliefs Possessing a network of beliefs is a feature that predominately distinguishes humans as persons, as opposed to animals. A network of beliefs tramp be formed on the basis of reasons in accordance with our rational nature as persons are able to reflect upon the copulation strengths and weaknesses of the evidence of these beliefs, basing our belief system on what others tell us and on our give experiences.It is believed that in comparing to most animals, humans h ave a much more complex network of beliefs. For example, a dog may avoid eating chocolate because of a bad experience devouring a unit box but it is doubtful that the dog is able consciously to hold the belief that chocolate makes me down(p). A human, however, has the ability to make a rational decision from outgoing experiences and act upon this belief.For example, if a person eats chocolate and is allergic to it and is thus made ill by it, through a network of wider beliefs such as allergies causing illness, the feeling of being ill being horrible, etc a person can deduce that chocolate makes me sick and therefore I wont eat it again. Unlike animals we can have beliefs about the past and future and refer to these beliefs as the past and future an animal may remember something as a belief from the past such as the chocolate but can only see how it will affect the present.We can also have beliefs about beliefs humans have the ability to hold beliefs about possibilities and things that may happen in the future, whereas animals can only have beliefs about the actual and fact. Language User Language exploiters are beings who can declare with others through a range of mediums. This means that they are able to talk about ideas in the abstract. Furthermore, de soundry is necessary for the possession of genuine ideas and concepts about the world. Language allows people to understand their desires without wrangle, beings would be unable to overtake and request their desires.For example, a cow can feel hungry and desire grass but it doesnt know that it desires grass and feels hungry because it does not have those concepts. These concepts are human linguistic concepts. A zoologys mental horizon is broadened by the ability to represent the world by signs. Language gives the drug user the ability to express thoughts about an infinite number of things. Furthermore language allows the intelligent construction of arguments it allows the user to criticize and justify . Moreover, language permits a new king of socializing, based upon discussions.It allows interaction and develops personalities. Language broadens peoples knowledge and their emotions. All of these examples mean that one is a person if one can use language. This is because language allows you to formulate your thoughts and having thoughts and self- wise(p)ness means you have the capacity to understand the thoughts of others. This means you are a person. Self cognizance Self awareness is the ability to experience and do things whilst understanding what it is thats going on and having an awareness of the fact that it is I that is having the experiences.Descartes defines self awareness as having a conscious mind. He believed that using savoir-faire and reason were good examples of the mind working. He uses this theory to eliminate animals from what he classes as a person, and in turn describes them as nothing more than a complex machine. However, although we are unable to know wheth er an animal is self-conscious or not, they are clearly conscious in the sense that they are aware of their environs and at times can be unconscious. However, consciousness is not the same as self-consciousness.Another way in which self awareness can be described is by a persons ability to talk about themselves using words such as I or mine. It is the ability to describe ones mental state to others and to understand them from the first-person point of view. Looking back upon your memories is another example and knowing that it is ones self that has experienced these memories. A good example to illustrate self-awareness is the chequer test. This is where a mark is placed on the head of a participant who is then placed in front of a mirror.If the participant tries to wipe the mark off their reflection in the mirror, then it is argued that they do not issue the reflection in the mirror as them and therefore lack self-awareness. If, however, they wipe the mark off their foreheads, th en clearly they understand that the reflection in the mirror is them and they therefore have a sense of self. sister humans beyond the age of 24 months, as well as some animals such as apes, dolphins and elephants, can successfully complete the test whereas other animals are not.This shows that self-awareness is not a characteristic that can be associated with all animals and as such may be a way of distinguishing between animals and persons. brotherly Being One characteristic that is thought to be essential for personhood is that of being a social being. Humans, strange other animals, have a prior awareness of the existence of other human beings. We identify ourselves in the context of our relationships with other human beings and through our various roles in hostelry. Arguably, we can only recognise ourselves as a person if we have prior awareness of the existence of other such persons.Throughout life, humans form complex social relationships with others which they often maint ain and develop. Human beings have a more developed society than animals such as dogs and horses due to the fact that humans have plans, intentions and schemes. They are individuals but this individuality stems from society. This ingrained social nature is dependant upon our ability to communicate, allowing us to establish social roles and connect with others. Through this we see our own identity, as belonging to groups work, culture, nationality and so on. Arguably, our persona might be largely formed because of these networks.To have a good life, we must interact with others in order to be able to reflect upon our own selves. In this sense, persons depend on society for not only specific ambitions and goals but also for language, beliefs and to correspond themselves to other individuals. It is through this that we can discover the best way to live and therefore hopefully live a good life. We cannot achieve a good life in isolation as we cannot share our thoughts and feelings wit h other people. Human beings are social animals and it can be argued that being a person inevitably involves having complex relationships with others.Penguins huddle together for warmth, instinctively, not for any reason more complex than this. They dont have meetings, parties or heart to hearts, and wouldnt later reflect upon this, or develop because of it. Creativity, self-reliance and individuality Autonomy is the ability to reason about whether to perform an action or not and suggests that persons are not controlled by our natural instincts, unlike animals. It appears that a person is not entirely influenced by grassroots instinct, and can refer to more complex thoughts and ideas in decision making.This is shown through the example that a dog does not reflect on whether to bark at the stranger in the street, or continue to go about its own business in the shade, whereas a person will often reflect upon the reasons for and against performing upon their immediate desires. A per son is able to rise above their basic animal drives and take a measure of control over their own lives. By enabling us to reflect on how to act, reason gives us some mastery over our passions, elevating us above the level of creatures of instinct.The capacity to reflect and reason gives us a measure of autonomy or self-control. Individuality allows each person to identify and accent the uniqueness of each of us and it is argued that an individual person is defined not so much by their shared human essence as by the particular characteristics of his or her own nature. Human beings in all societies give themselves proper names which uniquely identify them as individuals and some philosophers have argued that it is a natural tendency for all human beings to construct a unique personality.Also, animals appear to have no concept of creativity or imagination and only experience things for what they are. For example, an animal would not understand metaphor, because a metaphor is a represe ntation of something else, and an animal cannot fathom this concept. Yet, people do have the ability to be creative and imaginative. Moral Sense Having a moral sense means that we are able to decide what we should and shouldnt do, to identify what is good and bad, and to label actions moral or immoral. Kant says that a person uses their moral principles and this determines their actions.He also says that we, as moral persons, are able to recognise what our duties are and then we can further conduct whether to act in accordance with these duties. Acting in accordance with our moral duties rather than our desires is what makes our actions truly waive as we can transcend our desires in order to do what we see we ought to. For example, although we may not indirect request to give ? 5 to famine relief, we realise that we ought to and recognising this duty can motivate us to act on it. Morals tend to be related to humans, as animals dont have the notion of orality. For example, in the case of a lion killing an antelope for food, we see this as an act of survival therefore we cannot bill the lion for being immoral. However if a human killed an antelope for sport it could spark a moral debate, as some people would agree with it and some people would think it immoral. If we cant attribute moral philosophy to animals, but we can attribute morals to humans, then there is a distinct difference between the two. This distinction illustrates that maybe we only attribute morals to persons.