- The Latest
- Topics
-
About
What does it mean to be human, according to ChatGPT?
February 06, 2025
7 Reactions
The concept of personhood has long been a cornerstone of philosophical, ethical, and legal discourse, with profound implications for issues such as abortion, human rights, and bioethics. I had always considered Thomas Aquinas's definition of the human being as a rational animal (animal rationale) sufficient for capturing the essence of personhood. However, in light of advances in human genetics and the ethical challenges posed by issues such as in vitro fertilization (IVF) and abortion, a more comprehensive definition is necessary to account for all stages of human development and the complexity of modern bioethical concerns.
In my last article, I discussed my discovery that ChatGPT could affirm that abortion is the destruction of a living human organism. While I generally received positive feedback on that intellectual exploration, I also encountered thoughtful pushback, particularly on the question of when a human is considered a human, that is, at what stage we attain personhood. This response highlights the crucial need to define human identity in a way that accounts for all stages of human development, ensuring a comprehensive and consistent understanding of our humanity.
To address this intricate issue, I engaged in a discussion with AI to develop a refined definition of personhood that encapsulates the full spectrum of what it means to be a human person. The outcome of this exploration is a framework that integrates biological, cognitive, and developmental principles to create a holistic and inclusive understanding of personhood. Below is the final definition, followed by an analysis of its key components and their implications.
A person is a human being, defined by the characteristic DNA sequence of Homo sapiens, who either currently possesses or has the inherent potential to develop or re-engage the capacities for rational thought, decisionality, and self-awareness.
The definition integrates several critical components. First, it establishes human identity by grounding it in the genetic DNA sequence of Homo sapiens. This ensures that personhood is explicitly tied to biological identity, distinguishing humans from other life forms. The inclusion of rationality highlights the ability to reason, analyze information, and make judgments based on logical principles or evidence. By framing rationality as something that may be either currently active or potentially emergent, the definition recognizes its developmental or restorative nature. Decisionality emphasizes the capacity to evaluate options, make choices, and act in pursuit of specific goals. This characteristic encapsulates the faculty of will, highlighting intentionality and volitional acts. Self-awareness focuses on the conscious recognition of oneself as a distinct entity, with the potential to achieve or regain this awareness through natural development or restoration.
Finally, the definition accounts for the developmental process that underpins personhood, which begins at the moment of conception. It acknowledges that the zygote, as the earliest stage of human life, possesses the intrinsic potential and genetic instructions necessary to develop into a being capable of rationality, decisionality, and self-awareness. This developmental aspect ties personhood to the continuity of human life, grounding it in the inherent potential of the human being from its earliest stages.
The journey toward crafting this definition involved examining various perspectives on personhood, which often focus on biological, cognitive, social, or moral criteria. While these approaches offer valuable insights, they also reveal limitations. Biological definitions emphasize genetic makeup but fail to account for cognitive and ethical dimensions. Cognitive definitions focus on traits such as rationality and self-awareness but may exclude individuals such as newborns or those with cognitive impairments. Developmental definitions tie personhood to stages of growth, yet these thresholds can vary with societal or medical advances.
To address these challenges, the definition emphasizes potentiality—the inherent capacity to develop or regain cognitive traits. This adjustment ensures inclusivity for individuals like newborns, those in temporary comas, or those with cognitive impairments. By explicitly incorporating human DNA, the definition provides clarity and precision, distinguishing humans from other beings and offering a consistent criterion for personhood. Integrating the developmental aspect further strengthens the definition by linking it to the continuity of human life from conception, acknowledging the zygote’s intrinsic potential to develop into a person with cognitive capacities.
This refined definition of personhood invites further reflection on its ethical and philosophical implications. The inclusion of potential ensures that individuals at all stages of life or development are considered persons, raising questions about those with permanent cognitive loss or developmental barriers. While the definition aligns with biological and cognitive principles, it may require adaptation for application in legal or theological contexts, where personhood may be defined differently. Concepts such as "potential" and "development" are intentionally broad, but they could benefit from additional specificity to address nuanced cases.
This definition represents a holistic and philosophically rigorous framework. By integrating biological identity, cognitive traits, and developmental potential, it offers a comprehensive understanding of personhood that addresses key critiques. It aspires to capture the essence of what it means to be a person in all stages of life and states of being, providing a thoughtful foundation for navigating complex debates about human identity and dignity.
Forward this article to your friends!
George Matwijec is an adjunct philosophy teacher at Immaculata University who specializes in teaching knowledge and logic He is the author of a book entitled “My Interview with AI”. He can be reached at iteacher101.com
Image credits: Bigstock
Have your say!
Join Mercator and post your comments.
-
George Matwijec commented 2025-02-14 09:07:58 +1100Richard, I was really unaware of that distinction as I read a lot of classical philosophy so I need to be aware of ancient terms changing meaning in the modern sense. I agree with your assessment given the updated definition of the word potential in light of today’s science and philosophy. AI actually confirmed what you said as I asked Chatgpt and it responded:
This assessment makes a useful distinction between potentiality and capacity, particularly in how they are commonly understood today. The key point is that potentiality can include passive possibilities (e.g., a block of wood potentially being a sculpture), whereas capacity implies an inherent, active ability to develop into something (e.g., a human having the capacity to regain rational thought).
I generally agree with this clarification. In philosophical and colloquial usage, capacity is a more precise term when discussing attributes that are inherent to a being, rather than external possibilities imposed on an object. The author makes a strong case for using “capacity” when referring to intrinsic abilities that can be developed or re-engaged, rather than “potentiality,” which can be interpreted more passively.
I rewrote it into the article, when I publish it in some other forum it will be updated accordingly. Thanks for the positive critique! George M -
Emberson Fedders commented 2025-02-08 10:21:13 +1100I just looked up Immaculata University.
I get it now.
“We’ll force her to have a baby against her will because I believe that collection of cells is a person.” -
Tim Lee commented 2025-02-08 09:51:12 +1100I concur with Richard Stith’s well-argued suggestion. -
Richard Stith commented 2025-02-08 07:32:31 +1100Yours is an excellent definition, but I have a suggestion for a slight improvement.
You should not use the word “potentiality”. A potentiality can be something entirely passive. For example, I can say that a certain block of wood is potentially a sculpture, even though there is nothing in the block of wood which is developing into a sculpture or has the ability ever to participate in doing so on its own.
A better word is “capacity”. It covers all examples of active potentialities (or re-engagements) and no examples of passive potentialities. For example, one cannot say with any precision that a block of wood has the “capacity” to become a sculpture.
You yourself, Professor, use the word capacity when you are trying to emphasize active potentiality, as in this definition quoted from your article: “. . . potentiality—the inherent capacity to develop or regain . . .” !
The problem with the word potentiality is not in its Latin origins, but in its colloquial use nowadays.
It originally was closely associated with the Latin word for power, and that original use would be quite appropriate as part of the definition of life. But potentiality has come to be used for objects like blocks of wood that have no power within them. -
Tim Lee commented 2025-02-07 15:37:25 +1100This is one of the most original philosophical insights I have ever read. The author’s proposal for a new definition of what it means to be human is clear, concise and thought-provoking in a cultural context at risk of losing its sense of truth.
-
Emberson Fedders commented 2025-02-07 10:24:25 +1100And?
-
