What Makes Someone a Person? | Michael Tooley

[00:00:00]Michael, you have focused on the nature of personhood, who or what are persons as one of your first career investigations that became very well known, somewhat controversial. So, let's let's go back in your early career and talk about persons and personhood.

[00:00:23]What what are the core issues and what are the fundamental principles that you have offered?

[00:00:29]>> Well, the the crucial question uh one begins with is uh what makes it wrong to kill individuals some type, okay?

[00:00:42]And um uh in the case of an argument that abortion is morally wrong, they think that it's a basic principle here that all humans uh have a right to life.

[00:00:58]Now, I think that view is very problematic.

[00:01:01]Uh the first point you notice is that uh that it really can't be a basic principle because uh there's certainly a first-order logical possibilities of things that aren't human. Think of extraterrestrial beings and so on uh that have all the abilities that humans have.

[00:01:23]And it seems very reasonable to think they must also have a right to life.

[00:01:27]But also, there are things on this planet that arguably have a right to life.

[00:01:33]And uh a number of people um I'm sure you've heard of who think for example that dolphins do or they think that uh maybe some of the great apes do. I was once involved in the great ape project on that.

[00:01:46]Uh or they think that uh whales, including sperm whales, do.

[00:01:51]And recently there's been some very interesting research by a group called uh SETI, I think, c e t i, where they used AI to decode uh, the signals that sperm whales uh, produce and so on. They haven't yet published, I think, the content of these messages which have been decoded, but they're going to do that.

[00:02:14]So, I think there are excellent reasons both in terms of logical possibility of intelligent extraterrestrials, but also in terms of uh, uh, living things on our planet, okay?

[00:02:28]They are not human, but it's reasonable to believe also have a right to life.

[00:02:33]So, the question is, what could be the underlying basic moral principle that together with the empirical facts about these sorts of beings would lead to the conclusion that it was morally wrong to kill them?

[00:02:47]And the view that I defended in uh, the earlier uh, book was that it's what I call neo-Lockean persons that have a right to life. Neo-Lockean because it's closely related to uh, view that Locke had.

[00:03:04]And the idea is that uh, crucial thing crucial things are first that it be something that has the ability to think.

[00:03:13]That's one thing.

[00:03:15]But in addition, it has to be beings that speak whose mental states are unified over time.

[00:03:22]And so, the idea is that you also have to have memory of previous experiences you have.

[00:03:29]And quite possibly also the ability to envision a future for yourself. So, the basic idea is that it's the idea of neo-Lockean persons that enters into uh, basic moral principles that gives something a right to life.

[00:03:46]>> And so, are you you equating the concept of personhood with a right to life. Is Is that the the deep definition of persons? Which Which Which is the the Is the word persons a word chosen to describe the point of a right to life?

[00:04:09]Is that Is that the way the the explanation works?

[00:04:12]>> It's chosen to be sort of a reasonably good indicator of uh the sorts of properties that something needs to have in order to have a right to life. So, I would it's uh >> And is that a one-to-one correspondent?

[00:04:28]Uh that all entities that have a right to life are persons. And the other direction, are all persons, however whatever that includes, has an absolute right to life. Does it go both ways symmetrically?

[00:04:43]>> Uh you might argue that it doesn't go both ways. Okay, so that would mean that uh if something is a right to life, then it follows that it's a person.

[00:04:54]>> Okay.

[00:04:54]>> But somebody will think, for example, that if you behave very badly, you can forfeit the right to life. Okay? So, you'd still be a person, but but somebody will think it would be okay to kill you, execute you, and so on. So, uh it depends on one's moral views, and in certain other ways it goes in one direction. But the idea is definitely that a necessary condition of having a right to life is that one be a neo-Lockean person.

[00:05:24]>> Okay. Um and so, neo-Lockean uh deals with um psychological continuity, and this deals with personal identity, which is a a different issue, but it's very much related, obviously.

[00:05:38]Um and so, must the um must a person have this um innate understanding of uh personal identity.

[00:05:49]And that's why they need memory as you said.

[00:05:53]>> Yeah, I know uh memory is just needed in order to link together states at different times.

[00:06:01]And so to provide the base of reason uh uh why uh it's wrong to uh end the life of something that was capable of remembering earlier states. And it seems also envisioning a future for itself.

[00:06:20]>> So these are again slightly different concepts. A memory requires certainly the past, but envisioning a future um is is a harder thing to do. And there are animal experiments that show that that's difficult. And maybe that's the case. You know, certainly we have tests on babies to know when they will, you know, wait 30 seconds to get five marshmallows instead of instead of having one marshmallow right now.

[00:06:54]And so um So I mean it's an example like that doesn't doesn't it doesn't it your definition force kind of an artificial boundary because it seems a fuzzy.

[00:07:09]Certainly in in the maturation of an infant of a newborn to when that occurs.

[00:07:16]It's not a defined time.

[00:07:19]>> Yeah, I think that's right. So I mean I think that once you really go with the uh this is sort of the walking part with the idea of memory as the thing that's necessary.

[00:07:29]I think that's a better basis.

[00:07:30]>> So um the the the tra- traditional uh kind of uh step function ways to define human life have been at conception or at first breath at at birth. Those are absolute uh biological um um uh milestones that you can isolate from everything else. If you have a sense of um of a future understanding or future memory that's a more fuzzy definition.

[00:08:09]>> Yes, that So that seems right, actually.

[00:08:11]And uh So, I mean, the question then becomes being if you uh accept the idea of this neo-Lockean account and uh uh what makes something a person then you have to look very carefully at uh some of the things you referred to, that is the uh observations that have been made on uh humans after birth and so on, seeing what sorts of uh behaviors they do or do not exhibit.

[00:08:39]And um in the book um I devote I was thinking about 50 pages to examining uh the scientific evidence that was available at the time bearing upon uh the uh properties and so uh some of it would involve looking at the development of neurons and so on.

[00:09:03]>> Right, right.

[00:09:05]Yeah, but but what what was the exact name of the book so we have it on on the record? Um Abortion and >> Feticide is what I remember.

[00:09:11]>> Yeah, >> And that that was published about when?

[00:09:14]>> Uh it's about 50 years ago.

[00:09:16]>> Okay.

[00:09:17]>> [laughter] >> Okay. Let's apply the principle that you've given to various situations.

[00:09:24]Um how about a human being in a vegetative state uh uh which can be divided into absolutely sure that it's permanent or most likely permanent. You can you can get fuzzy on that. So, a human being in a vegetative state >> I think that if it said permanent vegetative state, uh then it would not be wrong to kill it now.

[00:09:49]There might be other reasons, okay? I mean, uh a person in a vegetative state might have a husband or wife and so on.

[00:09:57]Uh children and so on who wouldn't want them to be killed.

[00:10:00]But, uh it's uh it would not be wrong to kill a plant.

[00:10:05]And if, for example, a person uh made a, so to speak, decision about these sorts of situations and said that uh if it went into a permanent vegetative state, uh it would not want to be, so to speak, put on some life support sustaining uh apparatus, uh it would be uh its desire that it simply be killed.

[00:10:30]>> Yeah, that's that's similar to a living will that people will will uh have anyway that says they don't want to be resuscitated with extreme measures as they, you know, get old in situations. I remember when my mother um was in a situation. She died at 102, so we, you know, I don't know this was like in '98 or something and and and the and the facility encouraged me to do a living will for her and I resisted. I didn't want I I I basically I said, "No."

[00:11:00]Uh I wanted her to be resuscitated cuz she was still she hadn't developed Alzheimer's I I I mean, dementia quite yet. Um and they told me that that would be um that would subject her to potentially broken ribs through uh the, you know, extreme measures and it and it would be more painful uh that way. And so, I I I agreed. So, I I understand the um the the uh the concepts. Um so, um it that would mean that if a person is in a vegetative state, but you know, people emerge from vegetative states remarkably after weeks or months and sometimes even years.

[00:11:42]Um, and so if that were possible, then then then that would be the the step function differentiating line or something like that. Can Can we go further and say uh, you know, when a human being is sleeping uh, they really don't have a have a uh an understanding of the of the future and their future continuity in a in a real way. Now, I know this this is a reduction ad absurdum.

[00:12:10]But um, I'm just trying to see the how the principle applies.

[00:12:15]>> Yes, well, let's put things in terms of uh, the ability that a person has and that doesn't mean the ability to have at a specific time, but in terms of uh the uh power that they have to uh remember, for example uh, their past and so on. So, it's it's not a not based upon uh, what they can do at a time, but in terms of the capabilities uh uh, that they possess uh, at that stage of their existence.

[00:12:49]>> So, I I know I know that you uh, reject the idea that a uh, a fetus uh, at conception or right after conception because is a person and therefore has a right to life uh, automatically at conception because it's a potential to be a person, it's not a person.

[00:13:11]Um, and so I'm trying to push you with an analogy to sleeping.

[00:13:17]Uh, you know, I certainly have the potential of waking up.

[00:13:21]But I mean, it's not that's not 100% sure, but uh, you know, very very likely I'll wake up. So, I have that potential.

[00:13:27]But, when I'm sleeping, I'm not quite in that state.

[00:13:30]>> Well, if you uh construe potential in certain ways, as a number of uh for example, conflict letters on abortion uh through then of course to reach the conclusion that fertilized human egg cell uh it so to speak uh isn't even conscious at the time, etc. One must have the potentiality for not just conscious conscious but rationality, etc., right? So, uh you have to decide whether uh uh the principle understood is applying to that sort of case, okay?

[00:14:10]is still plausible.

[00:14:12]And uh uh There's a lot of debate on the abortion issue and so on, but uh uh I think that's uh the arguments for and that often reflect religious background of individuals putting them forward.

[00:14:29]So, uh The main for example, believe also in an immaterial soul which is present.

[00:14:36]Uh The The Catholic Church, interestingly enough, is not that uh an instant uh immaterial rational soul is known to be present from the time of conception.

[00:14:50]The argument is rather that while the church hasn't so to speak uh definitely defined the situation, uh the situation is such that there is a possibility that there is an immaterial rational soul present.

[00:15:08]And so, it's possible that uh killing a fertilized human egg cell may be uh destroying something uh that has a uh rational soul.

[00:15:19]>> Yeah, and you can [clears throat] wind that back and say even prior to uh conception, the independent sperms and eggs also have that. But, you know, we we can That's an endless an endless path. Um how about AI um AI personhood? Um I was recently invited to a debate on AI personhood. And I I I said that well-known debate and I said uh love to do it if the schedule can work out.

[00:15:50]Looks like it can't work out, but uh I made the comment that whatever side you're missing, I can defend the other side uh in terms of AI personhood. So, what's your view? Uh based on your definition of personhood, um what what AI is, not just today, in fact, not today, but um into the into the future, however however long.

[00:16:13]>> Well, um I I recently went on ChatGPT, another very high-powered program, and so on.

[00:16:20]I'm paying for them.

[00:16:22]Heavy-hitting programs, etc. And um I asked it whether there uh some things that humans could know uh that AI cannot presently know, such as uh what it's like to experience redness or to experience pain and so on.

[00:16:46]And uh the answer was that uh AI will never be able to know those sorts of things, okay?

[00:16:57]Uh not sure if you may not be a fan of qualia, okay? But, the idea is that uh uh AI will never be able to understand uh properties that are qualia, or colors, sounds, smells, and tastes, etc. And uh that seems to be right. So, uh let's say there's things that uh uh humans will be able to do that AI will never be able to do.

[00:17:21]And uh I'm not too impressed by the present state of AI. I've had a number of chats uh in the past with ChatGPT.

[00:17:30]And I found out that it makes up things. It uh will cite books that don't exist, for example, and so on.

[00:17:39]>> Yeah, there's a lot of hallucination. It's it's getting better.

[00:17:42]Uh the question is not what it is today, but you know, given almost exponential growth, uh what it what it will become.

[00:17:50]And in principle, uh so in in principle, to push it, if AI would uh claim to have a sense of redness and a sense of qualia and a sense of consciousness and be able to pass the so-called Turing test, would fool anybody, um on on a very high percentage basis. Um would that then alter your feeling of whether AI would become a person?

[00:18:23]>> Uh no, it wouldn't, actually. Uh because uh I don't want some sort of kind of how it could have come to know these things, right?

[00:18:32]And uh I mean, it uh may as for example, of course, be able to tell whether or not it's looking at a red book and correctly describe the color of it, etc. But uh that uh that ability, I mean, uh could be to be done by very simple devices and so on, which can measure wavelengths of light and [clears throat] and uh provide no that provides itself no reason for thinking that uh it understands what effect uh light can give uh various animals, so to speak, has in terms of producing uh qualia.