What is human

[citrusbreath95]

I was thinking up some random thoughts and had this one. What exactly makes us human? Our physical structure? How we look, our DNA, the features that make up a normal human being (eyes, nose, mouth, etc.) to allow us to do certain things and not others. Or is it just the mind? The central base of intelligence in which thoughts and ideas originate, and past experiances are stored. If, (this will be a strange example) a rat had the mind of a human but still had the physical appearance and structure of a rat, is it still a rat or human? What if it looked human but still thought like a rat? Or perhaps, is it impossible to tell as to be human it is a combination of the two?:elephant:

[Vrecknidj]

It's relevant to ask whether every person is a human and whether every human is a person. If there are some non-human persons and some non-person humans, then we have more room.

Dave

[Anthile]

Imagine a linear timeline branching into countless other timelines and with a hypothetical beginning and a hypothetical ending. We put our finger on one point of one of these timelines and say 'this period is called human'.

[Dormouse]

Human is the word we use when talking about our species. Our DNA is what defines whether or not we are human.

Now, a more interesting question would be what is humanity... Or being humane. Those can have very different meanings.

[saffyangelis]

To me, being human is very closely linked with being humane. I can't see how I could consider someone as being human without them being humane. It's the standard of morals that we have I think that helps to make us human - arguing with my class about me being vegetarian often used the argument "But animals eat meat, it's natural".

It's partially to do with that I draw the distinction there. We have the ability to have morals, to consider right or wrong, and that's what sets us apart. Without this, 'human' would only carry as much meaning as 'lion' or 'eagle' - still interesting, but there's a lot less that a human with this ability has in common with animals in comparison to between two animals. Both animals will rely mostly on instinct, and although we are still dependent on our instincts to a large extent, we have a much greater measure of control over ourselves.

I also think that you're only human if you consider yourself human, but that's a bit harder to explain in my head.. It's a bit like how although I'm technically british, I still think of myself as english instead. I may be human, but a lot of the time I don't actively think of myself as such, so I don't feel like a human, if that makes sense, but I think this is also part of what is human, if you consider yourself to be.

I don't really think of appearance as having much to do with it. If a tree had the same mental abilities as a human (and presumably a way of communicating so that we could know this) then I would consider it to be human. It may not consider itself to be human, but I would think of it as one.

In the same way, I wouldn't consider DNA to be a large part of it either, although I suppose the words 'human' and 'person' don't quite have that much of a difference in my head. I consider being a person a large part of being human, and vice versa, and part of being human (and a person by extension of that) is being humane. I don't think that inhumane people aren't people though, even if I consider that an important part of being human. I tend to think that as long as someone is capable of thinking then they are human.

I kinda didn't mean to be rambling for ages, and I get the feeling I'm making less sense as I go on, so I'll shut up now...

[Da Blob]

If humanity is indeed defined solely on the basis of DNA, as seems to be the popular politically correct definition of our species - Then absolutely no action taken by a human can be considered inhuman. No degree of brutality, no numbers of murders, no torture, no sadism can be said to be inhuman, but merely a behavior shared with our brothers, the rest of the primate family.:rolleyes:

Seriously, though, no human can define humanity. There is a subjective bias that can not be eliminated...

[Agent Intellect]

This is a problem that Darwin sort of touched on in "On The Origin of Species". One cannot really define a species, so Darwin narrowed it down even further and said that within a species, there are varieties. The example used was a species of wolf, which in one part of the forest were smaller and quicker, and another part were larger and bulkier (keep in mind the differences were small - they are still both part of the same species). The problem is, how much different do two varieties need to be in order to consider them not the same species? There are a lot of differences on the genetic level (relatively speaking) between two humans, especially if they are from different parts of the world.

In this sense, it seems, biologists would consider that two organisms that could (potentially) mate with one another (their DNA is similar enough, even if they have been sterilized) would be the same species - so, going by that definition, if a human can (potentially) reproduce with other humans, that would define them as human.

The problem with using the mind as a standard is there is even greater variety in the minds of people - consider a genius compared to someone that is mentally handicapped, there is probably a bigger difference in their mind than between the mentally handicapped person and a chimp. Or, if someone is in a persistent vegetative state, they essentially no longer have a mind, yet are generally granted the same rights as a conscious, functional human being.

And Blob is correct - nobody can act inhuman, because everything we do is within the realm and capability of being human. Now, acting moral, on the other hand, is a different story.

[ktp]

The ability to have a vision of perfection but never able to fulfill that vision. It doesn't make us stop trying though.

[citrusbreath95]

If humanity is indeed defined solely on the basis of DNA, as seems to be the popular politically correct definition of our species - Then absolutely no action taken by a human can be considered inhuman. No degree of brutality, no numbers of murders, no torture, no sadism can be said to be inhuman, but merely a behavior shared with our brothers, the rest of the primate family.:rolleyes:

Seriously, though, no human can define humanity. There is a subjective bias that can not be eliminated...

Well, if human beings are in fact full of sin and corrupt, then I suppose that there has to be some form of evil or badness just to make us human. So, being human can not only mean doing humane activities, our bodily structure, and our consciousness of our existence and values, but perhaps the only way to be human is imperfection and a combination of everthing else. Maybe there really is no definition of human but rather a general view on a particular group of species. So, when people say that being human is doing humane things, maybe they are only partially right. To do sin is human as well, yet to be aware of this sin and try to change it for perfection is what humans as a whole try to accomplish, as we are aware of it. Perhaps the entire concept of being human is just knowing!.....????? Yet... this doesn't seem like it would work for murderors and sadists who recognize their sin and evilness and yet continue it, with rather satisfaction. So, perhaps there are just different types of human beings (not referring to individuals) and some are more humane, and others are evil. I agree with you that no human can define humanity it is too general a topic that branches off into so many smaller arguments that the bias is simply overwhelming. :)