Read Time: 4 minutes

Introduction:

Many people defend human rights using personhood criteria, which can be divided into direct and indirect forms. These arguments ultimately turn human rights into privileges, instead of rights grounded in being human. This argument is not about my personal view on personhood, but about why human rights must be grounded in being human.

What is personhood:

To understand this, we need to understand what Personhood means. Personhood is a philosophical concept that tries to answer a complex question: ‘What is a person?’ This is complex because the idea because a person is a broader idea then simply being human. For example, many people would see and treat angels, aliens, or even fictional characters as persons. This has nothing to do with whether you believe these beings exist, but with the idea.

Personhood is also important in law, but it is used in a slightly different. In legal systems, a person is often a category the state uses grant rights, responsibilities, and protections. This is why sometimes legal entities like corporations are treated as legal persons.

Both legal and philosophical ideas and debates are Important, but they shouldn’t be used to determine Which human beings get to have human rights.

The Difference Between Direct and Indirect Personhood Arguments:

Direct and indirect personhood arguments share the same logic but are show in very different ways.

• Direct Personhood Arguments – These arguments claim that if a human being lacks a trait, ability or characteristic, then they are not a person and therefore do not have rights. This pattern appears in both modern and historical uses of personhood. Examples are slavery, abortion or the denial of any other basic freedoms to some groups of humans.

• Indirect Personhood Arguments – These arguments avoid saying someone isn’t a person because either the speaker doesn’t recognise personhood as a philosophical concept, or they intentionally avoid it for a variety of reasons. However, the reasoning is identical to the Direct Personhood augments and leads to the same outcome.

Examples of Personhood Tests Excluding People:

• Independence – This talking point argues that a human must be able to survive or function on their own in order to count as a person. This argument is often aimed at groups such as the disabled and the unborn, but its logic can extend to broader forms of murderous eugenics.

• Social Contribution – The main problem with this idea of personhood is that it targets groups based on ‘usefulness’. This is not just criticism; it treats some people as less valuable. This standard is often applied against the poor, the wealthy and the disabled.

• Intelligence / Rationality – Judging personhood by intelligence or rationality creates a hierarchy where anyone who falls below a certain standard is treated as subhuman. This way of thinking targets people who naturally have weaker cognitive abilities or those who simply disagree, such as outspoken opponents, infants, or cognitively impaired people.

• Consciousness / Awareness – Basing personhood on consciousness or awareness assumes that to be a person much be always actively experiencing or perceiving the world to get basic right. This instantly falls apart once you realize that even animals like rats and pigeons can experience consciousness or awareness. This logic often also excuses people like the unborn, newborns and sleeping people.

• Developmental Stage / Age – This is generally used against unborn children but can be used against all born people as well. Another reason this is flawed because both age and state of development are continuous, not fixed categories; for example, a five year old isn’t allowed full access to alcohol not because of the number 5, but because we use age as a simple way to reflect their biological development and the amount of time they’ve been alive.

• Skin Colour / Ethnicity – This treat normal biological adaptations as bad; it also applies to the idea of race, which is made to separate different kinds of humans when there isn’t any logical need to. When carried out to its full logical conclusion, people should make a hierarchy of the ‘perfect race’.

Why Human Rights Must Be Grounded in Being Human:

Human rights grounded in a philosophical concept like personhood rather than being a human is dangerously flexible. Governments and societies can easily choose groups they dislike or do not fully recognise as equal and then exclude them of having a full set of rights. Humanity is the only category that doesn’t exude other human beings from basic human rights. Even if this doesn’t settle the question of ‘what is a person?’, It prevents arbitrary definitions from stripping any human being of the same basic rights, responsibilities, and protections. Human rights may also be a philosophical concept, but they should be based on natural law since it can’t randomly change.

Conclusion:

The personhood criteria fail because they turn human rights into something conditional. The only way to prevent these injustices is to apply human rights to all of humanity. Even if this does not eliminate discrimination, it at least gives every human legal protection in principle. Personhood is arbitrary in this context, but humanity is not.