The difference between being human and being a person is that being human can simply

be defined as having human DNA, whereas being a person means being a part of a moral

community (CC Phil., Green). Personhood can be attributed to a myriad of traits and

characteristics humans, and even non-humans, possess. Moreover, the topic of personhood is

debated amongst philosophers because an exact definition cannot be placed on the matter of

attributing this distinguished label to a binding set of rules. Additionally, this predicament is in

place because of the many different factors at play, such as: morals, ethics, dispositions, and

every individual persons opinions. Consequently, there are five theories developed by legitimate

philosophers that will be explained and discussed in this brief analysis.

First, the genetic criterion for personhood, proposed by John Noonan, a contemporary

American legal scholar (CC Phil.,Green). The genetic criterion is simple in terms of validating

personhood; a person is so because they possess human DNA, if something does not, it is not a

person. This theory is more closely related to the definition for being human, not a person.

Furthermore, it excludes non-humans with human traits and characteristics that would allow

them as much moral consideration as a positively human serial killer or rapist. For example, this

theory validates the personhood of a human living outside the moral boundaries, someone who

committed a heinous crime, but disregards the moral consideration of other beings that live

within the moral boundaries and maintain the same moral compass as an upstanding human.

Then, there is the cognitive criteria for personhood posited by American philosopher,

known for her contributions to the topic of abortion, Mary Anne Warren. This criteria is both,

more specific in defining personhood and more inclusive of beings that can characterize

personhood. More precisely, Warrens cognitive criteria has five components: consciousness,
reasoning, self-motivated activity, capacity to communicate, and self-awareness. This set of

criteria posits that a human is not necessarily a person because it does not possess these traits that

allow it to be a part of a moral community, such as babies and fetuses. However, non-human

intelligent beings have the characteristics needed to be a person and, therefore, be a part of a

moral community.

Furthermore, there is the social criterion that states that personhood is endowed whenever

society recognizes someone as a person, or whenever someone cares about a being. This means

that a being matters morally when they matter to someone, which is not limited to humans,

intelligent apes and primates can fall within this criterion too. However, the flaw in this

argument is that lonely people that do not have anyone to care about them are not considered

persons, when they are. So, because this philosophy excludes humans that deserve moral

consideration, despite being alone, it is too flawed to be considered.

Additionally, there is the sentience philosophy of personhood by Australian

contemporary philosopher Peter Singer. This philosophy states that if a being is sentient, it is a

person. Furthermore, according to this theory, feelings such as pleasure and pain are key to being

a person so, if someone is capable of feeling, they should be given moral consideration.

Moreover, Singers theory of personhood also states that it is morally wrong to cause unjustified

pain to beings that can feel, however, if something cant feel, then it is not a person. Then, there

is the gradient theory of gradation that states that personhood is more of a gradient than a have or

have not. For example, according to this theory, a being with an undeveloped or dormant brain

has less personhood than someone with a somewhat developed brain, who has less personhood

than someone with critical thinking abilities. Additionally, this theory supports the idea that
personhood is lost as gradually as it is gained. Lastly, I personally support this theory because it

is the less limiting one and has room for debate on the topic; it also makes it easier to determine

personhood.