This transcript is auto-generated.

There are 5 views from the secular world. Some of these I believe clash diametrically with a Christian world view, but for some it is more nuanced. Contemporary American legal scholar named John Noonan gives us are first option, which he called: 

1 The Genetic criteria (c1995)

This says that you are a person if you have human DNA, and you are not a person if you do not. However, the narrowness of this definition means that dead people, yes, corpses become persons under this criterion. If all you need to be a person is human DNA then if a pick the scab of a cut and set it on the table, the human cells in that scab grant it personhood. However, none of your favourite fictional character or androids, robots or friendly aliens or superheroes meet the genetic criterion even though they seem like persons to you and me. They are less human than the extracted tooth lying in the little bowl besides the dentist's chair. The virtue of this view is its simplicity, but its implications are so problematic that most Christians and indeed most philosophers dismiss it. 

2 Cognitive. (c1973)

American philosopher Mary Ann Warren offers a more specific criteria that she believes together constitute personhood. In order to be granted the cognitive basis for personhood we must have consciousness and what she calls self-motivated There must be activity going on. There must also be the capacity to communicate and show self-awareness. These factors make up the cognitive criteria for personhood. Warren argues that some humans aren't persons either because they’re not capable of communicating or aren’t self-aware. Or if they can’t think for themselves or move around on their own volition or aren’t conscious. She says that type of entity is not a being that we can call a person. Even if that being happens to have human DNA is can still be ruled out as a person. And can even mean that people who are temporarily incapacitated due to a medical procedure or series illness lose their personhood. Warren’s criteria may kick out of the personhood club some beings that to you and I would clearly think are people. You’re or me for example. Ourselves when we get older and perhaps are parents or grandparents right now Most Christians reject this worldview because it also rules out foetuses but it also kind of rules out very young children as kids don't become self-aware until at around18 months. 

3 The Social Criteria. (F.J. White c1981) 

This criterion says you're a person whenever society recognizes you as a person or whenever someone cares about you. This is one seems intuitive. It says that you matter morally when you matter to someone else. This allows for society's understanding of a person to change overtime. This seems useful when society wants to think about things like animal rights or veganism. However, if you think carefully about this view it also means that if no one happens to care for a particular being that being then isn't a person. Healthy functioning adult humans might not have personhood just because no one happens to love or care about them. Christians struggle with this view because we believe that everyone is worthy of our consideration. Most Christians would agree that one of the core messages of the bible is that God loves everyone. In fact, God loves everyone so much that he sent his only son into the world that howsoever thrust in him shall have eternal life. Most Christians I think would believe we probably want inclusion in the moral community to be something more than a popularity contest. So, we are not doing so well with our first three criteria from a Christian viewpoint. Maybe no 4 will fare better? 

4             Sentience (Peter Singer c1975) 

Then there's contemporary Australian moral philosopher Peter Singer who said that the key to personhood is sentience. Sentience is the ability to feel pleasure and pain and some say this is the key to personhood. However, this criterion ignores the whole idea of species or humanity altogether and instead looks at a being's capacity to suffer. Personhood is granted at the point at which something can feel pain emotionally or physically. And Singer suggest it is morally wrong to cause unnecessary pain to anything that can feel. However, if it can't feel will do no harm to exclude an entity from the group of beings that matter. Again Christians may struggle with this because humans in coma’s or persistent vegetative states or even. foetus’s fall outside this category. Yet any animal with a central nervous system becomes a person under these criteria. Is Personhood like it's a switch you have it, and then you don’t when you get old and frail? 

5             Gradient (CM Child c1955)

Finally, the gradient theory of personhood says it's not all or nothing. There is still a switch but with this theory but it's more like a dimmer switch. Personhood comes in degrees, and you can have more or less personhood, or grow slowly into personhood. Therefore, a 26-week-old foetus would have less personhood than a 34-week-old foetus which would have less personhood than a new-born baby who would have less personhood than a toddler. Likewise, at the other end of the life story personhood can be lost as gradually as it can be gained. A lot of people think this is a reasonable way to look at the issue. By this logic than the interests of the being with more personhood always gets more weight in a situation that requires a choice (like abortion). This doesn't deny the personhood of either being, but it allows that some beings have more personhood than others. This sounds a bit to me like the statement in the George Orwell classic, animal farm which said; “all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others”. 

OK there we have what I believe are the main secular worldviews on what it means to be a person. But there is another view of personhood which for Christian take a completely different tack and we shall look at that in the next episode.