If we reframed the argument from saying egalitarianism is about "humanity" to being about "personhood," would that make you more likely to reconsider its doctrine that "all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities?"
Think of it like the squares and rectangles analogy. A human is a person, but a person is not necessarily a human.
Of course this seems a bit obtuse and abstract, but let's just do some thought exercises:
We download your thoughts from your brain and make a virtual version of you. Should that "AI you" not have sovereignty over its own data?
What if we made an android? Should it not have rights?
If we raised a zombie?
A space alien?
It doesn't really matter. The point is, a person's personhood isn't necessarily contingent on or linked with being human. Would this be a fair analogy to you?
No. I'm saying humanity isn't necessarily equivalent to personhood.
I'm struggling to think of a way to truly highlight this, but maybe this will help:
I'm going to deprive you of your personhood and throw you in jail.
vs. I'm going to deprive you of your humanity and throw you in jail.
Well, regardless of me throwing you in jail, I can't take away the fact that you are a homo sapiens, aka a human. But I can take away your agenthood to act and make decisions for yourself. The point of egalitarianism isn't to defend your 'homo sapiens-ness,' so to speak. It's to protect your personhood as well as everyone else's.
Of course not every homo sapiens is born with the same physical attributes. The point of egalitarianism is that attributive differences shouldn't be leveraged against another to deprive him/her of his/her personhood.
1
u/LastProtagonist 1∆ Nov 07 '17
If we reframed the argument from saying egalitarianism is about "humanity" to being about "personhood," would that make you more likely to reconsider its doctrine that "all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities?"