So I don't really like "human" and similar words except when specifically referring to the species. Phrases like "human rights" and "humanity" whatever. I call what most of these things refer to "person". And I believe there is at least the possibility of non-human persons (e.g. Spock, Chewbacca, GLaDOS, let alone grey areas like Dolphins maybe etc.).
But linguistically, it doesn't quite work because "human" can be an adjective or a noun, whereas "person" is just a noun and there's no good adjective?
@benhamill I've been gravitating towards "sapient" lately, myself.
@benhamill Huh, I legit hadn't considered that distinction before. Excellent point. 👍
@LexYeen I read a blog post several years ago (which I now cannot find) that talked about personhood in terms sort of like an interface in the computer science sense. A contract that you can fulfill to get benefits from others.
In this model, you can actually PARTIALLY fulfill it and only partially get benefits. Most often we do that as we're growing up.
@LexYeen Hmmm. That's a good one, but I think has a slightly different meaning than I intend. Like... I think a human might be sapient, but unable (or unwilling) to be a person (or anyway a full person). To me "person" implies a certain involvement in society. It involves accepting some limits (e.g. don't lie constantly all the time) and getting some benefits (e.g. people generally trust the things you say).
So, like, aliens probably aren't people. And Dolphins might not be able to be?