The Speculist

On the question of human dignity (or would that become "the dignity of a person?"), we're looking at a two-edged sword. It may, indeed, be an affront to human dignity to extend humanity to that which has not traditionally been viewed as human. But surely the greater error — historically speaking — has been the reverse: denying humanity to outsiders and slaves and other "inferiors." It is precisely on these grounds that Joshua Katz and co. take their stand in defense of zygotes as "fully human." To deny the humanity of a zygote, they argue, is to fall into the same line of thinking that once would have denied the humanity of a black person.

Obviously I don't agree. This is why I think you're right that the question must ultimately come down to personhood (or even the potential for personhood.) Neither a freshly fertilized egg nor a fetus at two months would necessarily pass a test for personhood, although the argument for recognizing the potential personhood of the fetus would be much stronger than that of the zygote.

Eventually we'll reach a point where some articial life-forms will pass any rational test for personhood. Will we recognize the personhood of a being who can think and feel, who has desires and dreams and fears, and who can express them to us? I think we will. But we'll be in a bit of a quandary.

To wit, if a sentient robot is a "person," what about a really advanced laptop? Okay, it's not. But what if it's running some software that has the capability to bootstrap itself to sentience? This is the question of potential personhood seen from a different angle.

One answer would be to say that any entity which could follow a developmental process ending in personhood must be recognized as a person. (That would be analagous to the "personhood begins at conception" argument.)If we end up adopting that one, no one would be able to own a computer past a certain level of sophistication.

But the question is — would it be ethical to inhibit the development of a computer that could "go personal" if left to its own devices or helped along? If not, will history view us all as slaveholders for "using" our ThinkPads and Dells like they're some kind of "property?" And if it would be all right to so inhibit a computer's development, how would that be different from the current use of embryonic stem cells for research?