Final answer:
John Locke defines a person as a thinking, intelligent being with reason and reflection. Not all humans are persons if they lack these capacities, and hypothetically, non-human entities with these capacities could be considered persons. This raises ethical concerns about the rights and protections for varied entities.
Step-by-step explanation:
According to English philosopher John Locke, a person is a being that has reason, reflection, and can consider itself as itself, the same thinking thing in different times and places. This definition prioritizes psychological continuity over biological factors. Hence, some humans, such as infants or those with certain cognitive disabilities, might not fit Locke's criteria of a person because they have not yet developed or have lost the capacity for reason and self-reflection. Conversely, non-human entities that could possess reason and reflection, such as hypothetical advanced artificial intelligences or extraterrestrial beings, could potentially be considered persons.
Locke's view contrasts with biological definitions of personhood that include all human beings, regardless of their cognitive capacities, by focusing on the abilities of consciousness and rational thought. This leads to the potential separation of the concepts of humans and persons, with not all humans automatically qualifying as persons, and not all persons being human. In his philosophical contribution to the discussion on identity, Locke engages with thought experiments to illustrate his points, further supporting this psychological continuity approach.
The implications of Locke's definition challenge societal norms and legal standards regarding who should be offered certain rights and protections, which are often based on a combination of biological and rational criteria. This raises ethical considerations on where to draw the line for personhood and what it means for entities on either side of that line.