It will be useful to begin with an extensive introduction to personhood in general. Like many other terms, philosophers oftentimes use the word 'person' differently fromthe colloquial use of the word.

This colloquial use is usually meant to be singular for'people', or to mean 'a human being'. Although philosophers do use the word in theseways, they also use it in yet another way.

Our first question, then, I will call ThePersonhood Question: "What is it to be a person?" That is, what makes persons differentfrom non-persons? What do persons have that non-persons do not have? Are humanbeings the only candidates for persons or are there (or could there be) nonhuman persons?Many philosophers throughout history have discussed these questions andsuggested answers to them. A common trend from the Early Modern Period of Westernphilosophy (specifically Descartes and Locke) was to favor the mental aspect as essentialto personhood.

For Descartes, you are your mind. That is, you are an immaterialsubstance that thinks.

The Cartesian view of personhood is thus associated with theperson's soul. Locke similarly described a person as, "a thinking intelligent being, thathas reason and reflection, and can consider itself as itself, the same thinking thing, indifferent times and places.

"1 According to him, you are a conscious being that persists bymeans of continued consciousness and memory. For both Descartes and Locke, a personis a conscious agent capable of interacting with and experiencing the world andgenerating plans or desires upon which to act.

. .