# Are the blind human? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 21, 2009, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-blind-human/503801 "2009-07-21T23:58:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![njtt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecd19e/32.png) [@njtt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/njtt)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2009, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-blind-human/503801/41 "2009-07-23T23:59:45Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Given that blind people _themselves_ are a special case, I’d say that special cases matter in this discussion. Which would make me leery of adopting a definition that essentially says that newborn infants aren’t human, and calls that a ‘special case’. The “special cases” that seem to be worrying you are quite easily handled by amending **xtisme** ’s original proposal to refer to the _potential_ for communicating rather than just the actuality. Babies are people because they can be expected to grow into people capable of communicating with the rest of us, and thus being part of our moral community. People alone on desert islands will be able to communicate as soon as anyone else for them to communicate with turns up. The blind, of course, have no problem with communication in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2009, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-blind-human/503801/42 "2009-07-24T00:02:07Z")
> [@panache45](#): > > So we are human, not in and of ourselves, but only in relation to each other? Does a marooned individual, unable to communicate with humanity, cease being human? Being marooned does not (well, not necessarily) rob one of the _ability_ to communicate, only the _opportunity_. ---
**Author:** ![devilsknew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/4da419/32.png) [@devilsknew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/devilsknew)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2009, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-blind-human/503801/43 "2009-07-24T02:49:57Z")
Did you know that blind cave crickets will sometimes cannabilize their own bodies due to the sparse nutritional environment of their subterranaean dwell? They usually will gnaw off a leg. (Apropos of that recent Steven King thread about the short story [Survivor Type](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivor_Type)) ---
**Author:** ![Mojo\_Pin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Mojo\_Pin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mojo_Pin)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2009, 11:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-blind-human/503801/44 "2009-07-24T11:22:42Z")
I don’t see the great debate in your question. I think the “human experience” by definition includes the experience of every human being, and a blind human is just that, an individual who is blind, and as a result has a unique experience. The same can be said for every other unique trait. The human experience of a twenty minute old quadriplegic, autistic, blind deaf and dumb midget may be extremely marginal and foreign to us “normal” people, but is human none the less. ---
**Author:** ![njtt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecd19e/32.png) [@njtt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/njtt)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2009, 11:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-blind-human/503801/45 "2009-07-24T11:26:28Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > So personally I’ll stick with definitions that are, to my knowledge, special-case free. Admittedly the one I gave prior begs the question somewhat, but as far as I know it’s pretty accurate to how we actually define humanity. “If everybody thinks its a human, then it’s a human, until we learn something about it that definitely defines it as _not_ being human.” And in my perception lacking sight or hearing or limbs or language is not, itself, enough to disqualify a person from the title. It begs the question totally. The whole point of the thread is that **SmashTheState** kind of thinks that maybe blind people are _not_ human. True, he is totally alone in this so far as I can tell (and I rather doubt he really believes it himself), but you can’t settle even an apparent disagreement just by saying that everyone agrees. (What the hell do blind cave crickets have to do with anything?) ---
**Author:** ![Mojo\_Pin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Mojo\_Pin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mojo_Pin)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2009, 11:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-blind-human/503801/46 "2009-07-24T11:38:24Z")
> [@njtt](#): > > It begs the question totally. The whole point of the thread is that **SmashTheState** kind of thinks that maybe blind people are _not_ human. True, he is totally alone in this so far as I can tell (and I rather doubt he really believes it himself), but you can’t settle even an apparent disagreement just by saying that everyone agrees. > > (What the hell do blind cave crickets have to do with anything?) But that makes no sense (claiming that blind humans are not humans). They are a subset of humanity, and their shared trait, blindness, makes them very different from the rest of humanity. At best SmashTheState is arguing that blind humans are not common humans, which is a pointless argument. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2009, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-blind-human/503801/47 "2009-07-24T16:50:36Z")
> [@njtt](#): > > The “special cases” that seem to be worrying you are quite easily handled by amending **xtisme** ’s original proposal to refer to the _potential_ for communicating rather than just the actuality. Babies are people because they can be expected to grow into people capable of communicating with the rest of us, and thus being part of our moral community. People alone on desert islands will be able to communicate as soon as anyone else for them to communicate with turns up. The blind, of course, have no problem with communication in the first place. So, is Mojo Jojo a human, then? How about the Talking Dog? (Don’t bother playing the “they’re fictional!” card - we should still be able to _classify_ them.) I would agree that the _capability_ to communicate was probably what **xtisme** was basing his definition - but I would not agree that the _potential_ for communicate was. Among other problems, that definition balances on the slippery slope of calling a freshly fertilized human egg a human - which would be spiffy for the anti-abortion arguers, but _hardly_ constitutes a universally accepted definition. (Arguably, a single sperm would qualify as a human too, since clearly you need to add things to a zygote and fundamentally change it before it will start communicating, so having to add things would not disqualify.) And also - would a _dead_ human be a human? What about one that was too weak to speak and about to die (thus having no potential to communicate again) but for the moment was still alive and aware? > [@njtt](#): > > It begs the question totally. The whole point of the thread is that **SmashTheState** kind of thinks that maybe blind people are _not_ human. True, he is totally alone in this so far as I can tell (and I rather doubt he really believes it himself), but you can’t settle even an apparent disagreement just by saying that everyone agrees. Not totally - I did include “until we learn something about it that definitely defines it as not being human.” However I will admit that it was exceptionally _lazy_. To do this correctly, I would have to make a comprehensive list of every single things that, if it was the case, would be enough to define something as “not human”. (Once you have this list, you can determine wheter anything is a human by simply going down the list, and if it isn’t disqualified, then the thing is a human. This would therefore be a complete definition.) Of course _making_ this list could be tricky, since as noted above a dead human is still quite arguably a human, as is a human _skeleton_, to some degree, but the dismembered arm of a dead human isn’t a human itself. So figuring out the precise details of this could be tough. Of course for _this_ thread, it’s pretty much good enough to say, “whatever the set of disqualifying criteria _are_, being blind clearly isn’t among them”. ---
**Author:** ![ashman165](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e8cbc/32.png) [@ashman165](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ashman165)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2009, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-blind-human/503801/48 "2009-07-24T17:24:00Z")
> [@panache45](#): > > Yes, what sets us apart as human is our unique type of consciousness, not our ability to see. > We have to include anyone born from a human. > > To the OP: So much of what we do, unique to humans, involves our hands. Would you say that someone without hands is not human? I believe you posted in the wrong forum: that should [go here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=525024). 😛 ---
**Author:** ![njtt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecd19e/32.png) [@njtt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/njtt)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2009, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-blind-human/503801/49 "2009-07-25T04:46:00Z")
> [@Mojo\_Pin](#): > > But that makes no sense (claiming that blind humans are not humans). They are a subset of humanity, and their shared trait, blindness, makes them very different from the rest of humanity. At best SmashTheState is arguing that blind humans are not common humans, which is a pointless argument. Well don’t complain to me about it. Tell **SmashTheState**. > [@begbert2](#): > > So, is Mojo Jojo a human, then? How about the Talking Dog? (Don’t bother playing the “they’re fictional!” card - we should still be able to _classify_ them.) Obviously they are not human in the sense that they are not members of the species _homo sapiens_. However, as I tried to explain upthread, I think it is pretty clear that this was not the sense of “human” that the OP had in mind. Clearly he (I assume it’s a “he”) really meant something more like “are they people?” or “are they sufficiently like the rest of us that we can understand how they think and should include them in our moral community?” (I don’t think it strains normal usage to use use “human” that way, but the word used without qualification is ambiguous.) In the latter sense I think, yes, there is a good case to made that Mojo Jojo or a talking dog are persons/humans (like the Space Aliens I mentioned earlier). (Mojo Pin too I guess. :p) > [@](#): > > I would agree that the _capability_ to communicate was probably what **xtisme** was basing his definition - but I would not agree that the _potential_ for communicate was. Among other problems, that definition balances on the slippery slope of calling a freshly fertilized human egg a human - which would be spiffy for the anti-abortion arguers, but _hardly_ constitutes a universally accepted definition. I am comfortable with calling a fertilized ovum human (maybe not **a** human, but that is a different issue I think). What is more, I think that would be widely accepted, except perhaps by people who think that the only possible way to justify the availability of abortion is to insist that an embryo is not human. That is a BAD argument for abortion choice. I happen to think that there much better (though more complex) arguments for it, but I have no intention of getting into them here. :eek: > [@](#): > > Not totally - I did include “until we learn something about it that definitely defines it as not being human.” However I will admit that it was exceptionally _lazy_. To do this correctly, I would have to make a comprehensive list of every single things that, if it was the case, would be enough to define something as “not human”. (Once you have this list, you can determine wheter anything is a human by simply going down the list, and if it isn’t disqualified, then the thing is a human. This would therefore be a complete definition.) Of course _making_ this list could be tricky, since as noted above a dead human is still quite arguably a human, as is a human _skeleton_, to some degree, but the dismembered arm of a dead human isn’t a human itself. So figuring out the precise details of this could be tough. But your argument against **xtisme** was (or seemed to be) that his definition required too many qualifications to deal with special cases, whereas yours was nice and pithy and clean. Now you seem to be saying that your _real_ definition (if you or anyone ever had the time or energy to draw it up properly) would actually be something incredibly long winded and complicated and full of qualifications and special cases. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2009, 8:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-blind-human/503801/50 "2009-07-25T08:22:43Z")
I am blind in one eye with 20-400 vision corrected to 20-200. (I can’t tell any difference when it’s corrected.) I’m part human and like to keep my options open for the other half. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2009, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-blind-human/503801/51 "2009-07-27T16:43:20Z")
> [@njtt](#): > > Obviously they are not human in the sense that they are not members of the species _homo sapiens_. However, as I tried to explain upthread, I think it is pretty clear that this was not the sense of “human” that the OP had in mind. Clearly he (I assume it’s a “he”) really meant something more like “are they people?” or “are they sufficiently like the rest of us that we can understand how they think and should include them in our moral community?” (I don’t think it strains normal usage to use use “human” that way, but the word used without qualification is ambiguous.) In the latter sense I think, yes, there is a good case to made that Mojo Jojo or a talking dog are persons/humans (like the Space Aliens I mentioned earlier). (Mojo Pin too I guess. :p) I readily concede they’re people - but I’m not convinced that **SmashTheState** meant to talk about “people”. He said “human”, I can, therefore, debate “human”, if I like. (Which I choose to do mostly because I consider it the more interesting question. 🙂 ) (Though again I’m not sure that a (perhaps temporary?) lack of ability to communicate makes a person a non-person, either.) > [@njtt](#): > > I am comfortable with calling a fertilized ovum human (maybe not **a** human, but that is a different issue I think). What is more, I think that would be widely accepted, except perhaps by people who think that the only possible way to justify the availability of abortion is to insist that an embryo is not human. That is a BAD argument for abortion choice. I happen to think that there much better (though more complex) arguments for it, but I have no intention of getting into them here. :eek: Actually, the difference between “human” and “_a_ human” is relevent, I think. A dismembered human arm is certainly human, but it isn’t _a_ human. So clearly there are different definitions at play here (with the former definition probably being _strictly_ based on genetic origin, I’m thinking). > [@njtt](#): > > But your argument against **xtisme** was (or seemed to be) that his definition required too many qualifications to deal with special cases, whereas yours was nice and pithy and clean. Now you seem to be saying that your _real_ definition (if you or anyone ever had the time or energy to draw it up properly) would actually be something incredibly long winded and complicated and full of qualifications and special cases. The main difference was that his definition required exceptions that it wasn’t leaving room for, and mine had all required exceptions built into the definition in broad terms but left unspecified in detail. So, it’s kind of like he was saying pi is 3, and I was saying it’s between 2 and 7. I guess I’ll leave it to you which of us was more wrong. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2009, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-blind-human/503801/52 "2009-08-03T19:42:13Z")
> [@SmashTheState](#): > > Wait, I’m not trolling. Hear me out. > > When I use the word “human” here, I am not referring just to homo sapiens sapiens, but a gestalt created through the shared set of experiences and archetypes which we refer to as the “human experience.” A person born brain-dead, for example, is still a member of our species, but lacks humanity. > > A great deal of the human experience is visual. Of all our senses, vision is arguably the most important to us in terms of interaction with our environment; video games, for example, try very hard to simulate human vision, with hearing coming a distant second and the other senses (joystick rumble notwithstanding) entirely absent. For a person who has been blind from birth, their experience of the world is extremely different from that of a sighted person’s. This causes me to wonder whether their experience of the world, their _dasein_ to use Heidegger’s term, is sufficiently alien from that of a sighted person’s to put them outside of what we recognize as human. > > This is not to say that their experience is any worse (or better), simply different. If you’re still having difficulty understanding what I’m talking about, consider a very simple Platonic ideal, the circle. Chances are, when you think of a circle in your head, there is a visual representation. What does a blind person perceive when they think of a circle? The fact is, I can’t even imagine what the reality of a circle is for a blind person, and this makes their thought processes alien to me. > > Is there anyone out there who has been blind from birth? I’d be interested to know what your perspective is on this. Are minorities human? I guarantee you that minorities experience life differently than whites in this country. Coming froma country where I am not a minoroty and living here, life is experienced differently for me. Different degree but isn’t it a similar concept. Are the abject poor human? Are the super rich human? You can go on and on and on. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-blind-human/503801.md?page=2)