On the Identity of Personality and the Concept of Human〔＊〕

Lu Dongshuang

（Institute of Marxism Southwest University，Chongqing 400715）

Ⅰ.Locke’s argument about personal identity

John Locke’s concept of“human”is linked with the moral philosophy.Locke believed that the moral proposition，such as mathematics，is a solvable universal proposition.And our general proposition is that“we know the exact range and degree of every species”，“because we do not know the exact boundaries and ranges of the species，we do not know the truth，too.For this reason，we must be aware of the nature of each species，because the essence forms a species or a range of species.”〔1〕

However，the concept of nature adds difficulties to the general proposi－tion.Locke said，“All of our concepts of entity are incomplete and incommensurate.”〔2〕The reason is that we lack the knowledge of the inherent composition of all the species that are specific to the nature.Although we know many natural types of external examples，the idea of observing these examples is not entirely on the reproduction of these external modes or prototypes.Although we know some powers of human and include them in the complex ideas of species，“those properties that constitute the complex ideas have another different foundation；if we can know human’s action，feeling and reasoning ability flowing from what organization，and know the regular shape of people depends on what organization（angel may probably know and the creator must know），then our conception of human nature will be different to any definition of human （whatever the definition is）.”〔3〕Because we lack the knowledge about the inner organization of people，we cannot determine “the scope and extent of species”.

There is reason to believe that Locke made the idea of rational self equal to the personality in the same chapter.In the two environments，thought is considered to be the existence of the moral law.He intended to make personality the subject of moral，the act of human the subordinate of law，and include the praise or condemnation to those acts.Locke had a different focus on the discussion of self or personality in the two environments.In the discussion of ethics to explain science，Locke emphasized the ability of abstract thinking and understanding of the general law，which is the necessary to the moral subject.This ability was indicated rationally in the discussion of the concept of human as a moral one.

Therefore，the concept of personality related to ethics is different from that of human nature，and the extension of this concept is not based on the structure of the individual.Locke believed that personality is not related to the material that constitutes human.No particular form of body is the key to personality.Locke’s main interest is to show what conditions under which a person can be considered to be able to take on the legal and moral responsibility.In Locke’s view，no matter how we intend to define the concept of“human”，we must consider the concept of self consciousness or rationality as the key elements of any suitable concept of“human”.

But if we ignore the biological nature of our existence，we cannot properly understand our moral standing.In this regard，Peter Singer held an obvious position.He accepted Locke’s definition of personality that it has the greatest moral value.Therefore，according to the viewpoint of personality，the personality is not necessarily the person and vice versa.Singer divided life into three categories：unconscious life，conscious life，and self－consciousness life.As a result，some people，such as severely disabled people，newborns and fetuses do not have a personality，and their moral status is not even as that of a conscious animal.Therefore，it is not advisable to define the“human”entirely independ－ent of the characteristics of human species.

Ⅱ.Personal identity of reductionism

Derek Parfit made an interpretation of personal identity on reductionism.He held that any judgments made by specific quantitative criteria are far fetched.We just need to examine some details in personality identity.Therefore，Parfit believed that personality identity is a“hollow problem”.Based on the above discussion，Parfit pointed out that personality identity is not important；instead，the vital thing is the relationship，which is the psychological contact or continuity of correct cause.

Parfit pointed out that the two views of personality identity support the different conclusions of the controversial issue of abortion.The non reductionist thought that we are either existing or not.“If our view on personality identity changes，the moral one will also change.As in the case of human imagination，there must be a clear boundary.It is not desirable to view birth as the boundary，and people can not be convinced that there is a line in the gestation period.So，we may also be directed toward a point of view that the moment we think the fetus is formed，we begin to exist.We may claim that our life begins at that moment.The conclusion of abortion from the non reductionism is conservative.And the earlier permission of abortion is pointed out by reductionism.”

A person is an actor as well as the subject of experience.However，utilitarianism and Kantianism philosophers have different emphases on the two different aspects of our nature.Utilitarian emphasized the positive aspects of our nature such as the ability to be happy or satisfied.They laid emphasis on what has happened to us.While Kantian paid attention to our behavior and concerned about what we have done，accordingly，we can say that utilitarianism firstly concerned of the people as the goal of moral.They asked“What should we do to them？”While Kantianism emphasized the moral subject，which asked“What should I do”，some people may think that this is just the difference of focus.However，different emphases lead to moral disagreement.Kantianism believed that the subject is the center of the constraint and the obligation is independent of the value of their results.It is more inclined to the behavior even if the people are the goal of moral considerations.The question “What should we do to them”should be answered by“They should be given the freedom to make their own decisions and do things for themselves”.And utilitarianism made people numbers and gave lives an impersonal description.The author believes that any acceptable moral philosophy must be considered in the two aspects of our nature to tell how people should be treated and what we should do.From this point of view，it is not sufficient to explain the concept of human by both reductionism and non reductionism.

Ⅲ.Personality identity based on naturality

Immanuel Kant did not completely eliminate the material concept in the study of the concept of human.Although Kant believed that the moral imperative is a pure form，he also acknowledged that the moral metaphysics cannot be independent of the application principle.It must consider “the object only through people’s experience in order to make the conclusion from the universal moral principles，but this does not make the latter’s purity lost.”〔4〕

According to the theory of Kant，freedom is not acquired by experience.Although this has been ruled out of freedom，we can see the possibility of the causal necessity of experience.Kant believed that the reality of our freedom can be established，but only through practical reason.Once we set up the principle of the will，we immediately realized the moral law.The moral law gives us pure rational facts，which give us the concept of freedom and our rule of reality.These characteristics of Kant’s theory of freedom contain an important point.That is，the experience of freedom shows that it can not be a prerequisite for any person’s moral status.In some given period，people can not effectively use freedom.Therefore，in Kant’s theory，the failure of the infant’s experience of freedom can not be opposed to their moral standing.

Let’s look at another condition of moral personality.Under the premise of free will，the actors can and should bear the corresponding consequences for their own behavior.And the only criterion for judging whether a behavior has a moral value is the obligation.Kant said，“According to the pure reason，people only have the obligation to people（themselves or others），because the obligation to any subject is the moral force that they made.Therefore，the subject of compulsory（given obligation）must first be a personality，and then this personality must be given as an empirical object，because people should have an effect on the purpose of will，which can be done only in the mutual relationship of the two real existences.But now，apart from the people，we have no idea what other beings are able to give us with our experience（whether it is active or passive）.Therefore，in addition to the obligations to people，we have no obligation to any other existence.”〔5〕In this passage，Kant pointed out that the obligation to any subject is the moral coercion through the subject’s will.A volunteer must have the intention to impose the moral obligation on the object，which must also be willing to bear the moral compulsion.Kant came to the two conditions of true moral status：we only have the obligation to a person who has a certain will and is the goal of experience.

Kant believed that we have a duty to mankind.But it is worth noting that Kant pointed out that the child is the object of the obligation of parents.“Children also have a primordial and furniture（not inherited）demand for the parents to bring them up until they are able to support themselves.”“Because the producer is a personality and it is not possible to form a concept of freedom through a physical birth process：so in practice，this is a completely correct and necessary idea.We bring apersonality into the world without its permission.And parents are now carrying a responsibility for their behavior：they make their children satisfied to the utmost of their capacity — parents can not view them as their own products（because such a product can not be endowed with free existence），or destroy them as their own private property.According to the concept of legal right，they cannot be indifferent to the citizens of the world.”〔6〕In this thesis，Kant made the nature of personality related with reason again.He held that the individual has had a moral consideration before showing freedom and responsibility.Therefore，although some existence did not own the ability temporarily，they should be given their moral status.

Kant linked moral consideration with good endowment.He divided the original good endowment into three practical ones.The first is the animal nature endowment.People have the natural endowment of animals as the existence of life including the human nature of reason and the foundation of instinct.The second is the human nature endowment.Human is considered to be the existence with life and reason，which basically includes the ability to use reason and satisfy the hobby.The third is the personality endowment.It includes “the quality to accept the respect for the moral law and to view them as their motivations.”〔7〕The object of it is the person who serves as a rational animal，as well as a moral or responsible person.Kant argued that these endowments are both good deeds.They do not derive from the negative meaning that they are contradicted with the moral law.Instead，they come from the positive meaning that they warn people to obey the moral law.This actually points out that the first two are also the sources of moral duty.Therefore，he said，“We have the obligation to our own，whether we are just animals or living beings，or we are rational animals and the existence of moral.”〔8〕

Kant distinguished the good endowment and the character：“What is human in the moral sense？And what should he become？Good or bad？They are both the result of his free will.If he does not，he will not be responsible for them…Human’s original endowment is good.But only after they put the endowment in the incentives that are accepted or not（which must be completely resigned to his free choice）can they make themselves good or evil.”〔9〕Therefore，the character of goodness must be acquired：it contains or adapts to the respect for the moral law.On the contrary，the endowment of personality is not acquired but exists in the good nature.Kant believed that dignity does not depend on the characteristics of the good.With our special dignity，people become the full sense of the moral subject.Personality makes us rational and responsible.In short，they are the essential components of human nature.Without them，the real human existence is incredible.

On the other hand，Kant’s discussion of the universal basic crime pointed out more deeply that the foundation of moral consideration is the original practical endowment.Influenced by the contract of human history and the universal existence of inner sin，Kant held that it is important to recognize the tendency of evil in earlier moral education.〔10〕If there is a universal tendency of evil，the characteristic of moral practice is rational.The study of anthropology has indicated that this feature is a part of the human species.Therefore，this characteristic is also applied to the species as a whole，not just a member of the species.Kant believed that since the attribution of evil tendencies is moral evil，then it must be attributed to the individual.It is also assumed that the tendency to be evil must be respected for the moral law and possess the personality endowment.He also believed that the original practical endowment has been possessed from the beginning of pregnancy and will run through the whole life.Therefore，there is reason to believe that people have had moral considerations since the beginning of pregnancy.

To sum up，we cannot purely speculate about the study of the concept of“human”without taking into account any scientific knowledge，experience and reasonable intuition.The study of the concept of“human”which takes“personality identity”as the core should not be isolated from our social practice and moral life.If we only regard“human”from the perspective of theory，it would only be the abstract concept of philosophy.In comparison，the investigation of personality identity and the concept of human on the basis of natural may avoid the myths of human itself today.

（Translated by Liu Yanzi）

〔1〕〔英〕洛克：《人类理解论》，关文运译，北京：商务印书馆，1997年，第573页。

〔2〕〔英〕洛克：引前书，第361页。

〔3〕〔英〕洛克：引前书，第423页。

〔4〕〔德〕伊曼努尔·康德：《道德形而上学》。李秋零主编：《康德著作全集》第6卷，北京：中国人民大学出版社，2007年，第224页。

〔5〕〔德〕伊曼努尔·康德：引前书，第452－453页。

〔6〕〔德〕伊曼努尔·康德：引前书，第290－291页。

〔7〕〔德〕伊曼努尔·康德：《纯然理性界限内的宗教》。李秋零主编：《康德著作全集》第6卷，北京：中国人民大学出版社，2007年，第26页。

〔8〕转引自〔美〕亨利·E·阿利森：《康德的自由理论》，陈虎平译，沈阳：辽宁教育出版社，2001年，第219页。

〔9〕〔德〕伊曼努尔·康德：《纯然理性界限内的宗教》，第44－45页。

〔10〕〔德〕伊曼努尔·康德：引前书，第48－52页。