Lynne Baker argues the ability to have a first-person perspective is a metaphysical
attribute that is essential for persons. Many nonhuman animals (hereafter
‘animals’) have a first-person perspective, but they do not qualify as persons under
Baker’s view. Surprisingly, she classifies the severely mentally disabled as
persons, despite strong evidence that many animals’ cognitive capacities,
including the nature of their first-person perspectives, far surpass the mental
abilities of the severely mentally disabled. In light of this evidence, Baker must
justify her criterion that extends personhood status to the severely mentally
disabled but not to animals with sophisticated mental functioning. The justification
she provides is grounded in metaphysics; however, it ultimately results in a number
of unusual and seemingly incorrect metaphysical implications. With the use of a
thought experiment I hope to show that Baker’s personhood criterion fails.
