11A deeply underestimated implication is the dominant notion of personality and human exceptionalism, rooted in the belief in an unbridgeable gap between our species and any other type of living being. From a scientific point of view, however, being human is not a matter of metaphysical status or possession of mysterious non-empirical qualities such as „dignity“ or „reason.“ It boils down to the qualities of an embodied spirit that allow a particular creature to manage its affairs in a complex and confident way in which it can intentionally create and execute plans, as well as select, pursue, and reflect on its own goals or values. Laws relating to commercial organizations (i.e. Corporations, partnerships, limited liability companies, etc.), often use the term „legal entity“, so the laws apply to both persons and non-human business entities. Personality remains a topic of international debate and has been critically challenged in the abolition of human and non-human slavery, in debates about abortion and in fetal and/or reproductive rights, in animal rights activism, in theology and ontology, in ethical theory, and in debates about corporate personality and the beginning of the human personality. [2] 24(ii) Creatures that do not belong to the human race (in whole or in part11) could be granted legal status if there are appropriate scientific reasons for considering them to be a sufficiently developed self-reflexive consciousness. Non-human creatures who do not fulfill this condition but possess an affective consciousness sufficiently developed to plausibly attribute their own subjective interests intrinsically linked to their individual well-being may morally deserve to be considered non-personal subjects of law (and not mere objects of legal relationships that arise among other things). 6Some philosophical legal assumptions concern the determination of which interests should play a role in the law and why. These assumptions guide and explain the rules of personality found in actual legal rules and decisions.
In my opinion, one of the most important philosophical foundations of (at least) contemporary Western legal systems is the belief that law ultimately serves the interests of the people and that the legal community is in fact made up of the people of a particular society.2 This is a view I have elsewhere called „legal humanism.“ 3 It is based on the widespread concept of inherent human dignity as the basis for the recognition of the personality of all, but especially of the human being. The concept of human dignity reflects the unique human capacities for reason and moral action. Tomasz Pietrzykowski, „On the road to the modest naturalization of personality in law“, Revus, 32 | 2017, 59-71. Legal entity means a human or non-human entity that is treated as a person for limited legal purposes. „Personality“ is a fundamental term for legal theorists. The „legal person“ plays an important role in legal doctrine, and the „legal person“ plays a fundamental role in moral and political theory. The purpose of this article was to give you a very rough idea of some of the issues surrounding these concepts. Further reading can be found in the bibliography. 29The essential difference between things and legal subjects (personal or non-personal) lies in the ability to represent one`s own subjective interests, which can be considered legal rights. However, natural persons and non-personal legal persons differ as to the rights that can plausibly be attributed to them. In principle, a person is capable of possessing all kinds of rights – those aimed at protecting the interests of his holder, as well as those aimed at protecting his freedom of choice. On the other hand, non-personal entities cannot be granted the right to vote and their status serves only to protect their individual interests.
Historically, the most important law protecting the sanctity of human life was the murder law. By definition, it strictly forbade killing a human being as a human being, without explicitly referring to man as a person. Today, fetal killing and wrongful death laws protect the life of the unborn child as a human being. In addition, unlawful killing laws protect the unborn child as a „person,“ as unlawful killing laws protect people as persons. The role of the legal person in the debate on life will be discussed in more detail in the following sections. The Fourteenth Amendment sought to protect individuals from discrimination and harm caused by others. Racism is not the only thing people need protection from. As a constitutional principle, the Fourteenth Amendment is not limited to its historical origin and purpose, but is now available to protect all human beings, including all unborn human beings.
The Supreme Court can define the term „person“ to include all human beings, born and unborn. She simply decides not to. Science, history, and tradition establish that unborn human beings are both persons and human beings from the moment of conception, and therefore strongly support the interpretation that the unborn child meets the definition of „person“ under the Fourteenth Amendment. The legal test used to extend constitutional personality to companies that are artificial „persons“ within the meaning of the law is more than fulfilled by the unborn child and shows that the unborn child deserves the status of constitutional personality. There can be no „rule of law“ if the Constitution continues to be interpreted in such a way as to maintain a discriminatory legal system of separation and inequality for unborn human beings.