If we are to accept Carmen Price’s conclusion:”The Unsound Argument(Is Emotion a requirement of Personhood?)”:http://unsoundargument.com/personhood/is-emotion-a-requirement-of-personhood that in order for S to be considered to be a person, it must be capable of non-rational behaviors, otherwise known as emotion; then what does that mean for personhood theory? Must all persons have a non-rational basis?

1. Only Persons have free will.
2. Persons must have the capacity to make non-rational behaviors.
3. :. A being that does not have the ability to make a non-rational choice is not a person.

Under this situation all robots and animals that simply react with instinct or via code are not persons. I think that the argument holds. If it does then here are some interesting consequences of Carmen’s argument:

• Spock (or a similar being) is a person.
  1. Spock has the capacity for emotions, he just chooses to deny them.
• Data (or other non-emotive android) is not a person
• God, if he is a person, must have emotions and therefore must also be non-rational.

The first two outworkings are just imaginative fantasy, they are of no real consequence, unless we meet or construct such beings. The last one may have interesting consequences for certain religious matters. It seems that either God cannot be completely rational and be a person at the same time.