Corporate Personhood

There is nothing new in the news on this but I feel a need to vent.

Here is what I learned in an economics class: A corporation is a legal person, which means that it has the power to own property and enter into contracts, and can be sued. No more than that.

Of course, we use the word "personhood" in different senses. Here and here are some resources on that. JSTOR will want to charge you for the second one, though.

A "moral person" is a being that may reasonably be held morally responsible for her actions, and thus who has responsibilities and rights. All moral persons would be responsible to respect the rights of other moral persons.

A metaphysical person is a being possessing some or all of the following properties:

Rationality or logical reasoning ability
Consciousness
Self-consciousness (self-awareness)
Use of language
Ability to initiate action
Free Will
Intelligence

(Materialists will want to substitute some other concept for metaphysical person but I assume this can be done.) Now, the point is that (many would say) a metaphysical person is a moral person and therefore entitled to certain rights in common with other moral persons. A controversial point is whether an entity can be a moral person if not a metaphysical person. Consider, for example, a human being who is mentally ill or handicapped may consequently lack some of the characteristics that would make her or him a metaphysical person. Most would probably agree that such a being should nevertheless have a right to life in common with human persons. On the other hand, we might not want such a being to have a right to own weapons or to choose where to live and what medication to take, while granting those rights to human moral persons in general.

There are also rights that pertain to citizens who are moral persons, such as the right to vote. We probably would not want to limit the right to life and to free speech to citizens, however.

Thus, there is plenty of ambiguity about the relation of moral to metaphysical personhood. But by contrast, legal personhood is perfectly clear and clearly distinct from either of them. OK, I am not a lawyer, and I understand that the law and logic have little in common -- "your law is a ass" -- but isn't it the job of judges to interpret the law in the light of reason?

But our "Supreme Court," in deciding that corporations as persons have the right of free speech, confuses legal personhood with moral personhood. That is such a simple error that I just cannot believe that it is an honest one.