Jerry was a man—then again, maybe not

The “Jerry” that I’m talking about is a character from Robert A. Heinlein’s short story “Jerry Was a Man.” Jerry is a “Joe,” or a genetically altered chimpanzee/human mix used to perform manual labor. In the story, a not-too-bright rich woman feels empathy for the Joes, and she files suit against the genetic engineering company Workers, Inc. that creates them. In court her lawyer argues that it is illegal for Workers, Inc. to create and kill these Joes because they are men, not creatures or property (hence the title).

In the story, the lawyer “proves” that Jerry is a man. First, he defines the term man:

“What is a man? A collection of living cells and tissue? A legal fiction, like this corporate ‘person’ that would take poor Jerry’s life? No, a man is none of these things. A man is a collection of hopes and fears, of human longings, of aspirations greater than himself—more than the clay from which he came; less the Creator which lifted him up from the clay…[manhood] is not a matter of shape, nor race, nor planet of birth, nor acuteness of mind. Truly, it cannot be defined, yet it may be experienced. It can reach from heart to heart, from spirit to spirit.”

He then calls up a Martian witness, who has “superior intelligence.” The Martians states cynically that there is little difference between an anthropoid such a Jerry and human beings. Finally, Jerry sings a song for the court, which is the conclusive piece of evidence that he is “a man." So, I have to ask—is this just Heinlein sounding off on personal responsibility like he usually does, or is there a legitimate idea here?

First, I think we have to look at the definition of mankind Heinlein uses. He says that being a man has nothing to do with physical form—instead, it is a more spiritual kind of definition. But which is correct? Unfortunately for the reader I’m going to have to drop a big old “don’t know” on this one. This is far too cosmic a question for me to even guess at. However, I will lay out what my analysis would be if the definition were a certain way:

If the definition of man is dependent on a physical characteristic, then it is safe to say Jerry is not a man.  If it is dependent on some spiritual aspect of humankind, we have many options. Some might argue that since Jerry is an artificial creation, he has no soul and is therefore not a man. Others, though, might say that the fact he was created in a test tube is not relevant—he still has a soul and is still a man. As far I am concerned, the argument over whether or not people have souls is not over, so I cannot commit to either option.

In any case, I think Heinlein is on to something here. We may very well face this dilemma in the future, as the science of genetic manipulation continues to advance. I hope that by the time we reach this point we will have solved this moral problem.