Bittersweet Candy Bowl Forums

First of all, I want to make it clear that this thread is completely about a hypothetical situation.

Ok, here I go:

Some years ago, during an ethics class, we had a lecture about human rights, and how they developed. Your mileage may vary on this, but it's a general consensus that a human's life is worth more than that of any other animal. But why exactly are we more valuable? Isn't that a bit hypocritical from humanity? In short, many philosophers were having trouble defining what kind of creatures were deserving of the privileged treatment we now have (what we now call human rights).

First, they started off pretty simple: Anything capable of thinking, or pretty much intelligence. This was one of the first approaches, but it pretty much included many animals (if not all), so it had to be discarded.

Then they went for something more specific: Anything capable of sentience and sapience. There we go, this encompasses humans pretty accurately right? Except... what about that guy with a mental disability, does he not deserve respect too just because he is disabled? Thus... this had to be discarded.

And lastly, they just said "Fuck it!" and said: Anything that's human. This pretty much encompasses everyone, disabled or not. Perfect huh?

That's pretty much where the lecture ended (regarding the topic), but I still felt unsatisfied about that solution. This is where the hypothetical situation starts.

What if one day, there was another species around? A species that was proven think like we do, and that we can communicate with given that we take the time to learn about each other's language. They are even of equiparable intelligence. What happens then? Are they to be excluded because of not being human? Why can't we just get along?

My proposed definition to solve this problem is as follows: Any entity capable of both sentience and sapience, and any entity which, under normal circumstances, are capable of sentience and sapience.

There we go! This should allow everyone to live in harmony, given that scenario (and assuming the other side agrees to it). Do you agree with this definition, or is it missing something? Any other thoughts?

Do dolphins they are pretty intellegent.

Edit: also pigs.

This post has been edited by Rawrdinosaur: 14 February 2012 - 07:30 AM

Rawrdinosaur, on 14 February 2012 - 07:29 AM, said:

Hey, stop reading my mind.

We're more valuable because we're more intelligent, or at least, that's how our species perceives ourselves to be. Since we actually put technology to use, look who came out on top.

We think of ourselves as more valuable since all humans have an closer relationship to themselves than they do with animals. For example, if you had to choose between the life of your sister and your dog in a house fire, who would you choose? Your sister gets to live, right? You don't hate the dog, but since the sister is someone you can actually communicate with and understand, she has a higher perceived value than the dog.

I'm guessing that all this is an unconscious resolve to advance humanity's own interests. We understand our own needs the best. Everyone else is a tool. Pets serve their owners. And so forth.

If there ever were other species as intelligent as us, I'm sure there'd be hostile feelings. We don't know who they are, if they're a threat, or whatever, because we've never had experience encountering them. Perhaps when both come to a mutual understanding of each other, maybe there can be some equal recognition of "rights." But it'll take a while. It all depends on whether or not species can cooperate, or even live a similar way of life. Even if dogs were as smart as us and could talk, for example, you can't expect them to live their day-to-day lives like humans do. Humans would still take priority because civilization is constructed according their needs, and we'll be damned if we had to suddenly make new accommodations for them.

This post has been edited by Marshmallow: 14 February 2012 - 08:24 AM

Aren't we already having to make accomodations due to our recent impact on the planet? I imagine it will be a much more difficult process in this case though.

Yeah, I was also thinking conflict would be inevitable, but that is far from ideal. I think an actual attempt towards trying to understand one another should move things in the right direction faster, and there are always people taking different stances on everything, so it's pretty much there will at least be some cooperating parties on both sides.

Man has rights? If we have rights, that means someone must have decided that we are allowed to do certain things, and not allowed to do others. Who has the power to give man rights, or take them away? We have the right to live, have liberty, and pursue happiness according to the U.S. declaration, but if these are rights, then they seem to me to be considered privileges, privileges that can be taken away. Who gives us these rights, anyway? I do not feel as if I am wording this properly, but what I am trying to say I suppose is that do these rights actually exist for anyone, if "rights" had to be made in the first place, and man is not allowed simply to exist and must be given permission in the form of rights to.

All rights are derived from the State. If you have not made yourself useful to the State you do not deserve them.

Yes, all shall hail our Führer Jerk, or be eradicated.

Jerk, I cannot tell if that was sarcastic or not .

Well, you can't assume that the State exists to help people who are too cowardly and too lazy to help themselves and think that it exists only to make up for the weakness of mankind. It doesn't exist for that purpose.

I am a little bit afraid to retort for I still cannot tell if you are being sarcastic and I believe if not you will tear me to shreads, but if the State gave us our rights, did we have any rights before the State was established?

He's serious. He's saying people who are lazy and don't do anything for society shouldn't have the same rights as hardworking folk.

Still don't know where he stands on those who can't work due to disability, but that point aside I agree with him. If you are over 18 and physically and mentally able, you should be working. End of story.

Of course, this is all off topic. The question posed here is, if another intelligent species were to appear, would they have the same rights? One thing to keep in mind is "intelligent" doesn't mean "thinks like humans." Its possible this species may have a completely different view of what their rights should be.

It would have been more to the point, more honest, not to support those who intentionally destroyed healthy life than to rebel against those who have no other wish than to avoid disease. If individual organizations were to declare themselves ready to take over the treatment and care of those suffering from hereditary diseases, we should be quite ready to refrain from sterilizing them.

Oh, I am yet again missing the point of the debate here. I shall take my opinions elsewhere.

I think another reason humans have more rights is because of empathy. If there is a murder, you probably feel really shaken by the idea of the victim's last hours, and the impact it will have on the victim's family. Because of that, it makes you really want the murderer to pay. And so on.

For an animal, a lot of people figure the animal doesn't have those kinds of emotions. Some people even think animals don't have souls!! So honestly that's part of the reason I see a split, because when a person is murdered you can hear and comprehend the pain and anguish behind it. A family might have a pet die, and while it sucks and there are exceptions, it's like not as much of an impact because for the most part animals are regarded as pets, so it's "a shame" rather than the shaken upsetting reality of a dead relative.

Taeshi, on 15 February 2012 - 03:00 AM, said:

Are you saying that humans ability to have empathy and feel emotions makes humans more valuable? If that is the case than would the life of a species of highly intelligent being who have no emotions be worth less than that of a human.

This post has been edited by Rawrdinosaur: 15 February 2012 - 03:19 AM

It's pretty much been said, but rights are an interesting thing to comprehend. I will keep mine short so I don't say anything too stupid.

I will say this though. If you can comprehend rights, I think you deserve rights. Of course there are ways to pick this apart, and I implore you too. I know I am not explaining things enough.

Well argumentatively, couldn't one say that a being that is thinking, or with high intelligence, is a being that has emotions? If one were to look at the more intelligent animals, they could see that they have emotions that are not quite human, but definitely exist. Elephants will, upon walking past a skull or bone of another elephant, act as if in a state of sadness, stroking its trunk against the bones and moving itself closer to the herd. Are emotions and intellect (of a species as a whole, removing most outliers) intertwined? If so, case above could not really exist.

Lvl 50 Fighter, on 15 February 2012 - 03:20 AM, said:

That would exclude the mentally handicapped and I know very few people who would say a puppy and a mentally handicapped human have the same rights.

Stilbini, on 15 February 2012 - 03:24 AM, said:

I was trying to avoid sounding really nerdy, but I am referring to something like a vulcan. Emotions are mainly exclusive to mammals since the majority of them have a social hierarchy to them and sharing experiences is very important to social species. Nothing says everything has to work the way it does on Earth. While I can't conceive of a society in which the inhabitants don't share emotions with each other doesn't mean it can't work.

This post has been edited by Rawrdinosaur: 15 February 2012 - 03:34 AM

Rawr: I'm talking about what I figure is a common thought about animals and why many of them wouldn't really give them the same rights, don't preach to the choir.

Also, we're talking about hypotheticals, everyone acts like rules are there forevermore and they can never be questioned ever, so it makes me wonder why someone could go "animals who are not humans have no souls/are not intelligent" and then get met up with the very common "well what if an alien comes!!!!!!!!!"

Well we don't have a real example of that, because it hasn't happened, but that hypothetical scenario is always thrown in with the implication that people who think animals aren't as intelligent will keep thinking that way forever. It's really weird and is just a dumb circle argument. Because I figure if/when it happens we wouldn't be so stupid to go "well durpadurp ur not a human so even if ur as smart as we are we won't give you rights!!!!", like do you really fault people from that much cognitive thinking

An interesting point of view to look at this very issue was just covered by my philosophy class. It is argued by the Utilitarian perspective (That all actions should be done to gain the most overall pleasure for the majority) and it states that we wouldn't put a person who is stronger as more important so why would we hold humans as more important just because we are smarter or more sentient? Singer, the major force behind the theory, argues that animals can be seen to experience pleasure and pain just as much as humans and they should be held as almost as important when looking at issues, instead of as mindless machines like most philosophical perspectives and many legal perspectives paint them.

Now that I'm done paraphrasing Heinlein and plagiarizing Hitler for my amusement,

Quote

Yes, I think empathy is the root of all claim to rights in the sense that you can only extend rights toward something with which you can empathize. To that end, look at the rights of animals as they decrease in our ability to empathize with them: they decrease exponentially. Having said that, rights are issued from something with power over something else and don't exist without some kind of communal establishment, so you can only extend the concept of rights to whatever can legitimately claim sentience.

Rawr that was one of the points I was hoping someone would bring up, and frankly I can't explain it. Not at all, but even though they are mentally handicapped we give them the same human rights as everyone else. Who knows?

Tae: I agree with you really. These are all hypothetical situations, with no real reasons behind them( Did I get that right?) The thing is as humans, we hold ourselves in the highest regard, and therefore we think we deserve the most rights out of anything. I guess we don't want to know if any other sentient being has the intelligence to match us.

Hell, there are like a million ways to justify humans being more awesome than animals. Argue from nature, some philosophical standpoints, intelligence or even from a religious standpoint.

Taeshi: I use hypothetical situations in an attempt to see the reasons behind why people do things. Most of the time people are forced to either think of their opinion as wrong since they can't think of anything to explain it or they have to explain why they think something with that situation involved. Yes in the end the practice is fruitless since it is only hypothetical, but it does facilitate discussion.

I guess my issue is that it's a hypothetical that has not only been done to death, but has the ignorant implication that humanity won't change their way of thinking, or that rights won't be altered if something supernatural arises.

I mean about 50 years ago or so it was pretty normal for people to think blacks were inferior and such, and it seems like there is that gradual rise of acceptance.

Better to talk about it now then worry about it later. If we just make a law for the sake of making a law I'm sure there will be some really ignorant people who hold the bill up as the end all thing even though the situation has changed. Sure laws can be changed, but it takes fucking forever especially with controversial things.

To talk about your second point. Yes it did change, but it took forever and the people who were against change were validated by the existing law.

This post has been edited by Rawrdinosaur: 15 February 2012 - 04:29 AM

Most people still think we are inferior, still we kick their ass at basketball.

In all seriousness though, I suppose there isn't a way to tell who has right and who doesn't, but I think as long as someone will defend those without the ability to defend themselves, there will be at the very least the notion of rights.


You could be like this guy here.

Taeshi's right. Eventually, be it a few years or a century, this new species will gain human rights. We've seen it before, as she said, with the civil rights movement, but there's a much better example of why this is certain to happen.

About a century and a half ago, children were considered property of the parents and devoid of rights. The parents could do anything they wanted to them--beat them, starve them, anything--and get away with it. Livestock had more rights than them. The ASPCA--or American Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals--took one such case of neglect to court. They told the judge that it was horrendous that the child would have less rights than a cow raised for slaughter. The judge agreed, and declared that children had all of the rights of livestock. Over the past 150 years, we have seen children gain more and more rights. Abusing children is now an offense far greater than starving a chicken. Where a man who burns a cat alive will get a year or so in prison, a parent who rips the teeth out of his son's head will receive at least triple that. This makes two examples, somewhat parallel, of a group who was once seen as less than livestock being given, albeit slowly, all the rights of a normal human being.

The thing is, children want to be treated human because they think and behave like humans. A sentient species from another branch of evolution--say, a tiger, may not care about the rights we give them. They may see laws requiring them to be clothed, or laws forbidding hunting humans or stealing human property, to be in violation with what they consider their rights. To them, these rights may make more sense than the right to fair trial, or the right speak their mind. What would you do in this situation? Compromise, and remove rights from both sides of the equation? And what about the rights we have that interfere with theirs? I'd really like to see this point discussed, as it's very relevant to the topic.

Tl;dr Children once had less rights than livestock but now in some ways have more than an adult, and even if an intelligent species were given rights, the chances are good that they may not agree with them, and may request rights that are directly harmful to humanity.

Check this out for a better telling of the child abuse story. It's covered in the fourth paragraph.

This post has been edited by Carcharocles: 15 February 2012 - 04:59 AM

Car makes an interesting point I thought about bringing up, the idea that rights would be relative to what benefits the species in question. Crows are insanely intelligent birds, but I don't think they'd care to vote for office (though how cool would it be having Governor Jim Crow?). The way I see it, looking for an 'equally intelligent' species is narrow minded thinking, because it assumes a being is intelligent only if it thinks like us. What would dolphins or apes or ants or skunks gain from our way of thinking? All of these creatures can do amazing, complex things most people wouldn't expect, but we always relate it to us. "Oh look at the crude tools, isn't it amazing that they know to use a stick to do things? It's like they're people!" If a stick works, they don't need to go designing a friggen monkey powered robot to get those termites. Intelligent animals adapt to what they need, that's the core reason for development and intelligence. Animals have language, even dialects, but some debate that because it's not close enough to OUR languages. Their emotions aren't always like OUR emotions, and when they are we downplay the shit out of them.

I'm not suggesting animals get human rights, partly because I love me some steak, but mostly because 'human' rights wouldn't work for any other species. They should have general rights though: to live and raise young and make their homes. Hunting for sport violates those rights, where hunting for food doesn't.

Human rights, and infact, the idea of rights in any manner or form, is merely an egotistical way of justifying many, many things. From what we think we should have to what we think we are allowed to do. If you want to get into rights at its basest, it stops being philosophical and becomes more anthropological, really.

This post has been edited by Brocky: 15 February 2012 - 11:43 PM

Brocky, on 15 February 2012 - 11:36 PM, said:

But you need to have a base set of justifications, otherwise how would you keep order in a civil socierty? Of course it's egotistical, the very existence of the concept is derived from a human's higher thought process to convey "approval" or "dissaproval" of conduct towards living and non-living entities. It can't have a broad definition because our expectations change. However, for the OP's example, it can potentially be extended to provide the same rights to a similar but otherwise difference species.

Rights as they are defined are decided by a social acceptance, not by any ground in stone rule or expectations. Whatever we deem as appropriate now, can not be expected to be the same for another society, either based on geographical location or generation.

Even something you may seem to deem as self evident (Giving all humans the same rights for example), is not something globally accepted. Will it be 200 years from now is wvwb something you can only speculate on. It would be nice to have it occur, but societies as a collective group will deem what they believe to be accepted or not.

This post has been edited by Pants: 16 February 2012 - 12:09 AM

Pants, on 16 February 2012 - 12:07 AM, said:

You could have just said you agreed, you know.

Now, forgive me if I'm wrong, but aren't humans the only creatures capable of morality?

If somehow creatures understood and we gave them the rights to act just as humans do, their actions would be amoral, which conflicts with the human society that in most cases attempts to be moral.

Thus, I would say that those that deserve /human/ rights are humans alone, for they are the only creatures with moral capacity. There are some basic givens that I think should be followed, such as not being needlessly cruel to animals--as far as I know, animals feel pain as well, and that's reason enough not to do it.

But to answer your question, "what if another race was here that was just like us?" I think at this point, I have to define "human." So let me give what my arbitrary definition is: one who has the capacity for intelligence and morality. Therefore, that other race would be "human," and thus yes, I believe we should hold them in the same regards.

Of course, the biggest problem would be racism and whatnot, assume we attempted to coexist (instead of isolate ourselves). But that's beyond the scope of this discussion.

I don't know, the problem with gray areas like these is that it's always up to subjectivity, so there's only the "right" answer and the answer that most people accept. Mine might be different from others, but it's what I think.

But human morals vary enough as it is, it's pretty egotistical to imagine animals would need to follow our set of rules to have their lives respected. Killing is amoral to us, but it's a necessary part of life. We kill our criminals, those who don't abide by what we decided as a group was correct behavior, those who disrupt and endanger the herd. We kill for sustenance. We kill each other to protect our young from others who encroach on what we feel is our territory. Some kill for the sake of killing. If animals can and DO follow these rules, would it be safe to say they have at least a form of morals about killing?

Lux, you assume it means anything at all to adhere to morals. What is morality, really, beyond applied rights? In fact, just by using the word "deserve" you verify exactly how egotistical a concept it is, simply because the concept of deserving anything in and of itself is quite silly.

This post has been edited by Brocky: 16 February 2012 - 11:33 PM

Taeshi, on 15 February 2012 - 03:00 AM, said:

So, by this logic, sociopaths can't have rights.

@Lux: With that definition of human you commit the same mistake philosophers commited ages ago. You reverted to the defition where that mentally challenged person isn't human anymore.

Also, I'm glad that someone brought up the discrimination against blacks issue, as I completely overlooked it. If this is indication of our behavior towards that which we consider different, then I agree with the notion that eventually they would be treated as equals. Maybe, though there's still the problem of the other race having different needs and/or views. Maybe it could be dealt with as some countries have dealt with differences so far? Countries have different laws, and under certain circumstances, they sign treaties and such to ensure a harmonic interaction between the two.

Nik, on 15 February 2012 - 03:33 AM, said:

Didn't realise there was a name for this view (I never really looked, heheh) and is one I very much agree with. I view the worth of an organism by the good it can do for sentient populations. In such a way a guide dog would have a higher value than a common thug, which seems pretty damn awesome and correct to me. After all, I feel the duty of life is to have a net positive effect on the world. If your going to leave making the world a worse place than when you entered you can drop dead immediately.

As for disabled people, so long as your not being a net negative there is no reason to lose your rights to being treated well. If someone is disabled to the point of not even being able to understand or feel happiness it might be more fair just to euthanize them both for their sake and for those who must deal with the burden, though that's really a topic for another thread.

Edit: A disabled person can have a net positive effect on the world by making the parents happy just by being alive. That warrants enough of a positive for them to gain their rights.

This post has been edited by Anialator: 17 February 2012 - 02:14 AM

ZoeStellan, on 17 February 2012 - 01:17 AM, said:

What do you define as mentally challenged?

In any case, I said "arbitrary." It is very hard to nail down what exactly is human.

But...

Maybe I should add the capacity to love. Anyway, the thing is, a mental person (who cannot do any of these things) is not "human" by that definition, but that doesn't change the fact that biologically, they are human; but again, there's general courtesy. You shouldn't treat them like dirt, just as you shouldn't treat animals like dirt. They are not "human." I'll say that upfront. But does it mean it's their fault or whatever? No, not at all. Just that they shouldn't have the same responsibilities as humans if they do not have the proper facilities to use them.

Then again, what are we saying as rights? Free speech, religion, and all that jazz? Well sure, mentally debilitated people can have that privilege. That doesn't hurt anyone.

Animals could have that right too, but I don't think I've ever seen a cat talk or a pigeon practice Christianity or something.

Mikaro, on 16 February 2012 - 11:53 PM, said:

Semantics. And it's been covered by the first post ("My proposed definition to solve this problem is as follows: Any entity capable of both sentience and sapience, and any entity which, under normal circumstances, are capable of sentience and sapience.") if you read the thread. Since the point about intelligence has been brought up already and was naturally questioned with "What about the mentally challenged??"

So are we talking about what makes us human, or what makes us sentient? I feel like the terms are being used synonymously by some when they're not supposed to be.

We may have rights that defined us to a social welcome.
But when it comes towards a real political debate or meeting.
We are shut out like children, do not be angry. Money or fame of maturity only intrestes to some of the people who are belivers of justice.
Human rights?
That was taken away from us after the civil rights movement.
I have experienced it many people do not want to hear the people, who do want to make the difference.
It is only human nature to shut out the truth of us.
Seeing this the forums were made.

How were human rights taken away after the civil rights movement?

I mean politics are full of corruption and pretty depressing things, but there is still that slow climb, equality is sure as hell a lot better than in the 50s for example unless you live in a third world country or something.

hmm. I'm envisioning another district 9 with the Democrats fighting for the other sentient being's rights. The Republicans however would stick to the US constitution and say "nope. you're not a man so you don't have rights." we'd have another fierce issue to debate about. and it wouldn't get solved. or it would go as slow as the gay rights movement. but i could be misinformed about that subject.

Taeshi, on 18 February 2012 - 03:41 PM, said:

As the government realize how things can change with a variety amount of people. They try to keep people quiet from everything else.
Our freedom of speach is silent towards our freedom. It happens I simply look over that, it doesn't mean the US is being hypocritcal.
Only being their own enemy towards the government secret ways. But they have their reasons....
If the secrets spread out towards the public would cause a major panic. No one will be peaceful, I don't ask for peace, I ask for a calm and safe community to live in.

This post has been edited by Gurren: 18 February 2012 - 04:56 PM

TalentedAnthroFreak, on 18 February 2012 - 04:08 PM, said:

That's a bad analogy though. Yes, they should have been quarantined. No, they should not have had to live in such poor conditions. Neither of those concepts is dependent on the other unless the underlying reason for the former is prejudice.

Also: space fluids = xeno-semen.

Quote

All values are ultimately arbitrary as they are dependent on what you value.

If we assume that value equals economic output, then humans are, by and large, the most valuable animal on the planet by a wide margin.

Quote

Actually, I use this metric. You are a person based on your intelligence. If you are mentally retarded to the point where you no longer a person, you are not a person. I draw the "person line" above chimpanzee and gorilla intelligence, but below average human intelligence. If you are no smarter than a chimp or gorilla, you aren't a person. Too bad for you.

Its the only consistent standard and it avoids all sorts of problems with any other definition. And let's face it - severely retarded humans aren't people. They don't act like people and they don't behave like people.

Quote

It is a matter of debate just how intelligent dolphins are. We know that chimps and gorillas are massively below human intelligence, but it is more difficult to measure the intelligence of non-humanoid creatures because of their very different physiology and environment. Dolphins, corvidae, and parrots are all very intelligent creatures, but measuring just how smart they are relative to an ape is quite difficult - none have hands, and dolphins don't even have limbs as we know them. Some crows and parrots can imitate human speech, and there is evidence that at least some parrots are capable of some level of higher communication, though calling it "language" is questionable - that being said, we do have a record of at least one parrot, Alex, constructing a word from two other words to describe a related object regarded as intermediate between the two (the word in question was "banerry" to describe an apple, based on it being red (cheery) and having a more banana-like interior), indicating at least some level of comprehension. We don't know how smart parrots truly are, though it seems pretty evident that they are considerably below human intelligence, it is harder to tell if they are above or below apes, who are capable of making signs but not of actual language.

Dolphins show the ability to understand language to some extent, the ability to understand the difference between "bring the man to the ball" and "bring the ball to the man" (which is a pretty important one), and have shown some level of creativity, tool use, and other signs of intelligence. However, interacting with dolphins and testing their intelligence is pretty hard, so its difficult to define just how smart they actually are.

Elephants are another interesting case, as they show signs of considerable intelligence as well.

Quote

Empathy is actually shown by numerous animals; elephants, for example, show signs of apparent empathy, as do some of the other more intelligent animals. Heck, dogs and wolves show empathy.

Quote

But then it means that our standard isn't really whether or not someone is human, if we wouldn't hold to it at all if we were to encounter another highly intelligent lifeform. It just means you're too lazy to think about what your standard actually is in absolute terms, perhaps because it is morally disquieting.

I find it far more likely that we will "uplift" something or produce a self-aware AI before we find intelligent extraterrestrial lifeforms.

This post has been edited by Titanium Dragon: 22 February 2012 - 08:40 AM

That's a pretty ballsy statement, TD.

TD actually believes in infanticide. One of the funniest moments on Skype was him saying that until a person has the intelligence of a pig then they're not human in his eyes, so since a baby lacks the intelligence of a pig then it's okay to "abort" them after birth.

just the idea of a baby not being as smart as a pig is oddly hilarious to me.

Titan: By empathy, I mean that whole selfish thought where if you see a murdered victim, you can imagine yourself in their scenario. You can feel the pain of the victim's family, the desire for revenge upon the murderer. With a dog, you don't think of the dog's paternal parents, and you figure if the animal is an animal the owners will get over it a lot easier, even if it's a huge loss.

People can be empathetic to the dog, but there's more of a connection with seeing "one of us" murdered than a random animal. Which is definitely selfish, of course, but there are people who think animals exist to serve humans

And I mean, a lot of the time the empathy can range with intelligence. You feel worse for a cat getting run over than you do stepping on a cockroach