"being" and "object" are not scientific concepts, and are thus not the basis of any immutable facts in any meaningful sense. Unless you subscribe to some kind of "soul" concept (which of course is also not scientific), then there is nothing intrinsically physically different about a sentient object but for the different treatment we choo…
"being" and "object" are not scientific concepts, and are thus not the basis of any immutable facts in any meaningful sense. Unless you subscribe to some kind of "soul" concept (which of course is also not scientific), then there is nothing intrinsically physically different about a sentient object but for the different treatment we choose to give such a thing. Such questions will become very relevant when we create machines that are sentient, but again, this is philosophical rather than scientific.
And of course we see all kinds of legal debates over the rights of different animals, with people arguing that the degree of sentience that they have is relevant to their rights, and a huge amount of disagreement over what level of sentience different animals have.
Again, these things are not cut and dried like you seem to want them to be.
All you are really doing here is arguing that "if only the laws were written the way I want them to be written, everything would be solved." Do you think you're the first person to think that way?
OK, so you're a conservative and don't believe in rights, only privilege at the discretion of the powerful. Unfortunately for you, the founders did and so although they were hypocrites, they claimed rights that they denied blacks they did indeed state that rights are not granted by men but by the "creator", which, if one doesn't believe in god, means that they just exist because we consider ourselves moral.
Your view is why conservatives do not deserve to live in a liberal society, they will always work to suppress rights that they don't agree with. Conservatives are the problem and always have been.
Wow you really do have an unhealthy fixation with "conservatives" don't you? Why on earth would you consider his comment to be a conservative stance? The argument against the existence of natural rights is actually far more likely to come from a non-religious, progressive stance than a conservative one.
Conservatives are far more likely to argue for rights granted by god, just as you have stated above. But your statement "if one doesn't believe in god, means that they just exist because we consider ourselves moral" is actually in complete agreement with what Benjamin wrote, you just don't seem to realize it. Ask yourself what the non-religious basis of morality is, and you will understand the problem of natural rights.
And do try to keep in mind that I agree with Benjamin, I am non-religious, and I am not a conservative, so don't try any petty name calling or pigeon-holing with me.
I am honest about conservatives, they are THE problem. Sure, libertarians, liberal extremists, have caused a great many problems due to their Objectivism, but they do not infringe on others' rights, except in preventing government from regulating in their interest.
Conservatives recognize only privilege in accordance with righteousness, there are no rights in their eyes.
"arguing that the degree of sentience that they have is relevant to their rights"
Degree of sentience isn't the issue, only that it exists. All beings have the same claim to rights as we do regardless of how we value them or their level of consciousness. This is universal, or should be, as if it isn't, then all we have are privileges at the discretion of the powerful. Meat is murder.
And nonhuman animals have the same claim for rights as human animals do. That we ignore them for selfish reasons is THE problem. Rights must be universal, otherwise they do not exist, merely privilege at the discretion of the powerful. Thus the abortion problem in which both the sentient fetus and woman have their rights ignored depending on who's in power.
No, you haven't thought this through at all. Do animals have property rights? When an animal attacks a human being should it be treated under law the same as a human attacking another human? And so on.
Yes, animals have property rights, the right to habitat. A human has the right to defend himself in an animal attack, but a nonhuman animal is amoral, like a human child, and so can't be prosecuted as we do moral adult humans. We know better, they don't. We are therefore obligated to act morally, they are not.
No, but even if so, how do you define something is conscious? And think carefully before you answer, because if you think it's an easy or obvious answer, then you DEFINITELY don't know enough about the topic.
Is a dog conscious? How about a bird? A snail? Are they all conscious in the same way?
"being" and "object" are not scientific concepts, and are thus not the basis of any immutable facts in any meaningful sense. Unless you subscribe to some kind of "soul" concept (which of course is also not scientific), then there is nothing intrinsically physically different about a sentient object but for the different treatment we choose to give such a thing. Such questions will become very relevant when we create machines that are sentient, but again, this is philosophical rather than scientific.
And of course we see all kinds of legal debates over the rights of different animals, with people arguing that the degree of sentience that they have is relevant to their rights, and a huge amount of disagreement over what level of sentience different animals have.
Again, these things are not cut and dried like you seem to want them to be.
All you are really doing here is arguing that "if only the laws were written the way I want them to be written, everything would be solved." Do you think you're the first person to think that way?
I would also argue that there are no such things as inalienable or natural rights, there are only the rights that humans decide to give each other.
OK, so you're a conservative and don't believe in rights, only privilege at the discretion of the powerful. Unfortunately for you, the founders did and so although they were hypocrites, they claimed rights that they denied blacks they did indeed state that rights are not granted by men but by the "creator", which, if one doesn't believe in god, means that they just exist because we consider ourselves moral.
Your view is why conservatives do not deserve to live in a liberal society, they will always work to suppress rights that they don't agree with. Conservatives are the problem and always have been.
Wow you really do have an unhealthy fixation with "conservatives" don't you? Why on earth would you consider his comment to be a conservative stance? The argument against the existence of natural rights is actually far more likely to come from a non-religious, progressive stance than a conservative one.
Conservatives are far more likely to argue for rights granted by god, just as you have stated above. But your statement "if one doesn't believe in god, means that they just exist because we consider ourselves moral" is actually in complete agreement with what Benjamin wrote, you just don't seem to realize it. Ask yourself what the non-religious basis of morality is, and you will understand the problem of natural rights.
And do try to keep in mind that I agree with Benjamin, I am non-religious, and I am not a conservative, so don't try any petty name calling or pigeon-holing with me.
I am honest about conservatives, they are THE problem. Sure, libertarians, liberal extremists, have caused a great many problems due to their Objectivism, but they do not infringe on others' rights, except in preventing government from regulating in their interest.
Conservatives recognize only privilege in accordance with righteousness, there are no rights in their eyes.
"arguing that the degree of sentience that they have is relevant to their rights"
Degree of sentience isn't the issue, only that it exists. All beings have the same claim to rights as we do regardless of how we value them or their level of consciousness. This is universal, or should be, as if it isn't, then all we have are privileges at the discretion of the powerful. Meat is murder.
Of course degree of sentience matters, that's why we have different laws for humans than we do for all other animals.
And nonhuman animals have the same claim for rights as human animals do. That we ignore them for selfish reasons is THE problem. Rights must be universal, otherwise they do not exist, merely privilege at the discretion of the powerful. Thus the abortion problem in which both the sentient fetus and woman have their rights ignored depending on who's in power.
No, you haven't thought this through at all. Do animals have property rights? When an animal attacks a human being should it be treated under law the same as a human attacking another human? And so on.
Yes, animals have property rights, the right to habitat. A human has the right to defend himself in an animal attack, but a nonhuman animal is amoral, like a human child, and so can't be prosecuted as we do moral adult humans. We know better, they don't. We are therefore obligated to act morally, they are not.
""being" and "object" are not scientific concepts"
Neuroscientists recognize that there is a difference.
No they don't.
Yes, they do. Beings are conscious, objects are not.
Vegetative humans don’t agree.
LOL! They have no capacity for mind, they are brain dead! Got it?
No, but even if so, how do you define something is conscious? And think carefully before you answer, because if you think it's an easy or obvious answer, then you DEFINITELY don't know enough about the topic.
Is a dog conscious? How about a bird? A snail? Are they all conscious in the same way?
"how do you define something is conscious"
It experiences. All nonhuman animals are conscious and so have rights that we are obligated to recognize because we consider ourselves moral.