Real universal rights

[FlashDangerpants]

I didn't intend that, but I derived it from the basic principles. It is true that the universal rights, granted to everything, are only non-trivial for sentient beings (who have a will). That means my approach to grant universal rights to everything is the same as another approach to grant those same rights to only sentient beings. The problem with the latter approach is that it assumes in advance that sentience is important. This is based on the discussion in animal rights ethics: animal rights activists say that granting rights to only humans is discrimination, and that we therefor should grant rights to all animals, or basically all sentient beings. The activists say: "you eat animals and that is discrimination." And then the objection goes: "You animal activists are also discriminating, because you exclude the non-sentient objects. You discriminate plants when you eat plants." With my approach, I can say that I am not discriminating at all. I am granting plants the same rights as animals, and I still respect those rights when I eat plants.

Distinction without difference.

[Rational ethicist]

Assbackwards. Define person (use yourself as a model). Then interrogate yourself: is my life, my being, my existence mine?

Let me know what definition and answer you come up with.

do you think this is the way for me to find out which entities have natural rights? What do you mean with using myself as a model? I have two legs, so can I define a person as something with two legs? But I also have ten fingers, so do I have to use that fact instead? I don't think I will be able to define a person by using myself as a model. Need more guidance...

[Rational ethicist]

I didn't intend that, but I derived it from the basic principles. It is true that the universal rights, granted to everything, are only non-trivial for sentient beings (who have a will). That means my approach to grant universal rights to everything is the same as another approach to grant those same rights to only sentient beings. The problem with the latter approach is that it assumes in advance that sentience is important. This is based on the discussion in animal rights ethics: animal rights activists say that granting rights to only humans is discrimination, and that we therefor should grant rights to all animals, or basically all sentient beings. The activists say: "you eat animals and that is discrimination." And then the objection goes: "You animal activists are also discriminating, because you exclude the non-sentient objects. You discriminate plants when you eat plants." With my approach, I can say that I am not discriminating at all. I am granting plants the same rights as animals, and I still respect those rights when I eat plants.

Distinction without difference.

what do you mean with that? So we have discrimination, distinction and difference... A lot of di's. Now what? What is the distinc... sorry, the difference between those three di's?

[Walker]

what he never arrives at -- except when taught otherwise -- is the conclusion that he is not his own (and even in the teaching -- indoctrination, really -- the road is long and hard for the teacher...as I say, you have to wear a man, or boy, down to a nub, make him crazy through abuse and deprivation to get him to willingly accept the yoke, to accept he is not his own)[/i]

Quite a few sell out cheap.

[Age]

Hi, I have a very simple idea...

I don't know if this might be straying too much from your intent, but I like the idea of starting out with respect for all, and then adjusting from there as needed -- rather than assigning respect based on arbitrary conditional factors.

As for assigning bodily rights for rocks, plants, and computers... I think having respect is enough. It is challenging to assign all the appropriate rights in an evolving world that is greatly out-of-balance. Ideally, I would like for everyone to be able to live their life however they want as long as it does not negatively impact another. However, pretty much everything we use and do has some kind of negative impact on others -- it's the world we find ourselves living in -- and maybe the best we can hope for in these circumstances is to do a lot of positive things too, to help balance it out.

The EXCUSES these people would 'TRY TO' USE to 'TRY TO' "justify" their OBVIOUS Wrong doings was just about endless. As ONCE AGAIN ANOTHER EXCUSE gets USED here.

I do not think anyone should be lorded over by another. I think all women, all over the world, should be free and have the same rights as men. I think all children should be protected from abuse, with the right to legal representation that severely punishes the abuser.

LOL And this coming from one who CLEARLY ABUSES children 'itself', but which VEHEMENTLY DENIES because of 'its' LACK of UNDERSTANDING and because of 'its' Truly DISTORTED BELIEFS and thinking.

I think animals, too, should be protected from abuse. (I am a carnivore, and I try to choose free-range animals as much as possible.)

LOL The CONTRADICTION, HYPOCRISY, and ATTEMPTS at 'TRYING TO' "justify" 'that' which can NOT BE here IS BLINDING.

If we have to assign rights, then we're already in a problematic headspace which would likely make the goal impossible. It should just be understood and natural without enforcement. Maybe we'll make a quantum leap to a new understanding at some point.

Just UNDERSTANDING that it is ALWAYS BEST to NEVER ABUSE ANY 'thing' is JUST, Natural, AND BALANCED.

It is Universal LORE, which EVERY one AGREES WITH and ACCEPTS WHOLEHEARTEDLY, and it is one, which if followed, absolutely NO other 'laws' are necessary.

[Age]

It seems rather arrogant of us -human beings- to think that we are entitled to bestow rights on anything other than ourselves. I think it would be more appropriate to impose responsibilities on ourselves in respect of how we behave towards other living creatures.

'you', adult human beings, do NOT even accept nor take FULL responsibility for 'your' OWN 'selves' and 'your' behaviors, let alone in respect of how 'you' behave towards 'your' OWN children, let alone for ALL of the OTHER creatures on earth. This is to not even mention the DISRESPECT that 'you', adult human beings, have shown towards your one and ONLY home earth.

[Harbal]

It seems rather arrogant of us -human beings- to think that we are entitled to bestow rights on anything other than ourselves. I think it would be more appropriate to impose responsibilities on ourselves in respect of how we behave towards other living creatures.

'you', adult human beings, do NOT even accept nor take FULL responsibility for 'your' OWN 'selves' and 'your' behaviors, let alone in respect of how 'you' behave towards 'your' OWN children, let alone for ALL of the OTHER creatures on earth. This is to not even mention the DISRESPECT that 'you', adult human beings, have shown towards your one and ONLY home earth.

Do you include yourself in the group, "adult human beings", Age?

If not, why not?

And, secondly, what point, in relation to what you quoted, is it your intention to make?

[Veritas Aequitas]

In this case you have to define what you mean by 'morality' and 'ethics'.

why do we have to define it here? Morality is about what agents (individuals who make choices) should and should not do or choose.

It is a prerequisite of good communication to define the meanings of the terms one use, especially in philosophy wherein one is engaging in loads of loose terms; this is necessary to avoid talking pass each other and waiting for the cows to come home.
It is a matter of defining the terms used and getting consensus; if there is no consensus it is waste of time continuing the discussion.

If you define 'Morality' as what agents should and should not do, then anything goes and there will be no efficiency towards any form of progress in terms of doing good and avoiding evil.
If you identify X as good and that I, most or all should [ought] to do X as well, why should I and others comply with your should?

If you insist, then you may have to use threat or force.
The religious authorities enforce their 'oughts' on all believers because God commanded so; that is not morality, there is merely religion with threat of hell.
If force or threat is to be used, then Laws [criminal] has to enacted and that is politics not morality proper.
Religion and Politics relating to 'evil acts' are pseudo-morality.

Morality proper is related to the spontaneity [not forced, threatened or motivated by desires and rewards] in acting good [not evil] by individuals in alignment with what is intrinsically moral within them.

That 'you' do not [.. I presumed] have any impulse or go about killing another human at present indicate your moral competence in this case of 'killing humans' is in working order to some degree.
The potential to kill is also inherent in ALL humans, as such there is no guarantee you will not kill another human if your moral inhibitors are overcome by the potential to kill another human, e.g. in a rage of passion, brainwashed by a cult, enrolled in the military, and the likes.

Morality and Ethics should thus be directed to re-enforcing the effectiveness of the moral competencies within one's brain, mind and body. This will have to involve changes in the neural connectivity, genes and DNA related to the moral functions which cannot be done effectively at present but possible in the future [50, 100 years].

Morality is about promoting good and avoiding evil towards the optimal well being of individual[s] and that of humanity.

Morality and Ethics is primarily confined to the human species

why restrict it to humanity?

no, that is too arbitrary. Why confine it to the human species and not for example the white race or the great-ape family or the primate order or the mammal class or whatever...? And - considering our ancient ancestors or interspecies hybrids and chimeras - who belongs to the human species?

I stated morality is primarily directed to the human species. In that case we do not have to squabble whether we should or should-not kill living non-human things for food to sustain and optimize our well being.

The next consideration is to extend to other living things with self-awareness e.g. the primates, dolphin and the likes who are self-aware they are in pain.

Other than that consideration should be given to ensure our actions do not have a negative feedback to our well being to ensure preservation of the individual[s] and therefrom the species.

If you were to extend morality to all living things, then what about the millions of good and bad bacteria within your guts and microbiome that you are killing and depriving them of life every day?? You are familiar with the 'microbiome'.
How do you deal with this dilemma?

The most fundamental universal right of humans is the right to live, breathe, has basic freedom, justice, self-development, to property and ?.

But why restrict those rights to humans? It arbitrarily excludes non-humans. Therefor, I suggest to avoid any arbitrary exclusions, by granting rights to everyone and everything. So I suggest "universal right of entities"

It is not arbitrarily if you are more observant of what is going on in Nature out there?
Get out an LOOK!
IN GENERAL members of each species do not kill each other for food indicates living things are species-centric.
Members of a species may be tribalistic and may killing others of a different tribe but such killings are not significant to the survival of the species.

As I had stated, morality is primarily confined to the human species and therefrom extend to living things that has self-awareness thus is self-aware that they are in pain.
'Rights' is parallel with morality should also be confined to the human species as a primary priority.

[Peter Holmes]

Rights are invented and granted - not discovered. They're not natural features of reality. Their nature and scope are matters of choice. Which things - or, more narrowly, which creatures - should have rights - and which rights they should have - are moral questions. So, as ever, no non-moral premises can entail conclusions about those rights.

[Skepdick]

Rights are invented and granted - not discovered. They're not natural features of reality.

What's with ths misanthropic special pleading? Everything invented is still 100% natural.

Beavers invent beaver dams. Beaver dams are natural because beavers are natural.
Humans invent airplanes. Airplanes are natural because humans are natural.

Inventors and invention are naturally-occuring phenomena!

Their nature and scope are matters of choice. Which things - or, more narrowly, which creatures - should have rights - and which rights they should have - are moral questions. So, as ever, no non-moral premises can entail conclusions about those rights.

Fucking idiot.

Should beavers have beaver dams? They do! Irrespective of whether they should or shouldn't.
Should humans have airplanes; or rights? They do! Irrespective of whether they should or shouldn't.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Rights are invented and granted - not discovered. They're not natural features of reality. Their nature and scope are matters of choice. Which things - or, more narrowly, which creatures - should have rights - and which rights they should have - are moral questions. So, as ever, no non-moral premises can entail conclusions about those rights.

You are conflating morality [proper] with other things.

• ANALOGY:
  It is evident it is human nature to learn, the drive [represented by DNA, neurons and genes] to learn is an empirical fact, i.e. objective.
  As such the drive to learn is a natural feature of reality.
  
  Upon the above natural facts, Laws are enacted to give rights to every individual to have an education. In this sense, 'rights' are invented and granted to reflect what is natural and factual within human nature.
  Learning in this case is Education while the granting of the right to learn is Politics and one must be well aware of the distinction.

There are other analogies like Communication and Speech, Food, etc. on how what is natural in human nature [factual] is converted to Rights politically.

Re Morality:
Similarly, it is evident there are moral disposition within human nature and the drive for moral acts is an empirical fact which is objective.
As such, the drive for morality is a natural feature of reality.

Upon the above natural facts of morality, Laws are enacted with various Rights to ensure people are aligned towards the various moral factual elements [e.g. Right to Live; the ought-not-ness to kill another human: Right to be Free from Slavery: and so on].
This enactment of Laws is politics not morality.

As I had stated, Morality-proper is related to the spontaneity [not forced, threatened by Laws or God, or motivated by desires and rewards] in acting good [not evil] by individuals in alignment with what is intrinsically moral within them.

So, there are objective moral facts [natural features of reality] which are represented by physical elements in the brain, neuronal system, genes and DNA.

[Age]

It seems rather arrogant of us -human beings- to think that we are entitled to bestow rights on anything other than ourselves. I think it would be more appropriate to impose responsibilities on ourselves in respect of how we behave towards other living creatures.

'you', adult human beings, do NOT even accept nor take FULL responsibility for 'your' OWN 'selves' and 'your' behaviors, let alone in respect of how 'you' behave towards 'your' OWN children, let alone for ALL of the OTHER creatures on earth. This is to not even mention the DISRESPECT that 'you', adult human beings, have shown towards your one and ONLY home earth.

Do you include yourself in the group, "adult human beings", Age?

Besides the word "yourself" being an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms, and a misnomer I will say yes.

If not, why not?

And, secondly, what point, in relation to what you quoted, is it your intention to make?

'you', adult human beings, do not even bestow 'rights' on "yourselves", NOR children, in any logical, true, nor right way. So, because 'you' are NOT YET CAPABLE thinking that 'you' are ENTITLED to bestow '4ights' on ANY thing, including "yourselves" is just NONSENSICAL and DISTORTED thinking

[Harbal]

Besides the word "yourself" being an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms, and a misnomer I will say yes.

For future reference, what word should I use as the correct replacement for "yourself"?

'you', adult human beings, do not even bestow 'rights' on "yourselves", NOR children, in any logical, true, nor right way. So, because 'you' are NOT YET CAPABLE thinking that 'you' are ENTITLED to bestow '4ights' on ANY thing, including "yourselves" is just NONSENSICAL and DISTORTED thinking

I have a drivers licence, which grants me the right to drive my car on a public highway. I take advantage of that right by driving my car on a public highway, which I find convenient and useful. That right was granted to me by other human beings. Yet you say that "adult human beings, do not even bestow 'rights' on "yourselves", NOR children, in any logical, true, nor right way", even though my drivers licence example clearly demonstrates that we do bestow rights on ourselves. I want to be able to drive my vehicle on a public highway, and the right that has been granted to me enables me to do that, so in what way is it not logical, true, nor right?

[Rational ethicist]

It is a prerequisite of good communication to define the meanings of the terms one use

But I found it weird to ask for a definition of ethics in a discussion on a forum titled "Ethical theory". I don't see the added value of defining ethics here.

If you define 'Morality' as what agents should and should not do, then anything goes and there will be no efficiency towards any form of progress in terms of doing good and avoiding evil.

How do you mean "anything goes"? It is just a definition. Or do you disagree with my definition? Morality is not about what agents should and should not do? In any case, this discussion was about universal rights, and that clearly relates to what agents should and should not do: agents should grant rights, should not violate right,...

If you identify X as good and that I, most or all should [ought] to do X as well, why should I and others comply with your should?

That is going back to the first year undergraduate in philosophy: write an essay about "why be moral?" Let's leave that for another discussion and focus here on the idea of universal rights: which rights would you grant, to what/whom, and why? What if you have to grant rights to everything?
To answer your question: if X = "avoid unwanted arbitrariness", then you have to do X as well, because if you may allow unwanted arbitrariness, then so is everyone and you cannot want that. My point was that in the traditional approach of rights-based ethics, there is unwanted arbitrariness in granting rights to others. That is why I propose to grant rights to really everything, without arbitrary exclusions. You should comply to this idea, because if you disagree, then I may grant rights arbitrarily to others, so I may arbitrarily exclude you from being granted rights, and you cannot want that.

The religious authorities enforce their 'oughts' on all believers because God commanded so; that is not morality

Now you are confusing me with what you mean with morality. It is morality, because it is about what we ought to do. That divine command theory is one particular moral theory. It is a bad one, because it contains unwanted arbitrariness, so we can reject it. But it remains a moral theory, so it is morality. Compare it to geometry: there are different geometrical theories or systems, such as Euclidean geometry. Euclidean geometry does not contain arbitrariness. But you can formulate a theory that says for example the rule (axiom) "between every two points you can draw a straight line, except between the points in the upper-right corner over there." This axiom is like one of Euclid's axioms, but it contains an arbitrariness, with that exception. So this is a bad geometrical system, no mathematician is using such a system. But it is still geometry.

Morality proper is related to the spontaneity [not forced, threatened or motivated by desires and rewards] in acting good [not evil] by individuals in alignment with what is intrinsically moral within them.

ok, nice definition, but I don't think it is useful in this discussion about rights.

I stated morality is primarily directed to the human species.

then it has unwanted arbitrariness (as you arbitrarily exclude non-humans), and hence it is a bad moral theory, which we can reject just like that divine command theory. I can simply exclude/reject your anthropocentric moral theory, and you cannot give valid arguments against that exclusion. You can ask me: "On what grounds do you exclude my theory? What valid reasons do you have to reject it?" And, being lazy, I can simply respond by saying: "I just arbitrarily decided to do so, without valid reasons. And according to you, arbitrary exclusions are permissible because you arbitrarily excluded non-humans. So you said that I may arbitrarily exclude things, so I decided to arbitrarily exclude your moral theory."

Other than that consideration should be given to ensure our actions do not have a negative feedback to our well being

Who counts as "our"? Does "our" refer to humans? That is arbitrary, because you and I are also mammals, so it could equally refer to the class of mammals. Or the order of primates,...

to ensure preservation of the individual[s] and therefrom the species.

why preservation of the species and not preservation of the race, of the family, of the genus, if the infraorder, of the order, of the class, of the phylum,...? You and I belong to a phylum...

If you were to extend morality to all living things, then what about the millions of good and bad bacteria within your guts and microbiome that you are killing and depriving them of life every day?? You are familiar with the 'microbiome'.

yeah, what about that? easy: you simply take those bacteria also in consideration.

How do you deal with this dilemma?

the same as with other dilemmas: find and choose the best option.
What point are you trying to make? Let me change your words a bit: "If you were to extend morality to all humans, then what about the thousands of black slaves that you are using? How to deal with that dilemma?" Yes, if you give black slaves their freedom, then your well-being will be lower and those of the slaves will be higher. Increasing the well-being of one person decreases the well-being of others, so it is a dilemma. Now what? Conclude that we should not extend morality to all humans?

But why restrict those rights to humans? It arbitrarily excludes non-humans. Therefor, I suggest to avoid any arbitrary exclusions, by granting rights to everyone and everything. So I suggest "universal right of entities"

It is not arbitrarily if you are more observant of what is going on in Nature out there?

what do I have to look for? I don't see anywhere in nature written that rights may or should be restricted to humans.

IN GENERAL members of each species do not kill each other for food

that is an "is" (a fact), from which you cannot derive an "ought" (a value). Your "in general" is also concerning, because it introduces an arbitrariness: how many species (in percentage) must have the property that its members don't eat each other, in order for you to derive the moral claim that rights may or ought to be restricted to humans? I don't see the connection between on the one hand a percentage of species having such a property and on the other the idea to restrict rights to humans.

indicates living things are species-centric.

that is factually not true: living beings are not species-centric. You could equally say that they are genus-centric, because IN GENERAL members of each genus do not kill each other for food. Or race-centric, or subspecies-centric, or family-centric,... There is a simple reason why most living beings are not species-centric: because they do not understand this very abstract notion of a species. There is no living being who is capable of determining which other living being does or does not belong to its own species. You are not able to determine which living being belongs to the human species.

Members of a species may be tribalistic and may killing others of a different tribe but such killings are not significant to the survival of the species.

neither are they significant to the survival of the genus, or the order, or the class, or the phylum,... In fact, such killings are far less significant for the survival of the phylum than for the survival of the species. So why not adopt a phylum-centric morality? Why not restrict rights to vertebrates (our phylum) instead of humans (our species)? Arbitrariness...

As I had stated, morality is primarily confined to the human species

yes, you stated it, but I think you have to argue for it. If you are unable to give an argument, your morality contains unwanted arbitrariness, and that is definitely not allowed.

and therefrom extend to living things that has self-awareness

what about the humans that don't have self-awaraness?

[FlashDangerpants]

unwanted arbitrariness

Everything else here is just bait to introduce that slice of weirdness, right?

Why do you kee going on about this unwanted arbitrariness that's tautologically impossible for anyone want?