Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[wanabe]

A Poster He or I,

That is my suggestion, correct.

Rights are given by man, some rights are considered natural/inalienable by many societies. Even those do not exist in practice without a society to support the idea.

We give animals rights(so to speak, ex: animal rights groups, endangered species), but not bugs, not plants not bacteria or fungi(certain cases of the previously mentioned may be on an endangered species list. They however get little attention, even though they are all critical parts of ecosystems). Society as a whole does not back the idea wholeheartedly of giving all living things equal rights.

I suppose another way of saying it is: rights are only given to things people decide they should care about for some reason.

[A Poster He or I]

Wanabe,

Thank you for your response. For my further clarification, let's say our robot's manufacturer tries an experiment by programming our robot to advocate for a basic right for itself: its right to exist; to not be arbitrarily shut off without its consent.

(I will leave it up to you as to whether the robot "understands" what a right is or whether it is just going through the motions of its programming).

As its own advocate for rights, does our robot now have rights? Your previous response suggests that he now does.

[wanabe]

A Poster He or I,
A culture of bacteria in a Petri dish can assert and protest their rights all they want. If society as a whole, or at least a large number(not necessarily the majority) does not support their side they will not have rights, in practice.

Same goes for robots. It seems to me that rights are like a country forming. The world must recognize their sovereignty before they truly become a country.

I suppose another way of saying it is: rights are only given to things people decide they should care about for some reason.

Though this discussion of robots is somewhat interesting, we are moving away from the intention of the thread. If you like, make a new thread about these matters and I will participate there. Or PM me all you like. We should not continue this discussion here, nothing personal, but I will no longer participate in this discussion in this thread.

[Kevinandrew]

What is the most basic level of life? Is it a vibrating string? Is it at an abstract archetypal level? Is it the forms of sensibility(ie space,time,space-time)? Or is it something more basic-or even something much more mysterious? Does the notion of God have anything to do with it? What say you? MR

One Answer is that the universe is a single living entity. It was born at the begining of time and it grew from embryonic beginings into the complex entity it is today. In this model, everything in the universe is alive, even though some things might appear lifeless. Just like our own bodies seem to be composed of lifeless aspects such as water, but in fact the whole is alive.

[Gregorygregg1]

In other words,everything is connected to,and springs from everything else-and so that all that exists,exists both in us, and in all of creation-with any separation as being merely illusory. MR

That anything exists at all requires awareness. Without awareness the universe would either not exist, or it would not matter that it did exist. I hypothesize that awareness was the original spark of creation. The awareness of being. The first awareness would have been a primitive elemental entity, a weak organizing force in a universe of entropy.
but like all things, awareness evolved. Life has been the vehicle for the evolution of awareness. In man the universe is on the brink of consciousness, if we don't screw it up.