Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Laboratory >

How Human would one need for "human" rights to apply?

Page: (1)2

07:27 / 05.07.06

I'm just curious about this because I think it could end up becoming a great legal issue.

How would one be defined as human for the purposes of having "human" rights?

Would it be by species, reasoning capacity, morality, etc.?

Some complicating factors I can think of:

- Within 10-15 years, its possible that there could be a machine with artificial intelligence equal or above that of a human.

- First contact with an alien species entirely unlike our own.

- Cybernetics.

- Cloning and genetic engineering.

- Corporations attempting to patent the human genome as intellectual property.

- The very real possibility that Roe v. Wade will be overturned and a legal precedent saying that human beings do not have an absolute right of sovereignty over their own bodies being established as law.

Elijah, Freelance Rabbi

17:24 / 05.07.06

To throw some more topics on the fire what about post death humans?

If, 70 years from now, I can upload my mind to a computer before I die. Lets say 30 years after that I have a freshly cloned, young, sexy body created and I download into it. What rights do I have to property or protection?

There is a science fiction novel I quite like called Accelerando which tackles many of these types of ideas in a not at all idiotic way. Also it is free.

I think these will someday be the sorts of issues that will need to be discussed. Will there be a Voight-Kampf style testing procedure to decide if something is properly sentient?

11:44 / 06.07.06

How would one be defined as human for the purposes of having "human" rights?

Would it be by species, reasoning capacity, morality, etc.?

As far as I am aware it is currently defined as being of the species Homo Sapiens.

The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights is quoted on the Human Rights wiki as saying:

...recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world

Human family seems to suggest humans as a species rather than there being a judgement on level of reasoning capacity.

Of course it's a tricky subject. Pro-lifers argue that an embryo is a distinct member of the species and should be accorded all due rights. Coma victims do not show external indications of having a reasoning capacity and yet are accorded their human rights.

Within 10-15 years, its possible that there could be a machine with artificial intelligence equal or above that of a human.

Ethical Uses Of Robots/Androids goes into this a bit. It discusses the morality of building an intelligent being programmed to be obedient.

First contact with an alien species entirely unlike our own.

Anything identifiable as a lifeform would, I'd like to think, be accorded a certain amount of respect. But obviously it's hard to say whether or not an alien lifeform utterly different from us would be granted human rights (would it even recognise humans as beings to which could be extended it's own concept of "rights"?).

Cybernetics.

Even the most advanced form of prothesis, and we'd be talking Cyberman-style robot with human brain here, would still incorporate the biological and genetic processes of the most important parts of a human. Whilst it would be hard to exist in society as Human 2.0 it wouldn't be logical that they would lose their human rights.

Cloning and genetic engineering.

A cloned human, if ever successfully brought to term, would be considered to be an independant human with all the associated rights. Whether or not GM-Humans would be legislated for or against is an interesting question.

More later (I'm supposed to be working...supposed).

17:31 / 06.07.06

As far as I am aware it is currently defined as being of the species Homo Sapiens

Homo sapiens sapiens, to be more precise. (and, I'm sure you already know this, but someone else may not, the species name does not use capital letters

)

I think the problem here is simply one of terminology. Instead of "human" rights, we should change it to something else, like "humanoid" rights, "sentient" rights, or something equaly scifi-y

19:54 / 06.07.06

Instead of "human" rights, we should change it to something else, like "humanoid" rights, "sentient" rights, or something equaly scifi-y

I agree that it's an issue of terminology; I'd prefer 'sentient' over 'humanoid', to be more inclusive of any non-humanoid, yet still discernably sentient aliens we might encounter, or any non-humanoid permutations of human consciousness that may become possible.

But how does one define sentience as it applies here? Say, for example, that 50 years from now, we discover an alien race somewhere in space. After observing them, they seem to display intelligence roughly on par with dogs, or maybe monkeys would be a better example. What level of sentience is required for a being to be afforded these rights?

21:09 / 06.07.06

Excellent point.

A point, I might add, we should ask ourselves right here and now, regarding human rights / animal rights dichotomy.

02:30 / 07.07.06

So, where to begin? There are dozens of angles that we could take, and will probably have to, before there's anything resembling a workable definition of sentience. It's a pretty difficult thing to define; it seems one of those "I can't describe it, but I know it when I see it" deals.

I feel like the capacity for novelty should be included somehow. It's not the sole criterion, obviously, but I'm not sure I would assign sentience to an organism that lacked that capability. On the other hand, that might rule out an awful lot of people I know. Thoughts?

12:25 / 07.07.06

Rights are the other end of responsibilities. Rights are based on the acknowledgement of a set of needs that are common to all. If a party fails to respect the rights of others, that is criminal, but if a party cannot respect the rights of others, as in the case of an animal, then there can be no rights. An animal can be granted protections, but it cannot be granted rights.

Given the fact that a great many animals are sentient I don't think it's a very good foundation from which to extrapolate human rights to creatures near equally or more intelligent than ourselves. Though rats are clearly sentient, I'm unwilling even to permit them much protection. Perhaps you intended sapient, having the ability to act with judgment. I think many higher mammals are sapient too, but at least we should realistically consider allowing this group a set of basic protections.

Why not refer to them as intelligent entities for these purposes? I think our being able to develop a language with them, to communicate, and to enter into agreements are fundamental.

23:36 / 07.07.06

A quick trip to the Wikipedia reveals that you're right, elene, sapience is a lot closer than sentience to what I'm trying to describe.

So am I correct in thinking that you suggest that a being should be afforded rights based on its ability to enter into a social contract? That seems like a pretty good definition but, to play devil's advocate, what about humans who cannot do so, for reasons of mental retardation, brain injury, or something?

This is the stance of some animal rights activists, who argue that many primates demonstrate intelligence at a higher level than a mentally retarded human, and thus the non-human primates should be afforded certain legal protections of their rights. Compare, for example, the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Great Ape Project's Declaration on Great Apes.

Should there perhaps be some sort of multi-tiered system? If a species exhibits intelligence of level X, it should receive rights A, B, and C; if it demonstrates intelligence Y, it gets all of the above rights plus D and E; if intelligence Z, then all those rights plus F, G, and H...and so on?

Further, how should these rights be protected for something like Artificial Intelligence? A lot of the protections in the declarations I mentioned are based on the notion of pain, but what happens with a system that, by design, is incapable of experiencing pain? And how would one interpret Article 4 of the UN's Declaration, which prohibits slavery, and Article 17, which preserves the right to own property, in light of a self-aware computer system?

08:37 / 08.07.06

Human rights apply to all humans and we expect them to be respected by all humans. We can’t revoke human rights unless we do so for all humans. If we take them from some one person we are implicitly denying that person’s humanity. If we’re sensible we don’t ever want to do this, short of the person being (brain) dead, because it sets a terrible precedent. Arbitrarily labelling some group sub-human is the highroad to Auschwitz and repeating all our worst errors and crimes. We must accept that the boundary of humanity is inclusive and err to acceptance, if only to protect ourselves from ourselves.

I fully agree the non-human primates should be afforded extensive protections, but that is radically different to the situation of a brain damaged human. The human has rights, the primate protections.

At which point a machine might deserve protection is a fascinating question. At which point it will possess rights, on the other hand, is fairly clear. It’s when the machine can negotiate an accord with us asserting those rights.

10:22 / 08.07.06

If a party fails to respect the rights of others, that is criminal, but if a party cannot respect the rights of others, as in the case of an animal, then there can be no rights.

Human rights apply to all humans and we expect them to be respected by all humans. We can’t revoke human rights unless we do so for all humans.

I fully agree the non-human primates should be afforded extensive protections, but that is radically different to the situation of a brain damaged human. The human has rights, the primate protections. - elene

I've never really understood this argument, and it really seems incoherent to me, I'm afraid. To repeat....rights can only be granted when the party can also be held accountable and have responsibilties, therefore animals can't have rights. The preceeding argument cannot apply to humans, because that would be barbaric. This barbarism isn't a good argument to extend rights to animals because they are not humans.

Its self evidently circular, isn't it?

10:42 / 08.07.06

No, Lurid, it's not.

14:01 / 08.07.06

It seems that way to me. You declare a principle for rights which disqualifies animals, but stress that the principle can't apply to humans. The real principle you are using is that only humans can have rights, by definition. Which isn't circular, but isn't particularly convincing either.

16:02 / 08.07.06

...non-human primates should be afforded extensive protections, but that is radically different to the situation of a brain damaged human. The human has rights, the primate protections.

Could you clarify what your distinction between rights and protections? As I understand the concept, rights aren't something granted by any body, they're innate, and not something that can be given or taken. They can, though, be protected, as in the Bill of Rights. Note the phrasing; they don't say 'We grant these rights', but rather "Congress shall make no law...", "...the right of the people...shall not be infringed", and "The right of the people...shall not be violated..." It doesn't grant any rights--and indeed couldn't--but restricts the actions of the government so as not to infringe upon these rights.

So are you saying that while humans have rights, innate and essential, due to our being humans, other primates lack these inborn rights, and only have protections by virtue of our being nice folks?

16:06 / 08.07.06

I'm saying that rights are a form of contract. Animals can neither enter into nor honour a contract, not because I might refuse them the opportunity but because they are innately incapable of doing so. They have no sense of moral responsibility nor can they ever have one. They can of course be protected by law, but that's purely one-sided. I might be forbidden from eating the tiger but there's is no way to forbid the tiger from eat me.

Removing someone's human rights means we deny their humanity. We can do that of course, but their situation is not then automatically equivalent to that of an animal that can never have these rights in the first place.

If we are to encounter or create an entity capable of understanding and honouring an agreement that forbids us killing or torturing each other, for instance, then human rights can be trivially extended to this non-human. Otherwise they cannot.

Now, you can claim that rights are really only legal protections, and I won't mind. That's is not how they've been understood historically though. It's much rather an agreement that I oughtn’t kill or torture anyone, and neither ought anyone else, which is self-evidently fair to all, suits all our needs and is therefore unquestionably moral.

16:43 / 08.07.06

Removing someone's human rights means we deny their humanity. We can do that of course, but their situation is not then automatically equivalent to that of an animal that can never have these rights in the first place. - elene

But you are doing the same again, elene. First you tell us why animals can't have rights, then you say that the same arguments don't apply to humans, because that would make equivalent to animals - and we know they are different, since animals dont have rights and humans do. Your arguments against animals having rights are pretty hollow, since you don't intend the arguments to apply consistently.

Now, you can claim that rights are really only legal protections, and I won't mind.

Yeah, Im happy with that.

That's is not how they've been understood historically though. It's much rather an agreement that I oughtn’t kill or torture anyone, and neither ought anyone else,

I think I have this argument every few months, and at this point I usually point to the Universal declaration of Human rights. The surprising thing is that many people don't class lots of items in that list as rights - they are principally about protecting the weak from the powerful, and hence don't sit easily with talk of responsibilities.

18:22 / 08.07.06

I'm saying that rights are a form of contract.

Legal rights, perhaps, but not natural rights. Rights, as enumerated in the UN's Declaration are natural rights, rather than legal rights. From the Declaration, "Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world" (emphasis added). These rights are not allotted us by any legislative body, but we posess them simply by virtue of our being human. The question is, as I see it, what conditions are required in order for some non-human entity to posess some or all of these rights?

Animals can neither enter into nor honour a contract, not because I might refuse them the opportunity but because they are innately incapable of doing so.

Neither can a human child enter into a contract, but that doesn't mean that a child is without rights.

Removing someone's human rights means we deny their humanity. We can do that of course...

I disagree. Human rights typically implies natural rights. By definition, a natural right cannot be revoked. It can be violated, but violation of one's rights does not constitute removal. The right still exists; it is merely not being observed.

If we are to encounter or create an entity capable of understanding and honouring an agreement that forbids us killing or torturing each other, for instance, then human rights can be trivially extended to this non-human. Otherwise they cannot.

Let's use your tiger as example again. So you're saying that because the cat is incapable of entering a contract forbidding torture, it does not have the right not to be tortured?

19:06 / 08.07.06

As Lurid points out many of the rights declared in the UN’s declaration are contested – as rights. The right to work, holidays, etc., for instance, is obviously not a right as I’ve defined them. If it is a “natural” right, person with an unprintable name, you’ll need to define natural rights for me, because you won’t find this anywhere in nature. As far as I’m concerned they’re merely some form of guiding principle.

Really, define the concept of rights as you wish, but define it – don’t just say that some rights are natural. I don’t accept that at all.

11:50 / 09.07.06

I, for one, as happy to accept rights as guiding principles, aspirational and mutable goals which are either enshrined in law or one hopes will be in the future. They have a different status from other law in the sense that they are statements of principle which, ideally, cut across most political boundaries. In practice, that isn't entirely true, but it works as a rough initial position.

22:20 / 09.07.06

I won't argue whether vacation time is a right. Some of the articles on the UN's list do seem a bit over-reaching to me. It was brought up as an example early in this thread and it seemed like a good starting point for discussion.

Really, define the concept of rights as you wish, but define it – don’t just say that some rights are natural. I don’t accept that at all.

No one's saying you have to. Here is the Wikipedia page on natural rights. From that, a short definition: "Natural rights are universal rights that are seen as inherent in the nature of the world, and not contingent on human actions or beliefs." Granted, there are criticisms to be made of the concept but, in some societies, there exists the idea of human rights as inherent to and inalienable from our being human.

I am attempting to explore how that concept applies to other forms of consciousness with whom technology may eventually allow us to interact. And while I'm happy to get into a debate about moral relativism, it seems beyond the scope of the thread. For now, let's agree that rights exist, whether by writ of law, the nature of the world, divine edict, or whatever, and move on to discuss how we determine what forms of intelligence are deserving of rights.

Of particular interest, to me anyway, is how this all applies to artificial intelligence. To deny another's liberty, to treat someone as property, is considered one of the most heinous violations of someone's rights possible. So how does one recognize the right to liberty of a computer with human-or-greater intelligence, given that someone has to buy the parts and build the computer, someone has to create the code that leads to self-cognizance, and someone has to pay for the power to run the thing? Or does an artificially intelligent machine have any rights at all? Further, how would that change if it weren't an artificially intelligent machine, but rather, a human consciousness uploaded into a computer system?

03:16 / 10.07.06

here's a good quote from raz on rights:

it may be thought surprising that one should have a right to do that which one ought not.

is it not better to confine rights to that which it is right or at least permissible to do?

but to say this is to misunderstand the nature of rights. one needs no right to be entitled to do the right thing. that it is right gives one all the title one needs. but one needs a right to be entitled to do that which one should not. it is an essential element of rights to action that they entitle one to do that which one should not. to say this is not, of course, to say that the purpose of rights of action is to increase wrong-doing. their purpose is to develop and protect the autonomy of the agent. they entitle him to choose for himself rightly or wrongly.

but they cannot do that unless they entitle him to choose wrongly.

the idea that rights come with "responsibilities" (or "duties") seems to be something introduced by the political right as a way to restrict rights. the process going something like: "you didn't perform your responsibilities, so you lose your rights".

but if you read the quote above you'll see that's in absolute conflict with what rights are: rights let you do things whatever. you don't need to perform responsibilities. you don't need to be nice. all you need is the right itself.

(there is a way in which rights are associated with duties - choice theory says rights give you control over someone else's duties, but i don't think that's what is being discussed above).

06:17 / 10.07.06

The only responsibility anyone is combining with one's rights is the responsibility to recognise and respect the fact that others have the same rights as oneself, and even then, failing to do so in no way diminishes one's rights, though it might very well make one a criminal.

I've additionally sought to restrict rights to those freedoms and protections that are truly egalitarian. That's got nothing to do with responsibilities, but merely with fairness. I think rights must be manifestly fair and in the interest of everyone. Rights are the foundations for laws and therefore need to be unquestionably fair and universal.

I don't see what any of this has to do with preventing people from doing anything except injuring the rights of others, andrew cooke.

Oh, and please don't presume that everyone knows who you mean by raz. I certainly don't.

06:34 / 10.07.06

You'd like to leave the matter of how one's rights might be constructed or identified to the side but nevertheless seek to decide which rights, if any, an AI should enjoy, <O>? How do you plan to do that? It seems to me you can either arbitrarily decide which rights you think an AI should have, or you must construct a theory of rights capable of identifying those appropriate to an AI.

06:58 / 10.07.06

... but I'll leave this complicated matter of rights aside, and give my own opinion.

I think an AI should at first be treated as a child and, if and when it has shown it understands it's legal and moral privileges and responsibilities, be allowed to earn money and become independent, a fair return on investment being permitted it's constructors in the process. The AI ought to have much the same rights as a human, in my opinion.

07:04 / 10.07.06

It just seemed to me that the initial post was asking about what requirements must one fulfill to be considered eligible for 'human' rights.

From Nolan J. Werner's post:
How would one be defined as human for the purposes of having "human" rights?

Would it be by species, reasoning capacity, morality, etc.?

Ze seemed to take it as given that said rights exist, by whatever mechanism, so I've been more interested in discussing the nature of the entity whose rights they are/may be.

08:30 / 10.07.06

OK. As the only part of this that interests me personally is the matter of rights (what they are, how they are allotted), I'm bowing out.

12:03 / 10.07.06

Oh, and please don't presume that everyone knows who you mean by raz. I certainly don't.

it's someone's name. you can google for more information, but i wasn't appealing to authority - i thought the quote stood by itself (bentham is typically considered the person who first deefined rights like this).

12:43 / 10.07.06

... but i wasn't appealing to authority ... bentham is typically considered the person who first deefined rights like this

Really, Andrew? You seem to me to be suggesting I look it up rather than think it out for myself, but if I'd wanted to do that I obviously would have. Your quoting Joseph Raz at me and pointing me to the work of Jeremy Bentham is precisely an appeal to higher authority, I think. That's OK, but why deny it?

14:36 / 10.07.06

wow. why are you being so unpleasant about this?

as i said, i thought the quote stood by itself: it's the best explanation of what a right is that i know. the alternatives i see would have been to rephrase it myself, which seems pointless, or to not credit it, which seems wrong.

so, as i said, i gave the raz quoted because i thought it was a good explanation, not because i think it's right "because raz said so".

and as for bentham, i added that because i thought it was an interesting piece of information (the moderators who approved the change to that post can confirm - that was the reason i gave for the edit!). i thought you were interested in how to define rights and that giving a link to bentham would give you some additional sources of information.

but i get the impression that you're not interested in a discussion, or in learning, or in anything other than scoring points.

(edited for abusive content)

14:55 / 10.07.06

Natural rights? I agree with the is-ought objection mentioned in the wikipedia entry;
all rights are invented by human beings and are therefore by definition "artificial"
In addition the idea of natural rights is a bit arbitrary- I could say I have an inalienable natural right to daily milk deliveries or kittens, that doesn't make it so- ditto the right to religious freedom etc.

It's interesting to me that intelligence is automatically referred to as a benchmark of the right to rights (if you see what I mean), why is that? What is intelligence anyway? Sapience, volition, moral agency and such would seem better terms to use IMHO.

When and if we meet aliens, AI and genetically engineered smartsheep, what rights we grant them is going to depend on their relationship to humanity. If they're slavering Giger aliens then it's going to be a different kettle of fish to the benign lawnmowing smartsheep. Even if we do grant AIs humanish rights the issue is going to be enforcing them, look at the human rights abuses that go on every day.

Sorry this is a bit rambly. Maybe I should have just asked what the justification is for extending human rights to non-humans, or what Sapient Rights might be.

Less searchable M0rd4nt

15:02 / 10.07.06

Mod hat: andrew cooke, that's not appropriate. It's an unwarranted personal attack (bonus points for calling a female-identified poster a 'cunt,' BTW).

17:46 / 10.07.06

Well, andrew, I'm glad we got that straight.

19:35 / 10.07.06

Andrew Cooke: Abusive posting is unacceptable on Barbelith, and can result in banning. I'm not putting your post forward for deletion, on the grounds that it is evidential, but I'll happily reconsider that position if others feel that it is better to be rid of it.

At the very, very least, you should apologise to elene for your offensive outburst and commit to civilised discussion in the future.

21:13 / 10.07.06

Policy link, here.

21:18 / 10.07.06

Mod hat 1: andrew cooke, it would have been enough to simply define the use of "appeal to authority" in a rhetorical/debate sense, rather than laying a rather fragrant turd in the middle of what had been a worthwhile discussion.

Which makes it particularly vexing to suggest the following...

Mod hat 2: I'm seeing very little in this discussion that has to do with either discoveries about animal intelligence or the development of artificial intelligence, and quite a bit having to do with how rights are constituted. Ordinarily, I'd suggest moving it to the Head Shop, but don't think that'd be the thing to do right now.

However, if this is going to continue to be a worthwhile conversation and not slide into something imminently deletable, perhaps focusing more on allotment of rights/definition of rights in the future (rather than what constitutes a right in a more general philosophical sense) might be in order.

Page: (1)2