Real universal rights

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

This is very immature thinking especially for discussions within philosophy.
Note the why:

• "Definitions are, however, important, potentially very important. A definition has the potential to provide clarity. "
  
  "But why is a definition so important? Because definitions enable us to have a common understanding of a word or subject; they allow us to all be on the same page when discussing or reading about an issue."

It is because the current definitions of Morality and Ethics are so varied and are not align with and on target with human nature that there is little progress in the reduction of evil acts around the world.

I defined 'Morality & Ethics' as avoiding evil acts to promote its related goods.
Morality is the Pure while Ethics is the Applied aspects, like Pure Mathematics and Applied Mathematics and the likes.

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,...

"Anything goes" means 'one man's meat and another's poison'.
For example,
-to the Nazis, killing Jews is moral and ethical but non-Nazis would disagree.
-in Islam it is moral to kill non-believers merely because they are non-believing which is a threat to the religion. Quran 5:33.
-there are so many moral beliefs that oppose within different moral groups.

As I had stated, the granting of rights in essence of human nature is not directly related to Morality and Ethics. They are represented by separate functions in the brain & mind.

The granting of rights can only be done within Groups in Power, i.e. Politics via the enactment of Laws to stipulate rights; religions based on the power of group or other self-organized groups within rights defined within their agreed Constitution.

The fact is in the granting of rights which is generally related to Laws, thus via politics; the compilers of the law of rights will attempt [intuitively] to align these human rights to what is natural an inherent in human nature which they are ignorant of.
Note the basic right to be free is inherent in human nature, thus the laws and ought-nots are enacted for the abolishment of slavery to enforce with threats to ensure humans comply with what is essentially their human nature.

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.

For Morality to be applied efficiently and optimally, we need to be more specific on where it is applicable and limited to [with provision for extension]. This is why I suggest morality should be species-centric.

In biology, a species is the basic unit of classification and a taxonomic rank of an organism, as well as a unit of biodiversity. A species is often defined as the largest group of organisms in which any two individuals of the appropriate sexes or mating types can produce fertile offspring, typically by sexual reproduction.

As I had stated, morality is not to be rigidly confined to the human species and provision has to be made to other living things that are self-aware and with consideration to anything outside the sphere of the human species to ensure optimality.

and therefrom extend to living things that has self-awareness

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

What happened to your critical and rational thinking abilities in the above question?

It is human nature that ALL humans has the feature of self-awareness.
You have any idea what is the 'Principle of Charity?.
Note, humans only has self-awareness upon a certain age between 15-18 months. Obviously it would be stupid [based on my linking morality with self-awareness] to assume morality do not apply to them?

Reflective self-awareness emerges between 15 and 18 months of age when children begin to match their own facial and/or body movements with the image of themselves in a mirror, exhibiting mirror self-recognition (see Loveland, 1986, Mitchell, 1993, Rochat, 1995b for alternative interpretations).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3351035/#:

My point;
Whatever is related to 'rights' is directly related to politics, i.e. its legislative, judiciary and policing functions.

Rights in the political sense are indirectly related to Morality and Ethics [avoiding evil to promote good]; the latter is inherent in human nature, thus must be species-centric and confined to the human species.
The question of 'rights' is only necessary because the majority of people are ignorant of their own and collective human nature wherein lies the natural moral potential to avoid evil acts and be good.
Because of the common ignorance of one's inherent moral potential, there is no sufficient progress to deal with the inherent evil potential within human nature.

To be effective for Morality and Ethics, it is imperative we understand what do they represent within human nature on an objective basis, i.e. factual and realistically.

Once we understand the human nature of morality and ethics we will be able to improve on the average Moral Competence of all; therefrom we will have less dependence on the enforcements of "rights" via legal Laws and its threats to ensure compliance.

[Peter Holmes]

If invented and granted rights are things that exist in reality in the way that dams built by beavers exist in reality, then presumably we can exercise a right in the way we exercise a dog.

Standing question: What and where are so-called abstract or non-physical things, such as rights and moral rightness and wrongness, and in what way do they exist?

Answers avoiding question-begging or equivocation on 'thing' and 'exist' come there none.

A Troll Party member's spluttering response: a thing that has a real effect must exist in reality. Things such as rights and moral rightness and wrongness exist in the way that gravity exists.

I refer the Member to my standing question.

[Skepdick]

And since beleifs and belief-holders always come as a parcel - beliefss exert influence on reality.

One can be aware of a belief and not hold it.
There are beliefs no one holds, but one can imagine.

Yes. Which is probably why you distinguish between beliefs and imaginations.

Beliefs cause action. Imaginations don't.

The contents of a belief, do not need to correspond to reality.
There are beliefs labeled 'delusional', which do the above.

That's total idiocy. There's no rule that says your beliefs have to correspond to reality.

I believe in democracy. It doesn't mean reality is democratic. What it means is that I want reality to BE democratic, but we are not quite there yet.

I am not "delusional" about democracy - it's just a correspondence to the future, not the present.

There are infinite possible beliefs that have no affect on reality, as they are not held by any being.

More Platonic nonsense. When we speak of beliefs - we speak of beliefs held.

We never speak of beliefs not held. Who would speak of such beliefs if nobody holds them?

What or where is a belief without somebody holding it?

Non-existent. Which is what rights are in the absence of the sentient.

But that's a hypothetical (and false) counter-factual. Sentience does exist so any hypothetical belief that it doesn't undermines its existential dependents.

Rights exist. The form is immaterial.

As an idea, and potential belief.
But not as an inherent aspect of reality or living beings.

Distinction without a difference. Everything that exists - exists.
If rights exist - they exist.
If gravity exists - it exists.

Rights exist. The form is immaterial.

It's possible living beings can exist without creating the concept of rights.
In this scenario, rights wouldn't exist.

It's possible for a universe to exist without gravity also.
In this scenario gravity wouldn't exist.

What's your point?

Rights exist. The form is immaterial.

When evaluating rights,
considering their origins is important.
Considering their connection to reality is important.

Justify this claim. Why is origin and connection to reality important?

Nobody understands the contents or mechanisms of gravity. And yet the fact that it has a causal effect on reality suffices for all practical purposes.

Gravity is a physical phenomena, described by people, that affects other tangible phenomena - with or without living beings present.

That's not true. There are no phenomena without phenomenologists to conceptualise them.

A belief, however, in the absence of any belief-holder (sentient being), is not exerting influence on any part of reality.

Reality has no "parts". It's the believer who chops reality up into "parts".

This is a primary reason the content of ideas aren't treated the same as processes inherent to reality.

The believer can choose to treat them however the believer chooses to treat them. Inherent or otherwise.

This is where lots of discussion is rooted in - that people have differing beliefs regarding rights.
There isn't a consensus regarding their objectivity / subjectivity, and which rights ought be intrinsic and to whom.
And a myriad of other aspects which are in dispute.

The objective/subjective distinction is just another red herring. Like most distinctions.

Gravity, in the absence of sentient beings, would continue to affect reality.
The concept of a unicorn, in absence of sentient beings, would not affect reality.

False equivalence.

If you remove humans - humans will cease to affect reality.
If you remove gravity - gravity will also cease to affect reality.

But if you remove humans and/or gravity you are no longer talking about the same reality as I am.

A right is only as good, as there are beings that give it weight.
The rights we create, are rooted in our preferences.

And gravity is only as good as there being a curvature of spacetime.

What's your point?

And our preferences are products of what enabled the survival of our genes.
This is the origin of their existence, with respect to our current scientific understanding.

And the origin of gravity is the curvature of spacetime, with respect to our current scientific understanding.

What's your point?

If we set aside our preferences,
and evaluate a right on it's own merit beyond belief-holders,

Who would be doing this evaluation if go "beyod belief-holders"

it is an idea created by sentient beings in the pursuit of effective interaction.

Yes. And? The idea of "gravity" is also an idea created by sentiend beings in pursuit of effective interaction with reality.

Once more... what is your point?

In so far as I can tell you are simply looking for some angle which lets you draw a distinction between the "human" and the "natural" so you can commit the special pleading fallacy.

[Skepdick]

If invented and granted rights are things that exist in reality in the way that dams built by beavers exist in reality, then presumably we can exercise a right in the way we exercise a dog.

Standing question: What and where are so-called abstract or non-physical things, such as rights and moral rightness and wrongness, and in what way do they exist?

What or where is gravity and it what way does it exist? Does your inability to answer the question erradicate gravity?

Answers avoiding question-begging or equivocation on 'thing' and 'exist' come there none.

Very well then! I trust you can live up to your own standards of behaviour. What and where is this so-called "gravity" and it what way does it exist?

When you teach me how to answer your question with respect to gravity then I will use what you have taught me to attempt to answer your question with respect to rights.

A Troll Party member's spluttering response: a thing that has a real effect must exist in reality. Things such as rights and moral rightness and wrongness exist in the way that gravity exists.

I refer the Member to my standing question.

Lead the way! Demonstrate how to answer your own question with respect to gravity.

[Harbal]

Oh, I thought we were contemplating and discussing 'rights', in the sense of 'Real universal rights' in this thread.

And, considering that I was replying to what you wrote in regards to: 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. I also thought we were discussing 'rights' in relation to 'morality' and/or 'ethical' issues, only.

You made an assertion regarding rights, stating that human beings do not "bestow" rights on themselves. I gave an example refuting that assertion. What difference does it make whether it's a moral/ethical right, or simply a practical right? The principle is the same.

When you responded to my original comment -the one in bold, above- you placed an interpretation on it that I find quite baffling. Your interpretation is not only illogical, but also a distortion of the spirit of the comment.

[Rational ethicist]

And, considering that I was replying to what you wrote in regards to: 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.

what is the difference? I would say that bestowing a right to someone else is the same as imposing on oneself the responsibility to respect that bestowed right. Rights are necessarily connected to duties or responsibilities. A gives a right to B, which means B gets the right and A has the duty.

[Rational ethicist]

So, you could NEVER logically say NOR prove that what "another" says or claims is wrong nor false about 'ethics', as long as what they say or claim about 'ethics' is done under sub-section titled 'Ethical theory', right?

no. I'm not following.
Anyway, we are on a philosophy discussion forum, so that means we have to define philosophy first, before we can move on? You start: what is philosophy? (I will make it myself easy by copy pasting your answer)

After all you see absolutely NO added value AT ALL of defining the word 'ethics' here, correct?

Indeed. You can define it if you want, and then I can simply copy paste your answer, and that is done. And then we can move back to the real discussion.

If yes, then this would mean and entail that absolutely ANY thing could written or said about 'ethics' and it would ALL be fine and all right.

not necessarily. The fact that we did not first define philosophy does not yet mean that absolutely ANY thing could written or said about philosphy on this philosophy forum. Or perhaps it could, I don't think I care that much.

[Rational ethicist]

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.

This is very immature thinking especially for discussions within philosophy.

Did you define philosophy first, at the start of every discussion on this philosophy forum?

Note the why:

• "Definitions are, however, important, potentially very important. A definition has the potential to provide clarity. "
  "But why is a definition so important? Because definitions enable us to have a common understanding of a word or subject; they allow us to all be on the same page when discussing or reading about an issue."

But the definition is not important when you suggest a definition and I simply copy paste that definition. Go ahead, pick your definitions of 'philosophy', 'morality' and 'ethics', and I will simply agree with them, and then we can move on to the real discussion about universal rights.
If you define 'philosophy' as 'drinking wine in Peru while doing karate underwater', fine, let's define philosophy that way. That definition is not relevant, because we can still discuss about universal rights, even on a philosophy forum.

It is because the current definitions of Morality and Ethics are so varied and are not align with and on target with human nature that there is little progress in the reduction of evil acts around the world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality

I defined 'Morality & Ethics' as avoiding evil acts to promote its related goods.

you are not going to define 'avoiding', 'evil', 'acts', 'promoting' and 'related goods'?
I defined morality as about what agents should do and should not do. So if you would define 'avoiding evil' as 'should not do' and 'promote related goods' as 'should do', that would be lovely, because then we have the same definition, and then we can move on with the discussion about universal rights.

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,...

"Anything goes" means 'one man's meat and another's poison'.
For example,
-to the Nazis, killing Jews is moral and ethical but non-Nazis would disagree.

I don't see how defining morality avoids this problem of anything goes. You defined morality as avoiding evil acts to promote its related goods. To the Nazi's killing jews is moral because it avoided evil acts to promote goods. So your definition of morality equally allows for anything goes.

As I had stated, the granting of rights in essence of human nature is not directly related to Morality and Ethics.

it is according to how I defined morality. Rights tell you what you as an agent should and should not do.

They are represented by separate functions in the brain & mind.

who cares? Would you change your mind if it turned out these were represented by the same functions in the brain?

The granting of rights can only be done within Groups in Power

no, you can grant rights, even if you are not within a group of power.

The fact is in the granting of rights which is generally related to Laws, thus via politics; the compilers of the law of rights will attempt [intuitively] to align these human rights to what is natural an inherent in human nature which they are ignorant of.

not following... And why are you so often referring to human nature? Human nature doesn't even exist (that concept contradicts what we know from biology and evolution theory).

For Morality to be applied efficiently and optimally, we need to be more specific on where it is applicable and limited to [with provision for extension].

morality is applicable to everything, just like philosophy. Although I'm inclined to think that making such a statement is making a category mistake, because the word "applicable" does not properly apply here.

This is why I suggest morality should be species-centric.

Let me repeat your argument: "For Morality to be applied efficiently and optimally, we need to be more specific on where it is applicable and limited to [with provision for extension]." I don't see any reference to "species" here. So why should it be species-centric? I do see references to the non-existent notion of "human nature", but then your argument becomes very circular: "morality has to do with the human species and therefore I suggest morality should be species-centric."

In biology, a species is the basic unit of classification

I disagree, I don't think there is a basic unit of classification in biology. Other units, like orders and genera, are equally basic.

and a taxonomic rank of an organism, as well as a unit of biodiversity.

the same goes for the other taxonomic ranks.

A species is often defined as the largest group of organisms in which any two individuals of the appropriate sexes or mating types can produce fertile offspring, typically by sexual reproduction.

That is but one definition of species, and it becomes very complicated/tricky. Are horses and donkey's two separate species, given the fact that some hybrid offsprings (mules) happen to be fertile? How many offspring have to be infertile to classify them as two separate species? And what about ring species? A and B can get fertile offspring and hence belong to the same species, B and C can get fertile offspring and hence belong to the same species, but A and C cannot get fertile offspring and hence belong to different species. So that notion of species is not transitive.
And what about our ancient ancestors, and chimera's?
And then: what is the relevance of producing fertile offspring anyway? What has that got to do with morality, with your definition of morality?

As I had stated, morality is not to be rigidly confined to the human species

now you are making it worse. Morality should be species-centric, because it has something to do with fertility of offspring, and now it should not exactly be species-centric?

and provision has to be made to other living things that are self-aware

what has self-awareness got to do with it? So morality has got to do with fertility of offspring and with self-awareness? Anything else? Why not only self-awareness, and delete the part about fertility of offspring?

and therefrom extend to living things that has self-awareness

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

What happened to your critical and rational thinking abilities in the above question?

nothing special, why?

It is human nature that ALL humans has the feature of self-awareness.

no, there are humans who do not have self-awaraness.

You have any idea what is the 'Principle of Charity?.

yes

Note, humans only has self-awareness upon a certain age between 15-18 months.

so human babies don't have self-awaraness, but are human. And there are also mentally disabled adult humans who do not have self-awareness.

Rights in the political sense are indirectly related to Morality and Ethics [avoiding evil to promote good]; the latter is inherent in human nature,

how do you mean? Yes, you and I are primates, you and I can understand morality, so in that sense morality is inherent in primate nature. But such things sound very weird to me. What is primate nature anyway?

thus must be species-centric and confined to the human species.

no, they must be order-centric and confined to the primate order, because you and I were primates, remember...

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

This is very immature thinking especially for discussions within philosophy.

Did you define philosophy first, at the start of every discussion on this philosophy forum?

Yes, where necessary I demand it because it is very critical, otherwise we will be talking pass each other and waiting for the cows to come home, note;

What is Philosophy?
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=28792

The rest of your posts are based on narrow and shallow thinking.
I'll give it a pass.

[Age]

Oh, I thought we were contemplating and discussing 'rights', in the sense of 'Real universal rights' in this thread.

And, considering that I was replying to what you wrote in regards to: 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. I also thought we were discussing 'rights' in relation to 'morality' and/or 'ethical' issues, only.

You made an assertion regarding rights, stating that human beings do not "bestow" rights on themselves.

YES I DID.

I gave an example refuting that assertion.

YES 'you' DID.

What difference does it make whether it's a moral/ethical right, or simply a practical right?

The DIFFERENCE is that adult human beings have NOT YET bestowed 'moral/ethical' 'rights', in any logical, true, nor right way. Although they could very easily say and argue that they have bestowed so-called 'practical rights', like HAVING TO own a driving licence before one could drive alone for example, in a logical, true, or right way.

The principle is the same.

MAYBE SO.

When you responded to my original comment -the one in bold, above- you placed an interpretation on it that I find quite baffling.

Okay.

Your interpretation is not only illogical, but also a distortion of the spirit of the comment.

Okay.

And, what was the so-called 'spirit' of the comment, EXACTLY?

[Age]

So, you could NEVER logically say NOR prove that what "another" says or claims is wrong nor false about 'ethics', as long as what they say or claim about 'ethics' is done under sub-section titled 'Ethical theory', right?

no. I'm not following.

Here is ANOTHER EXAMPLE of WHERE and WHEN one does NOT understand AT ALL what the "other" is SAYING and MEANING, AND has absolutely NO interest AT ALL in LEARNING and BECOMING WISER either.

Anyway, we are on a philosophy discussion forum, so that means we have to define philosophy first, before we can move on?

If you say and BELIEVE SO.

BUT, this CONTRADICTS what you SAID and MEANT previously.

You start: what is philosophy? (I will make it myself easy by copy pasting your answer)

To me, the word 'philosophy' once meant and referred to having the 'love-of-wisdom'. Which, by the way, EVERY human child is born with, but which, very sadly and unfortunately, diminishes, very quickly, or gets lost, completely, through the current, to the days when this is being written, so-called 'education system' and through the ways adults view 'things' through ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS.

'phil-o-sophy' is just having the love-of-becoming wiser, and a True 'philosopher' is just one who WANTS to keep LEARNING and so also just loves to keep BECOMING WISER.

After all you see absolutely NO added value AT ALL of defining the word 'ethics' here, correct?

Indeed. You can define it if you want, and then I can simply copy paste your answer, and that is done. And then we can move back to the real discussion.

BUT the 'real discussion' has NOT YET BEGUN.

If yes, then this would mean and entail that absolutely ANY thing could written or said about 'ethics' and it would ALL be fine and all right.

not necessarily.

WHY, 'not necessarily', EXACTLY?

The fact that we did not first define philosophy does not yet mean that absolutely ANY thing could written or said about philosphy on this philosophy forum.

But I have ALREADY defined the word 'philosophy'. 'We' are just WAITING for 'you' now.

Also;

1. Absolutely ANY thing could be written or said about 'philosophy', on this or ANY OTHER philosophy forum.

2. REMEMBER it was 'you', so-called "rational ethicist", who SAID and CLAIMED that 'you' find it WEIRD to ask for the definition of words in discussion that are written under forum titles with the same name in them.

Or perhaps it could, I don't think I care that much.

That 'you' do NOT care 'that much' could be inferred as this is because 'you' are NOT YET CAPABLE of backing up and supporting YOUR ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS here.

'We' will just have to WAIT, and SEE, correct?

[Age]

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.

This is very immature thinking especially for discussions within philosophy.

Did you define philosophy first, at the start of every discussion on this philosophy forum?

Note the why:

• "Definitions are, however, important, potentially very important. A definition has the potential to provide clarity. "
  "But why is a definition so important? Because definitions enable us to have a common understanding of a word or subject; they allow us to all be on the same page when discussing or reading about an issue."

But the definition is not important when you suggest a definition and I simply copy paste that definition. Go ahead, pick your definitions of 'philosophy', 'morality' and 'ethics', and I will simply agree with them, and then we can move on to the real discussion about universal rights.
If you define 'philosophy' as 'drinking wine in Peru while doing karate underwater', fine, let's define philosophy that way. That definition is not relevant, because we can still discuss about universal rights, even on a philosophy forum.

Yes you could. But, what does the word 'rights' mean or refer to, to you, in the term and phrase 'universal rights'?

If you can NOT or do NOT answer and CLARIFY 'this', then this would mean that you either:

Do NOT know what you are talking about.
NEVER actually thought about what it is, EXACTLY, that you are saying and talking about here.
Actually, can NOT back up and support your OWN views here. Or,
Some thing else.

It is because the current definitions of Morality and Ethics are so varied and are not align with and on target with human nature that there is little progress in the reduction of evil acts around the world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality

I defined 'Morality & Ethics' as avoiding evil acts to promote its related goods.

you are not going to define 'avoiding', 'evil', 'acts', 'promoting' and 'related goods'?
I defined morality as about what agents should do and should not do. So if you would define 'avoiding evil' as 'should not do' and 'promote related goods' as 'should do', that would be lovely, because then we have the same definition, and then we can move on with the discussion about universal rights.

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,...

"Anything goes" means 'one man's meat and another's poison'.
For example,
-to the Nazis, killing Jews is moral and ethical but non-Nazis would disagree.

I don't see how defining morality avoids this problem of anything goes. You defined morality as avoiding evil acts to promote its related goods. To the Nazi's killing jews is moral because it avoided evil acts to promote goods. So your definition of morality equally allows for anything goes.

As I had stated, the granting of rights in essence of human nature is not directly related to Morality and Ethics.

it is according to how I defined morality. Rights tell you what you as an agent should and should not do.

They are represented by separate functions in the brain & mind.

who cares? Would you change your mind if it turned out these were represented by the same functions in the brain?

The granting of rights can only be done within Groups in Power

no, you can grant rights, even if you are not within a group of power.

The fact is in the granting of rights which is generally related to Laws, thus via politics; the compilers of the law of rights will attempt [intuitively] to align these human rights to what is natural an inherent in human nature which they are ignorant of.

not following... And why are you so often referring to human nature? Human nature doesn't even exist (that concept contradicts what we know from biology and evolution theory).

For Morality to be applied efficiently and optimally, we need to be more specific on where it is applicable and limited to [with provision for extension].

morality is applicable to everything, just like philosophy. Although I'm inclined to think that making such a statement is making a category mistake, because the word "applicable" does not properly apply here.

This is why I suggest morality should be species-centric.

Let me repeat your argument: "For Morality to be applied efficiently and optimally, we need to be more specific on where it is applicable and limited to [with provision for extension]." I don't see any reference to "species" here. So why should it be species-centric? I do see references to the non-existent notion of "human nature", but then your argument becomes very circular: "morality has to do with the human species and therefore I suggest morality should be species-centric."

In biology, a species is the basic unit of classification

I disagree, I don't think there is a basic unit of classification in biology. Other units, like orders and genera, are equally basic.

and a taxonomic rank of an organism, as well as a unit of biodiversity.

the same goes for the other taxonomic ranks.

A species is often defined as the largest group of organisms in which any two individuals of the appropriate sexes or mating types can produce fertile offspring, typically by sexual reproduction.

That is but one definition of species, and it becomes very complicated/tricky. Are horses and donkey's two separate species, given the fact that some hybrid offsprings (mules) happen to be fertile? How many offspring have to be infertile to classify them as two separate species? And what about ring species? A and B can get fertile offspring and hence belong to the same species, B and C can get fertile offspring and hence belong to the same species, but A and C cannot get fertile offspring and hence belong to different species. So that notion of species is not transitive.
And what about our ancient ancestors, and chimera's?
And then: what is the relevance of producing fertile offspring anyway? What has that got to do with morality, with your definition of morality?

As I had stated, morality is not to be rigidly confined to the human species

now you are making it worse. Morality should be species-centric, because it has something to do with fertility of offspring, and now it should not exactly be species-centric?

and provision has to be made to other living things that are self-aware

what has self-awareness got to do with it? So morality has got to do with fertility of offspring and with self-awareness? Anything else? Why not only self-awareness, and delete the part about fertility of offspring?

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

What happened to your critical and rational thinking abilities in the above question?

nothing special, why?

It is human nature that ALL humans has the feature of self-awareness.

no, there are humans who do not have self-awaraness.

You have any idea what is the 'Principle of Charity?.

yes

Note, humans only has self-awareness upon a certain age between 15-18 months.

so human babies don't have self-awaraness, but are human. And there are also mentally disabled adult humans who do not have self-awareness.

Rights in the political sense are indirectly related to Morality and Ethics [avoiding evil to promote good]; the latter is inherent in human nature,

how do you mean? Yes, you and I are primates, you and I can understand morality, so in that sense morality is inherent in primate nature. But such things sound very weird to me. What is primate nature anyway?

thus must be species-centric and confined to the human species.

no, they must be order-centric and confined to the primate order, because you and I were primates, remember...

[Rational ethicist]

Yes, where necessary I demand it because it is very critical, otherwise we will be talking pass each other and waiting for the cows to come home, note;

What is Philosophy?
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=28792

I'm pretty sure that if you didn't write that discussion topic about what is philosophy, that people in discussions with you would not have a higher rate of talking past each other. I think we can have equally meaningful discussions on this forum even if you didn't write that forum topic about what is philosophy. If you disagree, you should have linked to that forum topic early on in this discussion on universal rights, preferably in the very beginning.

[Rational ethicist]

But the definition is not important when you suggest a definition and I simply copy paste that definition. Go ahead, pick your definitions of 'philosophy', 'morality' and 'ethics', and I will simply agree with them, and then we can move on to the real discussion about universal rights.
If you define 'philosophy' as 'drinking wine in Peru while doing karate underwater', fine, let's define philosophy that way. That definition is not relevant, because we can still discuss about universal rights, even on a philosophy forum.

Yes you could. But, what does the word 'rights' mean or refer to, to you, in the term and phrase 'universal rights'?

I assumed people could simply look up a definition on e.g. wikipedia or something: "Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights
Asking for a definition of rights in a discussion on rights is meaningful. But asking in that same discussion for a definition of philosophy or morality is not.

[Age]

But the definition is not important when you suggest a definition and I simply copy paste that definition. Go ahead, pick your definitions of 'philosophy', 'morality' and 'ethics', and I will simply agree with them, and then we can move on to the real discussion about universal rights.
If you define 'philosophy' as 'drinking wine in Peru while doing karate underwater', fine, let's define philosophy that way. That definition is not relevant, because we can still discuss about universal rights, even on a philosophy forum.

Yes you could. But, what does the word 'rights' mean or refer to, to you, in the term and phrase 'universal rights'?

I assumed people could simply look up a definition on e.g. wikipedia or something: "Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights

OF COURSE they COULD.

BUT, reading what "others" have written about the definition or meaning of a word, will NEVER REVEAL what 'you' ACTUALLY MEAN when 'you' USE that word.

Asking for a definition of rights in a discussion on rights is meaningful.

But what is the word 'rights', under the title 'Real universal rights', in relation to, EXACTLY?

Is that word to do with 'morality' and/or 'ethical' issues, for example, or is that word in relation to the 'rights' one has while driving a motor vehicle, for example?

But asking in that same discussion for a definition of philosophy or morality is not.

When this issue of it being 'good communication' to define meanings, it was in relation to the terms BEING USED. Like, for example, the term 'rights' in a discussion on, 'Real universal rights', for example.