Moral status: robots, foetuses, and healthy patients

[Lacewing]

*Maybe everyone doesn't frame it in the way you do.

**Naturally, there are more ways to see and assess our reality than what your viewpoint and judgements are.

*Oh, I know as fact there are different perspectives with different frames (I'm talkin' to one right now), but that's irrelevant. The base intuition, the down-in-the-bones knowledge, my life is mine; it's wrong I should be used, abused, commodified, treated a resource, is the same for everyone.

**Yes, the old we all have our own truth notion.

Okay. Gimme a justification for slavery, for rape, for theft, for murder, for fraud. Show me how these are just different ways of seeing and assessing reality.

You seem to want me to argue on your terms. A discussion between different viewpoints cannot be built on your viewpoint. I've already offered my perspective based on nature in regard to the beginnings/endings of life that happen continually all the time. We humans and our prolific reproduction are of nature. I blend the realities of nature with morals to find a balance that feels right to me as a thinking and compassionate human being. Despite our differences, I was willing to discuss the topic with you initially -- but I'm not interested in investing any more energy in a discussion restricted to, and ruled by, your viewpoint.

[henry quirk]

You seem to want me to argue on your terms.

No, I wanted you to defend your position (you haven't) and challenge mine (you haven't). Roundaboutly, all you've done is whine about the bad man who won't let you do what you wanna.

Anyway, thank you for ending what was gonna end poorly anyway...

'nuff said.

[Ben JS]

Despite our differences, I was willing to discuss the topic with you initially -- but I'm not interested in investing any more energy in a discussion restricted to, and ruled by, your viewpoint.

There is wisdom is balancing one's investments.
This is not to say we disregard the value any particular one,
rather, that it's priority in the hierarchy has shifted... (imo)

I think it's OK to say,
'Whilst you are worthy,
I am not prepared'

[Ben JS]

Look at the mental and moral gymnastics [...]

...oh, it's just a clump of cells...he's just a chump...she's just a twat with legs...they're subhuman...kikes, chinks, n*ggers...

Speaking of mental gymnastics:

Henry conflates a clump of cells with a discriminated fully developed human being.

Science reasons that sentience / consciousness are physical, measurable processes.
This clump of cells Henry equivocates with fully formed human beings,
has not yet met the classically defined hallmarks of sentience / consciousness.

[LuckyR]

Are there 'beings' who have 'different rights' than others?

Absolutely. Minors vs adults are an obvious example.

So, what are these, claimed, 'different rights', here, exactly?

And, if you do not provide any, then why not?

Consuming alcohol, voting, operating motor vehicles etc, etc, etc...

[Age]

Absolutely. Minors vs adults are an obvious example.

So, what are these, claimed, 'different rights', here, exactly?

And, if you do not provide any, then why not?

Consuming alcohol, voting, operating motor vehicles etc, etc, etc...

Oh, I see the word, 'rights', here, in a thread about 'moral status', 'moral issues', or just 'morality' itself, in relation to a 'universal perspective', 'Universal Lore', Itself, and certainly not in just some particular human being made up 'laws', which can be completely and utterly different depending on what particular parcel of land one is on, and at what particular 'time' one is living.

But, if you are just referring to beings having different 'rights', just in relation to human being 'made up laws', only, then yes obviously there are 'beings' who have 'different rights' than others. The fact is even 'the right' that you have 'now' can be changed tomorrow, and so what you do 'now', which is so-called 'right' can be completely and utterly so-called 'wrong' tomorrow. And thus punishable by prison, and/or even a death sentence, for example.

[Age]

*Maybe everyone doesn't frame it in the way you do.

**Naturally, there are more ways to see and assess our reality than what your viewpoint and judgements are.

*Oh, I know as fact there are different perspectives with different frames (I'm talkin' to one right now), but that's irrelevant. The base intuition, the down-in-the-bones knowledge, my life is mine; it's wrong I should be used, abused, commodified, treated a resource, is the same for everyone.

**Yes, the old we all have our own truth notion.

Okay. Gimme a justification for slavery, for rape, for theft, for murder, for fraud.

One so-called 'justification' for murdering and/or killing human beings, which some people 'try to' use, is that if one takes, and/or attempts, to take the life, liberty, or property, (even if that property is just a toothpick or a moldy piece of stale bread), then to 'those people' this is 'justification' for murder and/or killing.

So, there 'you' have been given 'a justification'. Which only a very closed human being would 'try to' use for murder.

But, obviously 'this justification' is not an 'actually justification' because, obviously, only what is 'actually Just', in Life, can be, actually, 'justified'.

Show me how these are just different ways of seeing and assessing reality.

Also, and by the way, some people like to and want to be 'slaved' around, and 'raped'.

And, if 'you' were a Truly open and honest human being, who did actually want to learn more, and/or anew, and just did not want to maintain your obviously Truly Wrong and distorted beliefs that you are 'holding onto' absolutely, then you would seek out a discussion, here.

[Age]

You seem to want me to argue on your terms.

No, I wanted you to defend your position (you haven't) and challenge mine (you haven't). Roundaboutly, all you've done is whine about the bad man who won't let you do what you wanna.

Anyway, thank you for ending what was gonna end poorly anyway...

'nuff said.

I wonder if 'this one', here, is aware that others want it to at least try to defend 'its position', here, (which it has not), and want it to challenge them, (which it also has not).

Imagine being so closed, self-centered, and egotistical that you actually believed that there is no justification at all for murder or slaving, except for when you want to murder or slave.

'This' really was how closed, self-centered, and ego-maniac some people really were like, back in the days when this was being written.

Some adult human beings were so self-delusional that there was nothing that could be said, or shown, which could make them see beyond their own distortions.

In fact, and as can be clearly seen, here, the only thing that they could resort to, when being questioned and challenged, was to ignore the questions and challenges, by what was called 'trying to run away, and hide'.

But, the more they spoke and wrote, here, the more their Truly distorted thinking is being seen, and revealed.

[Age]

Look at the mental and moral gymnastics [...]

...oh, it's just a clump of cells...he's just a chump...she's just a twat with legs...they're subhuman...kikes, chinks, n*ggers...

Speaking of mental gymnastics:

Henry conflates a clump of cells with a discriminated fully developed human being.

Science reasons that sentience / consciousness are physical, measurable processes.

'Science', itself, does no such thing.

'Those' are inclined to view absolutely all things as being 'physical', under the pretense of 'doing science', might claim that sentience and/or consciousness are 'physical'.

But, if you know of 'a paper', where it specifically states that sentience and/or consciousness are irrefutably 'physical things', then will you present 'that paper', here, for 'us' to 'look at', and 'discuss'?

This clump of cells Henry equivocates with fully formed human beings,
has not yet met the classically defined hallmarks of sentience / consciousness.

When 'henry quirk" uses the term and/or phrase, 'clump of cells', it is usually in regards as being a ridicule of 'those' who believe the opposite of what it believes is absolutely true and right.

That is, "henry quirk" believes, absolutely, those who believe that there is no so-called 'free will' deserve to be ridiculed and humiliated.

[henry quirk]

Speaking of mental gymnastics:

No, just reason.

If we are just material of a particular and peculiar complexity, we must accept, at least from the end of the first trimester on, what a woman carries in her womb is a person.

[Age]

Speaking of mental gymnastics:

No, just reason.

If we are just material of a particular and peculiar complexity, we must accept, at least from the end of the first trimester on, what a woman carries in her womb is a person.

'This', here, could not be further from the Truth.

[LuckyR]

So, what are these, claimed, 'different rights', here, exactly?

And, if you do not provide any, then why not?

Consuming alcohol, voting, operating motor vehicles etc, etc, etc...

Oh, I see the word, 'rights', here, in a thread about 'moral status', 'moral issues', or just 'morality' itself, in relation to a 'universal perspective', 'Universal Lore', Itself, and certainly not in just some particular human being made up 'laws', which can be completely and utterly different depending on what particular parcel of land one is on, and at what particular 'time' one is living.

But, if you are just referring to beings having different 'rights', just in relation to human being 'made up laws', only, then yes obviously there are 'beings' who have 'different rights' than others. The fact is even 'the right' that you have 'now' can be changed tomorrow, and so what you do 'now', which is so-called 'right' can be completely and utterly so-called 'wrong' tomorrow. And thus punishable by prison, and/or even a death sentence, for example.

Your commentary is correct as stated, however your unstated implication (that "moral rights" are somehow not subjective, in contrast with human made-up laws, is your error, if true).

[Age]

Consuming alcohol, voting, operating motor vehicles etc, etc, etc...

Oh, I see the word, 'rights', here, in a thread about 'moral status', 'moral issues', or just 'morality' itself, in relation to a 'universal perspective', 'Universal Lore', Itself, and certainly not in just some particular human being made up 'laws', which can be completely and utterly different depending on what particular parcel of land one is on, and at what particular 'time' one is living.

But, if you are just referring to beings having different 'rights', just in relation to human being 'made up laws', only, then yes obviously there are 'beings' who have 'different rights' than others. The fact is even 'the right' that you have 'now' can be changed tomorrow, and so what you do 'now', which is so-called 'right' can be completely and utterly so-called 'wrong' tomorrow. And thus punishable by prison, and/or even a death sentence, for example.

Your commentary is correct as stated, however your unstated implication (that "moral rights" are somehow not subjective, in contrast with human made-up laws, is your error, if true).

Well considering that 'it' is absolutely not True, at all, your inferred and presumed so-claimed and so-called 'unstated implication', here, is completely False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect.

So, although I will thank you for acknowledging that my comment, there, is correct, your continual pre-assuming things, here, is, still, letting 'you: down, somewhat.

Just to be absolutely clear I do not consider 'moral rights' are somehow not subjective, in contrast with any thing, which obviously includes your human beings made up laws.

[LuckyR]

Oh, I see the word, 'rights', here, in a thread about 'moral status', 'moral issues', or just 'morality' itself, in relation to a 'universal perspective', 'Universal Lore', Itself, and certainly not in just some particular human being made up 'laws', which can be completely and utterly different depending on what particular parcel of land one is on, and at what particular 'time' one is living.

But, if you are just referring to beings having different 'rights', just in relation to human being 'made up laws', only, then yes obviously there are 'beings' who have 'different rights' than others. The fact is even 'the right' that you have 'now' can be changed tomorrow, and so what you do 'now', which is so-called 'right' can be completely and utterly so-called 'wrong' tomorrow. And thus punishable by prison, and/or even a death sentence, for example.

Your commentary is correct as stated, however your unstated implication (that "moral rights" are somehow not subjective, in contrast with human made-up laws, is your error, if true).

Well considering that 'it' is absolutely not True, at all, your inferred and presumed so-claimed and so-called 'unstated implication', here, is completely False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect.

So, although I will thank you for acknowledging that my comment, there, is correct, your continual pre-assuming things, here, is, still, letting 'you: down, somewhat.

Just to be absolutely clear I do not consider 'moral rights' are somehow not subjective, in contrast with any thing, which obviously includes your human beings made up laws.

Then we're in agreement. Yay. As an aside, it is common and routine in this sort of information exchange for folks to imply ideas, leaving the reader to verify if such things are true. No harm, no foul.

[Age]

Your commentary is correct as stated, however your unstated implication (that "moral rights" are somehow not subjective, in contrast with human made-up laws, is your error, if true).

Well considering that 'it' is absolutely not True, at all, your inferred and presumed so-claimed and so-called 'unstated implication', here, is completely False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect.

So, although I will thank you for acknowledging that my comment, there, is correct, your continual pre-assuming things, here, is, still, letting 'you: down, somewhat.

Just to be absolutely clear I do not consider 'moral rights' are somehow not subjective, in contrast with any thing, which obviously includes your human beings made up laws.

Then we're in agreement. Yay. As an aside, it is common and routine in this sort of information exchange for folks to imply ideas, leaving the reader to verify if such things are true. No harm, no foul.

To verify is one thing. To infer, only, is another.

By the way, what do you think is the best, most conducive, most productive, and the most simplest and easiest way 'to veriify'?

To 'just infer/assume', then respond, or not, from what is, essentially, just a guess, which obviously could be Right, Wrong, or partly right and wrong, or to 'just ask an open question' while seeking verification and/or clarity, instead?

Which way do you think would would be quicker in leading to finding, and/or producing, 'agreement', itself?

How much 'time' and/or 'effort' could be 'saved' in discussions if people sought out actual clarification/verification, first, before they presumed/inferred absolutely any thing at all.

Now, of course, the writer/speaker implies things, but the reader/listener does not 'have to' infer/assume things.

In places like a 'philosophy forum' the latter has the ability and thus could, obviously just ask questions, for clarification and verification sake.

Unlike in 'days long gone' where is was near impossible to seek out and obtain clarity, in 'the days when this is being written', you human beings have 'the advantage' to speak to 'writers', 'directly', and ask them things like, 'What do you actually mean?' and/or', 'What is 'it' that you are actually referring to, exactly?'.

I will, again, suggest taking advantage of 'this advantage'.

For all you posters, here, know, there might actually be One, here, who actually does understand and know, more, than what you people actually believe or think It does.