Moral status: robots, foetuses, and healthy patients

[LuckyR]

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.

Not a bad review, yet a tempest in a teapot to my view. As it happens, I never stated that you said what we're discussing. In fact I specifically called it "unstated". And although I thought I detected an implication (as everyone does on occasion) I didn't assume it was correct, rather I commented on it's meaning "if true", that is, I gave you the opportunity to correct my understanding, which you did. That's the way it's supposed to work.

[Age]

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.

Not a bad review, yet a tempest in a teapot to my view.

As you have inferred, assumed, and/or perceived, only, as it was never meant, nor implied, that way at all.

As it happens, I never stated that you said what we're discussing.

And, I never stated any such thing at all, as well.

In fact I specifically called it "unstated".

Which is, exactly, what I said and wrote you said, and wrote.

And although I thought I detected an implication (as everyone does on occasion) I didn't assume it was correct, rather I commented on it's meaning "if true", that is, I gave you the opportunity to correct my understanding, which you did. That's the way it's supposed to work.

1. By who and/or what is it, supposed, 'to work' 'that way'?

2. I even asked you, to verify, 'What do you think is the best, most conducive, most productive, and the most simplest and easiest way 'to verify'?

Do you really think or believe that one presenting their own assumptions, of what another said or meant, is, really, the best, quickest, simplest, and easiest way to obtain verification/clarification, and that 'this way' is, supposed to be, 'the way' that 'it' works?

Either way I know I have found a much better, quicker, simpler, and easier way. And, by the way, it is 'one way' that is actually much more conducive to a Truly much better and far more open and honest peaceful existence. However, your unstated implication (that 'your way', which is first 'presenting what one just assumes and/or believes is correct', is 'the way' that 'it' is supposed to work, in regards to Universal Lore, or some human being law/s, is 'your error', if true).

[CIN2]

Why do you say, 'someone with congenital analgesia may still be able to feel emotional pain'?

one can always feel emotional pain, except by choice alone.

I'm sure most people can, but I don't see how you can be sure that all conscious beings can.

If you 'mind' having your hand or leg cut off, presumably that 'minding' is in fact emotional pain, so it qualifies you for moral status.

But one might 'mind' having a leg or hand cut off not for any pain related issue but just for the simple fact of how those two things, literally, can come in 'handy'.

Handy for what? For something you mind about? But that would require you to feel pleasure in the thing you mind about, or pain if you are deprived of it: so in the end, it always boils down to whether you can feel pleasure and/or pain.

On the other hand, if you merely have a belief that your arm or leg was valuable but you have no emotional or physical pain from losing it, that belief does not in itself involve any kind of pain, and therefore does not qualify you for moral status.

What do you even mean by, 'moral status', exactly?

If one does have so-called 'moral status', then what does 'this status' allow and/or provide 'that one', exactly?

'Moral status' is a commonly used term in philosophy.
"An entity has moral status if and only if it matters (to some degree) from the moral point of view for its own sake. More specifically, one’s moral status consists in there being certain moral reasons or requirements, for one’s own sake, for how one is to be treated." (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/grou ... al-status/)

[Age]

Why do you say, 'someone with congenital analgesia may still be able to feel emotional pain'?

one can always feel emotional pain, except by choice alone.

I'm sure most people can, but I don't see how you can be sure that all conscious beings can.

Why did you say, all conscious beings', here, 'now'?

When you used the, 'someone', word, here, was this in relation to 'all conscious beings'?

If no, then what made you 'now' use this phrase and term?

Also, what makes you 'not sure' that all people can feel 'emotional pain'?

What possible thing in the whole Universe could prevent 'people' 'feeling' 'emotional pain', besides 'choice', itself?

If you 'mind' having your hand or leg cut off, presumably that 'minding' is in fact emotional pain, so it qualifies you for moral status.

But one might 'mind' having a leg or hand cut off not for any pain related issue but just for the simple fact of how those two things, literally, can come in 'handy'.

Handy for what?

To walk with, and, to, again literally, 'handle'.

For something you mind about? But that would require you to feel pleasure in the thing you mind about, or pain if you are deprived of it: so in the end, it always boils down to whether you can feel pleasure and/or pain.

1. Are you talking in reference to what is called 'physical' or 'emotional', here, exactly? Or, both?

On the other hand, if you merely have a belief that your arm or leg was valuable but you have no emotional or physical pain from losing it, that belief does not in itself involve any kind of pain, and therefore does not qualify you for moral status.

What do you even mean by, 'moral status', exactly?

If one does have so-called 'moral status', then what does 'this status' allow and/or provide 'that one', exactly?

'Moral status' is a commonly used term in philosophy.

What 'you' mean by, 'philosophy', here, 'I' do not.

Were 'you' aware that words are used differently, and, that without seeking clarification what 'another' means, exactly, can never be 'known', for sure?

"An entity has moral status if and only if it matters (to some degree) from the moral point of view for its own sake.

you do not seem to be aware that using the 'same word' in 'the definition' does not help nor suffice, at all.

More specifically, one’s moral status consists in there being certain moral reasons or requirements, for one’s own sake, for how one is to be treated." (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/grou ... al-status/)

There is just One way, only, that every thing 'should' be, or better worded, is 'best', treated.

Every thing 'has (a) purpose'.

There are reasons, or requirements, for every thing.

Therefore, absolutely every thing has, so-called, 'moral status', correct?