schele

Morpheme: A concept that cannot be explained but can only be understood through usage, for example [concept], Chinese and English [truth]

"Do babies and sheepdogs have human rights?"#

• When we discuss this question, we must determine the context in which we are discussing the question. Here, we can find that the core of the question is the definition of "human", which refers to the broad sense of "human" recognized by the current public. So, how can we say that an object is a human?
  • We cannot say that a portrait taken by an AI-generated character that looks exactly like a real person is a real person, so appearance cannot be used as an absolute standard to judge whether an object is a human; we cannot say that a humanoid robot with actions and behaviors identical to a human is a real person, so actions and behaviors cannot be used as an absolute standard to judge whether an object is a human. So what can be used to judge whether an object is a human?

    An object that possesses all the identities of a human cannot be called a human until the concept of a human is equivalent to all its identity objects.

  • On the other hand, can we say that a microwave oven with a human soul is a human, or a person whose soul has been transferred to a dog is a human? But how can we judge the existence of a soul? Moreover, here we know that the object is a human before we can say that it is a human. For an object with no premise, based on the current situation, we cannot observe whether the other party has a soul or not.
  • When someone says that an object with the ability to communicate, intelligence, and highly developed judgment is a human, this seems to be a testable standard. We can completely construct a recognized definition to test whether an object is a human. However, according to this standard, are babies humans? Are African grey parrots with the intelligence of a nine-year-old human? Even if an AI passes the test, is it a human? Conversely, if a mentally disabled person fails the test, does that mean they are not human?
  • In conclusion, it seems that we have no way of knowing whether the object we are observing has a human soul, and there is no suitable external condition test that can be used to determine this. In the end, we can only compromise and tell ourselves that our current knowledge has not developed to the point where we can recognize whether an object is a real human. We don't even know if we ourselves are real humans. We can only use some experience and indirect methods to some extent to test whether the other party is a human.
• Due to the limitations of current knowledge, we cannot objectively judge whether a person is a human. We can only construct a subjective definition through certain methods and then judge whether an object is a human based on that definition. Therefore, discussing the definition of a person based on this is irrelevant, because as long as you feel it is right.
  • Setting aside the goal of objective judgment, we can subjectively establish a definition of a person. For example, the definition mentioned earlier, "an object with the ability to communicate, intelligence, and highly developed judgment is a human," or we can say, "Only I am a human, and everyone else is an NPC in Earth Online, not a human." Or even, you can say, "Paper people are also humans, so it is legal for me to marry my paper wife."

So, what can a person do?#

• After we have made our own judgment on whether a baby or a sheepdog is a person, the obvious next step is to consider what they, or rather humans, can do.
• Without discussing history, based solely on the current consensus in ethics recognized by the public, there are many things that humans can do, so many that it becomes overwhelming, and even more so over time.
  • We have the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the description of human rights on Wikipedia, which states that human rights are numerous, including but not limited to: freedom, health, speech, assembly, property ownership, and citizenship. But we cannot: kill, steal, or rob...
• However, this seems a bit off. We were supposed to come up with a definition, but why did we start giving examples? What we need is a sentence that can summarize everything that can be done and cannot be done, not more and more examples. So, what is the key to summarizing?
  • Is it freedom? We have the freedom to do anything, but this freedom does not include infringing on the freedom of others. But it seems that something is missing. Can citizenship be considered as the freedom to do anything? No, it should be a contract. When a person signs this contract, they should abide by it. But what about contracts other than citizenship? According to this, it seems that using freedom is not accurate.
  • Is it property rights? Freedom is our property, life and health are our property, and others cannot use them without our permission. This seems to encompass them, but should freedom be considered as property?
  • On the other hand, can we say that a natural disaster or an earthquake violates human rights? At the same time, if a couple voluntarily and rationally engages in slave-like treatment in the aspect of sex, can we say that they are violating human rights? If a person fabricates a plot that harms others' human rights, can it be considered a violation of human rights?
• The "human rights" we are currently referring to seem to have not solved these problems, or at least they have not been extended to this extent in literal terms. Therefore, it is time for us to construct (or understand and summarize) a new and more appropriate concept of human rights.
  • It cannot be as inclusive as before, adding so many things.
  • It must encompass all aspects that we can currently think of, including sex, contracts, natural disasters, etc.

What can a person do?#

• Currently, for an ethical judgment system, we need the basic goals of this system, the rules of calculation, and the elements of calculation. Now we have the key points summarized above, so we can analyze and construct based on real-life experience.
• From a linguistic perspective, human rights is a morpheme, so we can only point out its usage.
  • the human right, which means the right that human can do sth, where we can see that right is a morpheme that cannot be explained, but can only be understood through usage. However, you can clearly understand its usage: for a morpheme called "right", we use it to indicate the boundary between justice and evil.

    "the" also is a morpheme. Anyway there's no need to explain it in this case.

• For rights, we have three rules of calculation that make the system of rights and wrongs work:
  1. When you cross the defined boundary, evil will be imposed upon you.
  2. When we talk about a person's rights, it includes everything that does not involve persecution and destruction.
  3. In addition, we need to achieve fair judgment. When the judgment imposed on a person exceeds what is acceptable, the object of the judgment will be considered evil.
• Finally, we arrive at the ultimate "elements of calculation" to determine the boundary between justice and evil.
  • Property and ownership, everything a person currently possesses, including everything attached to their body, wealth, freedom of action and thought, and interpersonal relationships. When a person's property and ownership are damaged, it means their human rights have been violated.
    • Objects can be humans or natural processes (physical natural environment), and it should be noted that stupidity and instincts can also be objects that cause harm.
  • Free will, the thought process brought about by a person's soul that does not include their instincts. Therefore, thinking beyond instincts is free will. When a person's thoughts are controlled by sexual desire, fear, or unrecognized habits, we say that they have lost their free will.
  • Contracts, we expand the definition of contracts. Family relationships come from the contracts between family members, friendships come from the contracts between friends, and the relationship between a country and its citizens comes from the contracts signed by both parties. When a person signs a contract under legal circumstances, they must fulfill the contents of the contract. Otherwise, it is a violation of the human rights of the party that signed the contract.
    • Legal means that both parties willingly sign the contract without deception or stupidity. For children who do not have mature free will, they only have a set of rules that do not harm them. When they have free will, we should re-examine these rules.

Conclusion#

• Therefore, for a person, what they can do is a set of elements. In general, the elements of this set do not include actions that prevent others from doing things. When both parties sign a contract under legal circumstances, the elements of this set will change according to the contract. This is what can be done within human rights.
  • Obviously, natural disasters and instincts, as well as stupidity, can harm human rights. This also includes situations where your own instincts violate your own human rights.
  • When a person with free will and clear malice deliberately violates human rights, but has legally signed a contract with the party whose rights are violated, then they have not violated human rights.
• When you believe that a baby or a sheepdog is a person, then you should examine their actions to see if they violate human rights. However, in real life, we do not do this because we use another set of things that are easily confused with human rights to interact with them. Our habits and practices cleverly allow us to avoid this kind of thinking, but we can still use intuition to point it out.
• That is the love that is given unilaterally, ignoring whether the other party is a human or not, and the contract that comes with it.
  written by schele