If I create a child out of my DNA and my labor, then I don't own it, right?
If I make an android who is as smart as a human, then do I own it or not?
If I genetically engineer a chimpanzee to be as smart as a human, then do I own it?
What happens if the android or superchimp decides to work for someone else and pay its own way through the world? Does my right as creator prevail over its right to be free?
Susana: If I create a child out of my DNA and my labor, then I don't own it, right? If I make an android who is as smart as a human, then do I own it or not? If I genetically engineer a chimpanzee to be as smart as a human, then do I own it? What happens if the android or superchimp decides to work for someone else and pay its own way through the world? Does my right as creator prevail over its right to be free?
Right, no, no, kudos to Mr. Chips.
Assuming "smart as a human" means "conscious, moral agent", for which the scenario in the last sentence would be defacto proof. You have no property rights as a creator of a consciousness, whether the raw material is DNA or silicon.
The state won't go away once enough people want the state to go away, the state will effectively disappear once enough people no longer care that much whether it stays or goes. We don't need a revolution, we need millions of them.
histhasthai:Assuming "smart as a human" means "conscious, moral agent", for which the scenario in the last sentence would be defacto proof. You have no property rights as a creator of a consciousness, whether the raw material is DNA or silicon.
Does that also mean that a chimp who is born smart should get the same rights as a human?
Many kids these days work and I think do a worse job than some chimps would.
Susana:Does that also mean that a chimp who is born smart should get the same rights as a human?
Not only the same rights, he should become the master of all humans. Like in Planet of the Apes.
I would make a great bureaucrat. Wanna see? Click here. It's fun.
I qualified it with "conscious, moral agent". Being one of those is where rights come from, so, yes. Anything that can "decide[] to work for someone else and pay its own way through the world" is a moral agent - "decide" being the key word - or, if somehow not, you have no way to tell the difference anyway.
liberty student: Susana:Does that also mean that a chimp who is born smart should get the same rights as a human? Not only the same rights, he should become the master of all humans. Like in Planet of the Apes
Not only the same rights, he should become the master of all humans. Like in Planet of the Apes
That's enough spamming the board to push your own agenda, Dr Zeus.
histhasthai:I qualified it with "conscious, moral agent".
OK. When I build Frankenstein then I'll make sure he's a conscious, immoral agent. That way he remains my slave. I'll just program him not to turn on me.
If another being has the ability to reason like a human being, then it should have the rights of a human being. Animals don't have the same rights has humans because they don't have any concept of rights. Please see Ethics and Economics of Private Property by Hans Hoppe.
Susana: histhasthai:I qualified it with "conscious, moral agent". OK. When I build Frankenstein then I'll make sure he's a conscious, immoral agent. That way he remains my slave. I'll just program him not to turn on me.
You mistake the meaning of "moral agent", but then I'm beginning to doubt the seriousness and good faith of your efforts here.
histhasthai: You have no property rights as a creator of a consciousness, whether the raw material is DNA or silicon.
You have no property rights as a creator of a consciousness, whether the raw material is DNA or silicon.
I presume you mean that you have no property rights as a creator of consciousness if that consciousness has the ability to reason like a human. Otherwise I would say if you create a conscious being that has no ability to reason, you do have property rights in it.
Susana:If I make an android who is as smart as a human, then do I own it or not?
It may process information as fast and as accurate as a human, but to the extent it doesn't have conscious, emotions and all that, it's still a machine.
But to the point, if your creation has the capacity of claiming freedom, then I'd say you have to let it go. Just like a child can ask for emancipation from its parents.
With regard to any abuse to those creations, I certainely agree with having laws against animal cruelty, and it's certainely legitimate to provide protections against unnecessary force to those creations. How reaching they should be is very much into debate.
Equality before the law and material equality are not only different but are in conflict with each other; and we can achieve either one or the other, but not both at the same time. -- F. A. Hayek in The Constitution of Liberty
BlackSheep:But to the point, if your creation has the capacity of claiming freedom, then I'd say you have to let it go. Just like a child can ask for emancipation from its parents.
I agree; that's essential point. If it knows what freedom is, and claims it, you have no right to keep it.
leonidia:if that consciousness has the ability to reason like a human.
I'm meaning consciousness to subsume reason as well - I don't think they are seperable. It's certainly an arguable point, but when I say consciousness, that's how I mean it. And I did hedge a bit even then by including moral agency. And, actually, moral agency is enough on it's own, even if it could somehow exist sans reasoning faculties.
histhasthai:I'm meaning consciousness to subsume reason as well - I don't think they are seperable.
I don't see how you can say consciousness and reason are inseperable. An ant has consciousness, but it cannot reason. Its motions are instinctual, not the result of a process of ratiocination. It cannot act in the way a human does because action (in the praxeological sense) involves reason, and therefore it cannot claim any rights for itself. It has absolutely no means to understand the concept of rights, nor the means to claim them.
What I understand you to be saying is that the crucial test is whether the creature is either:
1) a conscious moral agent - i.e. (?) a creature that knows the difference between right and wrong (histhasal)2) has a concept of rights (leonidia)3) has the ability to reason like a human (leonidia)4) has the capacity to claim freedom (BlackSheep)
I find it hard to fit a baby into these of these categories. Can the test be made to exclude babies (without provoking a heated debate about abortion).
leonidia: histhasthai:I'm meaning consciousness to subsume reason as well - I don't think they are seperable. I don't see how you can say consciousness and reason are inseperable. An ant has consciousness, but it cannot reason. Its motions are instinctual, not the result of a process of ratiocination. It cannot act in the way a human does because action (in the praxeological sense) involves reason, and therefore it cannot claim any rights for itself. It has absolutely no means to understand the concept of rights, nor the means to claim them.
You're arguing against the wrong side of it. I don'