Real universal rights

[Rational ethicist]

Hi, I have a very simple idea.
In traditional ethics, we start with for example a set of all important rights and then ask the question: which entities in the universe get all those rights? Then we see an expanding moral circle through history: from our family to our tribe to our fellow countrymen to all humans, and now expanding further to include some non-human animals. But this approach always ends up with an arbitrariness: why not expand the moral circle further, to all sentient beings, all living beings or all entities in the universe?
I propose to follow the reverse direction: start with the assumption that everyone and everything counts morally and is fully included in the moral circle. Everything, from humans to plants to computers to rocks to planets to molecules, deserves equal rights, without arbitrary exclusions. Then the question becomes: which rights should we grant to everyone and everything?
One such right could be the right to bodily autonomy, i.e. the right that your body should not be used as a means against your will for the ends of someone else. This right refers to 'body' and 'will', and hence is trivially satisfied for those entities (like rocks, plants, computers) who do not have a sense of their bodies and who do not have a subjective will. That right can only be violated if the entity is a sentient being. Whatever ways we use plants or computers, we do never use their bodies as a means against their will. But when we use sentient beings such as farm animals for food, we use their bodies against their will and hence we violate this right of farm animals. Hence, this moral theory results in veganism: we should abstain from eating animal products.
Question: which real universal rights would you propose? I.e. which rights should we grant to really everything in the universe? And what do you think of this approach, following the reverse direction?

[Alan Masterman]

An interesting question. Of course, everything depends upon your ability to define "moral". You suggest that we should assume, I think as an axiom, that every definable entity in the universe has "moral" value. How do you define this value, and how do you see it as arising from the fabric of the universe? What conditions does an entity need to satisfy, to qualify for "moral value"? Do they have to be sentient? Is it sufficient if, like a proto-earth clumping of hydrocarbon molecules, they might give rise to sentient life at a future stage? Is there a basis for assuming that sentient life has greater moral value than a non-organic molecular clumping?

[Rational ethicist]

An interesting question. Of course, everything depends upon your ability to define "moral". You suggest that we should assume, I think as an axiom, that every definable entity in the universe has "moral" value. How do you define this value, and how do you see it as arising from the fabric of the universe?

I think there are two propositions. One factual claim, that you assign moral value to at least someone or something (such as yourself, your friends...), and one normative claim, that you should not assign moral value arbitrarily. So the moral value comes from you (in general from everyone who can assign moral value). That is how it arises from the fabric of the universe. As i'm pretty sure you already do know what is moral value, because you already assign moral value, a definition is not really necessary. The crucial axiom is that you should not assign moral value arbitrarily. Because if you may assign it arbitrarily, then so may everyone else, and you cannot want that.

What conditions does an entity need to satisfy, to qualify for "moral value"?

as you have to assign moral value non-arbitrarily, no conditions are needed. Everyone and everything has moral value, or should be assigned moral value by you. Now the question becomes what that moral value implies when you have to assign it to everyone and everything, without arbitrary exceptions. Assigning moral value could mean granting certain rights, and then the question becomes which rights you should grant to everyone and everything.

Do they have to be sentient?

sentience easily becomes important, when you think about what rights you should grant. For non-sentient objects, the rights that you assign them will be always automatically satisfied. For example if the moral value implies that someone's welfare should be taken into consideration, then a chair and a cat have the same moral value, but as a chair is not sentient and hence has no welfare, you cannot possibly not take the chair's welfare into consideration. Whatever you do with the chair, you do not influence its welfare. But with the cat it is different, because the cat is sentient and has a non-trivial, variable welfare that you can affect. It is possible for you not to take the cat's welfare into consideration. The moral value could imply that a chair and a cat both have the same, equal right not to be set on fire against their will. But if you set a chair on fire, it is not against its will, because a chair has no will, so you cannot violate its rights or moral value. If you set a cat on fire, on the other hand, it may be against that cat's will, because a cat is sentient. Only sentient beings have a will.

Is there a basis for assuming that sentient life has greater moral value than a non-organic molecular clumping?

sentient life and non-sentient things have the same moral value, but that moral value has different implications for your behavior towards those entities.

[Samana Johann]

There are no, can not be, and will be nothing such as universal or inherent right, yet all have the "freedom" to make good choices, or bad. Nobody could govern or control such.

Idea of "I have a right", eg. grave wrong view, is base and cause of all wrong doings and harm.

It's simply a pseudo-liberal idea that made the whole world rushing down in high-speed, this "you have a right" cheating.

[psycho]

Hi, I have a very simple idea.
In traditional ethics, we start with for example a set of all important rights and then ask the question: which entities in the universe get all those rights? Then we see an expanding moral circle through history: from our family to our tribe to our fellow countrymen to all humans, and now expanding further to include some non-human animals. But this approach always ends up with an arbitrariness: why not expand the moral circle further, to all sentient beings, all living beings or all entities in the universe?
I propose to follow the reverse direction: start with the assumption that everyone and everything counts morally and is fully included in the moral circle. Everything, from humans to plants to computers to rocks to planets to molecules, deserves equal rights, without arbitrary exclusions. Then the question becomes: which rights should we grant to everyone and everything?
One such right could be the right to bodily autonomy, i.e. the right that your body should not be used as a means against your will for the ends of someone else. This right refers to 'body' and 'will', and hence is trivially satisfied for those entities (like rocks, plants, computers) who do not have a sense of their bodies and who do not have a subjective will. That right can only be violated if the entity is a sentient being. Whatever ways we use plants or computers, we do never use their bodies as a means against their will. But when we use sentient beings such as farm animals for food, we use their bodies against their will and hence we violate this right of farm animals. Hence, this moral theory results in veganism: we should abstain from eating animal products.
Question: which real universal rights would you propose? I.e. which rights should we grant to really everything in the universe? And what do you think of this approach, following the reverse direction?

In my impression, morality is that list of behaviors that outrages and turns the individuals of our social group into a threat to us. Morality tries to control aggression within our species.

Only the behaviors that the group considers negative are regulated by the moral rules.

There are no moral rules to regulate behaviors that are not negative.

A rule like "You must worship your god" actually hides a threat if you don't worship him.

The cultural development of the group will expand or decrease the set of moral rules for change that produces fear or disgust.

Humans are tribal. The instinct is to reinforce one's own tribe and lessen the rest of the tribes.

Empathy shows the limits of each tribe.

[Pattern-chaser]

Start with the assumption that everyone and everything counts morally and is fully included in the moral circle. Everything, from humans to plants to computers to rocks to planets to molecules, deserves equal rights, without arbitrary exclusions. Then the question becomes: which rights should we grant to everyone and everything?

Respect and consideration. IMO.

[Good_Egg]

Start with the assumption that everyone and everything counts morally and is fully included in the moral circle. Everything, from humans to plants to computers to rocks to planets to molecules, deserves equal rights, without arbitrary exclusions. Then the question becomes: which rights should we grant to everyone and everything?

So the first paragraph of your philosophy is that every "thing" has rights.

And then the second paragraph looks at candidates for universal rights, and they all say something like "...against their will" and are thus trivially satisfied for non-sentient "things".

So by the time you get to the third paragraph you're only talking about the rights of thinking beings ?

And could get to the same point more directly by rooting rights in Theory of Mind - only those entities that one recognises as like oneself get consideration of their rights ?

Or is there some value to these first two paragraphs that I'm not seeing ?

The other question is whether you think it is morally forbidden to kill only those beings who can conceive of their own non-existence and therefore will it or not ?

[Rational ethicist]

So the first paragraph of your philosophy is that every "thing" has rights.

And then the second paragraph looks at candidates for universal rights, and they all say something like "...against their will" and are thus trivially satisfied for non-sentient "things".

So by the time you get to the third paragraph you're only talking about the rights of thinking beings ?

indeed. The idea is to look for rights that everyone can accept to be universalized, i.e. everyone can want that those rights apply to everything. Consider the right not to be killed: that is trivially satisfied for non-living entities. But if living entities have this right, we face a problem: we can no longer kill and eat plants, so we die from starvation. So we could slightly change/refine this right into the right not to be killed against one's will. This is better, because first, being killed is bad only when it is against one's, and second, we can still kill and eat plants (because those plants cannot be killed against their will, as they have no will). So we can refine rights until we arrive at a set of rights that can be universally accepted. Yes, those refined rights might always include the condition "against one's will", meaning that they become only non-trivial for sentient beings. Still, you can look for other candidate universal rights that do not include conditions that refer to having a will or sentience. I leave that up to you (personally I haven't found one yet).

And could get to the same point more directly by rooting rights in Theory of Mind - only those entities that one recognises as like oneself get consideration of their rights ?

that seems more difficult, because describing "like oneself" in a non-arbitrary way is difficult or impossible. What does "like oneself" mean? Does it refer to skin color? Why skin color and not hair color? And if skin color, which colors exactly? Do people get rights only when they have a skin color like myself (as in racism), where "like myself" means under light with certain frequencies, the skin color emits light with frequencies within certain ranges? The same goes for mental properties like oneself: which mental properties, why these properties?

Or is there some value to these first two paragraphs that I'm not seeing ?

The value is that you know in advance that you avoid unwanted arbitrariness, that you avoid discrimination.

The other question is whether you think it is morally forbidden to kill only those beings who can conceive of their own non-existence and therefore will it or not ?

could be, if you could define a universal right such that that right is only non-trivial for beings who can conceive non-existence. Don't know yet how to formulate such right: the right no to be killed against....??

[Count Lucanor]

Hi, I have a very simple idea.
In traditional ethics, we start with for example a set of all important rights and then ask the question: which entities in the universe get all those rights? Then we see an expanding moral circle through history: from our family to our tribe to our fellow countrymen to all humans, and now expanding further to include some non-human animals. But this approach always ends up with an arbitrariness: why not expand the moral circle further, to all sentient beings, all living beings or all entities in the universe?
I propose to follow the reverse direction: start with the assumption that everyone and everything counts morally and is fully included in the moral circle. Everything, from humans to plants to computers to rocks to planets to molecules, deserves equal rights, without arbitrary exclusions. Then the question becomes: which rights should we grant to everyone and everything?
One such right could be the right to bodily autonomy, i.e. the right that your body should not be used as a means against your will for the ends of someone else. This right refers to 'body' and 'will', and hence is trivially satisfied for those entities (like rocks, plants, computers) who do not have a sense of their bodies and who do not have a subjective will. That right can only be violated if the entity is a sentient being. Whatever ways we use plants or computers, we do never use their bodies as a means against their will. But when we use sentient beings such as farm animals for food, we use their bodies against their will and hence we violate this right of farm animals. Hence, this moral theory results in veganism: we should abstain from eating animal products.
Question: which real universal rights would you propose? I.e. which rights should we grant to really everything in the universe? And what do you think of this approach, following the reverse direction?

The whole idea is preposterous. Rights are not attributes of things, but social norms. The only entities capable of reasoning and coming up with the abstract notion of rights are humans, and they are the only ones able to exercise those rights, the rest are mere recipients of concessions granted to them by way of other humans who have some interest in such things. There can be social norms related to them, but is up to humans to decide, that is, still in the name of human interests. It’s not that humans have to comply with some natural law.

[Rational ethicist]

The whole idea is preposterous. Rights are not attributes of things, but social norms.

that is probably true, sure, but how would that change my idea? The question "which rights?" now simply become the equivalent question "which social norms?" How would you determine which social norms are good?

The only entities capable of reasoning and coming up with the abstract notion of rights are humans, and they are the only ones able to exercise those rights,

also most likely true, but again the question is "which rights?" And "who gets rights?" You may be the only one who can exercise a right, but that does not yet mean you are the only one who gets, receives or has that right.

the rest are mere recipients of concessions granted to them by way of other humans who have some interest in such things

these received concessions are what I called rights. So who receives concessions, and which concessions? To answer these questions, I proposed a specific approach that avoids discrimination.

There can be social norms related to them, but is up to humans to decide, that is, still in the name of human interests.

why in the name of human interests? I often decide things that are not in my interest.
Why "human" and not "primate" or "white male" or "adult" or whatever? You and I are primates, there are no non-primates who can decide social norms. Not all primates can decide social norms, sure, but similarly not all humans can decide social norms.

It’s not that humans have to comply with some natural law.

but they have to comply with logic, and with the fundamental assumption to avoid unwanted arbitrariness (e.g. in assigning rights). If you don't comply with the "law" to avoid unwanted arbitrariness, then I am also allowed not to comply, because you are not so special that you are the only one who is allowed not to comply. As a result I am allowed to introduce some unwanted arbitrariness in my social norms, in my ethics. I may for example treat you arbitrarily in ways that you do not want. As you cannot want that, you have to comply with that "law".

[Count Lucanor]

The whole idea is preposterous. Rights are not attributes of things, but social norms.

that is probably true, sure, but how would that change my idea? The question "which rights?" now simply become the equivalent question "which social norms?" How would you determine which social norms are good?

It has to do with the dynamics of human societies, depending on many material and cultural factors. There are no such things as rights in raw nature.

The only entities capable of reasoning and coming up with the abstract notion of rights are humans, and they are the only ones able to exercise those rights,

also most likely true, but again the question is "which rights?" And "who gets rights?" You may be the only one who can exercise a right, but that does not yet mean you are the only one who gets, receives or has that right.

My point is that it is implicit to the definition of "right" its active ownership and autonomous application. If I don't get to use my right, but it's up to other entity to decide when and how it is applicable, then it is not my right, but that other entity's right.

the rest are mere recipients of concessions granted to them by way of other humans who have some interest in such things

these received concessions are what I called rights. So who receives concessions, and which concessions? To answer these questions, I proposed a specific approach that avoids discrimination.

To discriminate just means identifying a difference and treating things accordingly, we do that all the time in order to go on with our daily lives, it does not necessarily mean something morally wrong. You might give food and shelter to your cat, but not your neighbor's, and that's fine. You might want to kill any cockroach that gets into your house, but not a bird that does the same. You're deciding, following your own human desires, not in compliance with some natural law that comes with cats, cockroaches and birds.

There can be social norms related to them, but is up to humans to decide, that is, still in the name of human interests.

why in the name of human interests? I often decide things that are not in my interest.
Why "human" and not "primate" or "white male" or "adult" or whatever? You and I are primates, there are no non-primates who can decide social norms. Not all primates can decide social norms, sure, but similarly not all humans can decide social norms.

By human interests I mean the result of the intersection between general human interests and the particular interests of individuals. When you do something not in your best interest, it often means that you're renouncing it in favor of other person's interest, either because of compliance with a social norm that seeks the best public interest or because it helps you with another personal interest that you give more priority. In any case, human interest is always involved and it is only humans that can reflect and decide on social norms, and apply them. Every human being can make decisions on social norms, such as not complying with them, but by living in society, the norms are there to decide upon.

It’s not that humans have to comply with some natural law.

but they have to comply with logic, and with the fundamental assumption to avoid unwanted arbitrariness (e.g. in assigning rights). If you don't comply with the "law" to avoid unwanted arbitrariness, then I am also allowed not to comply, because you are not so special that you are the only one who is allowed not to comply. As a result I am allowed to introduce some unwanted arbitrariness in my social norms, in my ethics. I may for example treat you arbitrarily in ways that you do not want. As you cannot want that, you have to comply with that "law".

Sure, and we must live with the consequences of our decisions and actions. Also, rights come along with duties, obligations, that only mean something in the human environment. Animals and plants have no sense of rights and duties, so even if you concede "rights" to them, they themselves don't feel any urge to comply. More importantly, humans don't expect them to comply either and they will not be held responsible for their behavior. That's why they don't get any rights to start with.

[Rational ethicist]

that is probably true, sure, but how would that change my idea? The question "which rights?" now simply become the equivalent question "which social norms?" How would you determine which social norms are good?

It has to do with the dynamics of human societies, depending on many material and cultural factors. There are no such things as rights in raw nature.

But we don't need the existence of rights in raw nature. My approach is and shouls also be applicable to rights as conventions or as social norms

My point is that it is implicit to the definition of "right" its active ownership and autonomous application. If I don't get to use my right, but it's up to other entity to decide when and how it is applicable, then it is not my right, but that other entity's right.

my argument is applicable to both kinds of rights: the right that you have and you get to use (active ownership), and the right that you are granted by others, that you receive from others (passive ownership)
Consider the rights of babies and children, who lack active ownership and autonomy. They don't even understand the notion of rights.

To discriminate just means identifying a difference and treating things accordingly, we do that all the time in order to go on with our daily lives, it does not necessarily mean something morally wrong.

That is not a useful definition of discrimination, because then discrimination is not always wrong. I want a definition according to which you say that it is always wrong. Otherwise racists and sexists could claim that racism and sexism are not always wrong.
Here is a better definition
Discrimination of individual (or group) A relative to B is a systematically different treatment of A and B, whereby
B gets more advantages than A,
A has a lower moral status than B (e.g. A has less intrinsic value or weaker rights than B) in the sense that one would not tolerate swapping positions (treating A as B and B as A), and
there is no justification or the justification of the difference in treatment refers to morally irrelevant criteria (properties that are not acceptable motives to treat A and B differently in the concerned situation), whereas A and B both meet the same morally relevant criteria to treat and value them more equally.

You might give food and shelter to your cat, but not your neighbor's, and that's fine.

indeed, and that is not discrimination according to the above definition. I would tolerate swapping positions: I tolerate that my neighbor gives food and shelter to his cat but not my cat.

You might want to kill any cockroach that gets into your house, but not a bird that does the same.

also not necessarily discrimination according to the above definition.

You're deciding, following your own human desires,

why do you wrote "human"? What are human desires? If there exists something like human desires, then there also exists mammalian desires, white male desires, primate desires, vertebrate desires,... You are a primate, so can you give an example of primate desires?

By human interests I mean the result of the intersection between general human interests and the particular interests of individuals.

ok, and by primate interests you mean the result of the intersection between general primate interests and the particular interests of individuals. So can you give an example of primate interests?

In any case, human interest is always involved

ok, if that is true, then it is equally true that primate interest is also always involved.

and it is only humans that can reflect and decide on social norms, and apply them.

true, but similarly: it is only primates that can reflect and decide on social norms. There are no non-primates who can do so.

Every human being can make decisions on social norms, such as not complying with them, but by living in society, the norms are there to decide upon.

this is not true. There are humans who cannot make decisions on social norms.

Also, rights come along with duties, obligations,

not necessarily: depends on who has those duties. I think children and babies have rights that do not come along with them having duties. Children have rights without duties. But you are right in the sense that the right of a child comes along with a duty of you: you have a duty to respect the right of that child.

that only mean something in the human environment.

why is that? And what is a human environment. If such an environment exists, than also e.g. a primate environment, a mammalian environment, a vertebrate environment,... exists. What do you mean with a mammalian environment? (you are a mammal, so I guess you should know)

Animals and plants have no sense of rights and duties

the same goes for babies, but still those babies have rights.

, so even if you concede "rights" to them, they themselves don't feel any urge to comply.

ok, but irrelevant. Unless you are now saying that babies don't have rights? Because they don't feel an urge to comply?

More importantly, humans don't expect them to comply either and they will not be held responsible for their behavior. That's why they don't get any rights to start with.

now you are extremely close to denying rights to babies, children, many mentally disabled persons,...

[Good_Egg]

I suspect this whole discussion is pointless without clarifying what sort of "rights" are being discussed. I've come across at least 4 different concepts:
- legal rights
- moral rights
- customary rights
- practical rights (i.e. rights which are enforced).

One theory is that a good society is one in which these coincide.



These do not always coincide.

[Rational ethicist]

I suspect this whole discussion is pointless without clarifying what sort of "rights" are being discussed. I've come across at least 4 different concepts:
- legal rights
- moral rights
- customary rights
- practical rights (i.e. rights which are enforced).

One theory is that a good society is one in which these coincide.

These do not always coincide.

I don't know what customary rights are, but my idea of universal rights applies to both legal, moral and practical rights for sure.

[Good_Egg]

I propose to follow the reverse direction: start with the assumption that everyone and everything counts morally and is fully included in the moral circle. Everything, from humans to plants to computers to rocks to planets to molecules, deserves equal rights, without arbitrary exclusions. Then the question becomes: which rights should we grant to everyone and everything?

I don't know what customary rights are, but my idea of universal rights applies to both legal, moral and practical rights for sure.

It applies to legal rights ? You think every polity should legislate for all the planets and the fish in the sea and all the molecules in the universe, over which it has no jurisdiction ?

Doesn't make any sense to me.