Sorry if my question was weird.
And no, I am not some human’s pet that just became intelligent and took over their Lemmy account. 😺
I would say yes.
But… that would include them contributing to society. Not just the household.
I think the point is that for them to have rights requires that they be autonomous in society.
You don’t complain that “kids don’t have rights!” Because of course they don’t. They’re children. Incapable of voting/driving/owning property.
If they are intelligent but still physically incapable of these things then they would just be considered to have the same rights as children do. They’re citizens but not independent.
deleted by creator
It’s a good argument, if they were smarter than humans but didn’t integrate into human society so we give them the right to vote? I’d say not.
Depends if they can work. If they contribute then they can be equal. But if we still provide everything for them then they’re under the control of their providers.
This sounds kinda wrong, if you would put that logic in other circumstances we are at the argument the “anti-women-voting-right” argument from the crazy lady: Women should only be allowed to vote if they work. Or old people who retire, should they not be allowed to vote anymore? People who have medical conditions and so on…
Well I wouldn’t do it on an individual basis it would be based on the majority of the species. If most dogs are as smart as humans and they work and care for themselves then they should have equal rights. But if most dogs are pets and only a small percentage work then they should not have equal rights.
If they contribute they can be equal? We don’t even say the same about humans.
But most humans do contribute and work and that’s why we give equal rights.
I think animals should have more rights already. It’d be nice if they could talk or something to help people realize they’re actually living things worthy of empathy.
But to your point, cats and dogs are already among the better-treated animals in large parts of the world.
Compared to animals who get farmed (especially factory farmed), or get the death sentence label of a pest or invasive species.
I mostly agree with you, but protections aren’t the same thing as rights. Protections are a one way street, rights are a two way street.
If a human has deficiencies from birth or after an accident, should they have the same rights under laws?
I mean, cats are pretty much little space wizards and they know damn well they’ll have to start finding odd cat jobs and paying rent if we catch on to them being more intelligent than us. They got it figured out.
There was a post the other day about whether anyone else has noticed a significant decline in the reading comprehension of the general population, even on sites that skew towards the nerdy like Lemmy, and here we are, with a significant number of top comments that don’t know what “should” means.
I think they know what it means, but they just wanna complain about quasi-related stuff.
If that was the case you would assume they would lead with “Should, but won’t because cynicism.” And several do, because they understand the assignment!
They will probably be their own nation with their own laws on what is fair and what is not based on their values. I assume a new sentient specie will not have the same views and values as humans.
So those who remain in their country of origin, during the first waves of this development, would surely have to be given he right to vote etc?
They are already sentient but have not the intelligence of a average developed human. Pigs for example are sentient but their intelligence is like that of a 3 year old human.
All animals are sentient. Smarts/intelligence is what varies. We got the most of the smarts that we know of.
I knew how to read some words at 3 years old
killing pigs feels wrong
Lab meat would only benefit first world countries. The others would have to pay fortunes for licensing the techniques, and that’s if the developing countries ever get to the point where they can use the process.
Of course, that’s why we must opensource the research.
You’re funny if you think that will ever happen. No 1st world country will miss the chance to foster the economic dependency of developing nations.
I mostly agree with the comment, however, mammals are sentient. Our current laws are massively influenced by us not really understanding them and by ideas such as non-humans essentially being “living machines”, created as servants to humanity.
Other mammals are sentient, but not sapient so far as we know, with the possible exception of some species of dolphins and whales, but this has yet to be proven. (It is pretty much proven that apes, monkeys, etc are not sapient)
What’s they key distinguisher of sapience? There are different measures, but “theory of mind” is the one that seems most relevant. The ability to think about what someone else is thinking. This seems to correlate also with the ability to ask questions and tell stories, and we currently know of no other being besides humans that can do either— again, research into dolphins and whales continues, and there might be potential there, but we’re pretty darn certain nothing on land has it.
It’s an interesting idea. If they always were intelligent, then yes, they’d probably have their own nation, or maybe they’d even be integrated with us in a society that accommodates for both of our form factors, but I’m sure there’d be terrible racism concerns because if we’re this bad to people who look relatively similar to each other, then we’d be just terrible to a very different intelligent race.
But, if they suddenly became sentient through some sci Fi artifact or event, that’d be a whole other thing, and the process and debate of giving them rights and what to do about it would be complex and an ethical minefield on what to do or don’t do. Probably planet of the apes. But with cats and dogs.
They’ll be persecuted and discriminated
Yes, intelligence is intelligence. There’s nothing about the rest of the body that the brain is encased in that makes one more or less deserving of rights.
Looks like something someone without opposable thumbs would type.
I’ll have you know I meow at the ship computer.
While not technically, practically they do yes. If someone has developmental issues they generally aren’t afforded the same rights as the average adult human.
So a teenager that isn’t old enough to vote but is mentally intelligent enough to operate by themselves in society (so like 15 or so) should have more rights than they do?
If we’re going purely based on intelligence then your argument doesn’t hold water, as intelligent people who are too young to be full citizens capable of voting, military service, owning property, etc. Are still dependent on their guardians.
How would this be any different? Intelligent handicapped people exist and don’t get every opportunity that others do.
And no, I am not some human’s pet that just became intelligent and took over their Lemmy account. 😺
If one of my cats took over my Lemmy account, you’d know it for sure. One of them would be always silent, lurking; the other would be spamming stupid shit about yoghurt, towels and boxes, in German.
If cats and dogs became as intelligent as humans, should they have the same rights as humans under law?
Under the moral premise that intelligent beings should get similar rights, yes. Thankfully people don’t usually follow this premise - otherwise mentally disabled people would suffer even more.
Instead I think that most people follow some sort of “naive Realpolitik” - we’re humans and we defend human interests, that’s it. In this case cats/dogs would likely get rights above most other animals (as allied species), but still lower than our own.
I’m not sure on what I would defend in this case.
Why not? Some cultures such as the Greeks already did this for dolphins because of the idea dolphins have human level intelligence.
Yes, absolutely they should have rights.
In some countries (like France, iirc), chimps are recognized as having civil rights. They don’t have identical rights to humans of course. They don’t have the same rights as a human, but they are recognized as having rights as individuals.
Although the US hasn’t recognized that, yet, it has effectively banned chimpanzee research. You basically cannot get funded for chimpanzee research unless you a) demonstrate they are necessary for the research and b) you pass a review board similar to a human subjects review board who are charged with maintaining ethical research standards. I don’t do primate research, so I’m not sure of all of the details, but with human subjects boards you have to show that not only does your research. avoid harming humans, the subjects themselves must benefit from your work, if it is health related. When the new rules were passed, most research chimps were retired to preserves
So if there was a l other animal with fully human intelligence, there’s legal precedent to recognize that they have inherent dignity and rights.
And they haven’t signed the International Declaration of Human Rights. Apparently declaring work and housing as human rights “goes too far”.
No country opposed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Every country that was a UN member at the time either voted in favor of it, or abstained because they believed it didn’t go far enough to include denying human rights to nazis and fascists.
Although, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights itself isn’t legally binding. It’s just a joint statement by UN members declaring what is considered human rights. It’s not like a violation of International Laws if they just ignore what they said. (Even if it were an international law, who’s gonna enforce it?)
The Third General Assembly adopted the Declaration just before midnight on December 10, 1948 with a vote of 48 to zero and eight abstentions. The abstentions came from the USSR, the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (UKSSR), the BSSR, Yugoslavia, Poland, Saudi Arabia and South Africa.
The Six Communist Abstentions
The Communist abstentions coalesced around the view that the Declaration did not go far enough. They had repeatedly made the point that to protect human rights adequately, the Declaration needed explicitly to condemn fascism and Nazism. Since it did not do that, they would abstain from the vote. The deep animosity that exists between Marxist egalitarianism and Nazi racism led the USSR delegation to propose amendments to what became Articles 19 and 20 stating that fascists and Nazis did not have human rights to freedom of expression and association. When those amendments were rejected, the Communists, rather than abstaining, which was their custom, voted against these articles.
https://ccnmtl.columbia.edu/projects/mmt/udhr/udhr_general/drafting_history_10.html
Humans go out of their way to mistreat and abuse other humans. If cats and dogs became as intelligent as humans, some dickhead leader of a leading religious cults would label them satan/ abomination/ equivalent b.s. and call to have them exterminated. and/or capitalists would lobby to deny them rights and pass laws to profit off them & their labour.
No. There are already plenty examples of this. Thinking this will happen in the near future (100 years) is a fairytale.
As long as you don’t have vocal cords capable of creating effective speech and you don’t have appendages with which is possible to create and use tools you’re fucked.
Examples? Plenty, let’s go:
Pig: As intelligent as a 6 year old. What we do to them makes Auswitz looks like summer camp.
Dolphins: pushed into a bay and murdered by the hundreds. Thousands (millions?) die each year in the nets of our floating fishing factories. Their intellect is at least that of a 6 year old and most probably way more.
Whales: hunted to virtual extinction. Way more intelligent then a 6 year old.
Elephants: show clear sociological traits. Remembers stuff over a long time. Grieve over death. Hunted for their big ass teeth.
Apes: our close relatives. Hunted for meat. Most species of them easily operate at 10-12 year old level. Can use tools but can not create them. At the current path they’re on in the wild (extinction). They will never reach the stone age.
We rule. Harshly.
We have our place on the planet purely by right of conquest.
It’s fundamentally immoral what we do to animals but people just ignore it, accept it as a necessary evil, or somehow block the empathy from their brain applying to animals.
or somehow block the empathy from their brain applying to animals.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance#Meat-eating
that may exacerbate things.
Don’t forget our corvid friends. Crows and ravens are very good at problem solving and abstract thinking.
Octopuses too. Excellent problem solving, retaining long-term and short-term memory, recognizing how mirror works and so forth.
But they’re delicious.
Absolutely depraved.
Absolutely.
Humans would never grant rights to a species that could outbreed us in a decade.
These species kill us back if they have the chance. Maybe the golden rule should apply. Treat other species how you wish to be treated. At the same time, we can barely exist with each other. Let alone other species.
Whoa, elephants have ass teeth?
I believe chimps? have learned to make tools.
