Morpheme: A concept that cannot be explained but can only be understood through use, for example [concept], Chinese and English [truth]
"Do babies and sheepdogs have human rights?"#
- When we discuss this issue, we must determine the context of the issue we are discussing. Here, we can find that the core of the issue 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 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 human; we cannot say that a humanoid robot with actions and behaviors identical to a human is a real person, so behavior and actions cannot be used as an absolute standard to judge whether an object is human. So, what can be used to judge whether an object is human?
An object that possesses all the identities of a human cannot be called a human until the concept of "human" is equivalent to all its identity objects.
- On the other hand, can we say that a microwave with a human soul is a human, or that 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 human before we can say that the object is human. For an object with no prior conditions, 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 human, this seems to be a testable standard. We can construct a recognized definition to test whether an object is human. However, according to this standard, are babies human? Are African grey parrots with the intelligence of a nine-year-old human? Even if an AI passes the test, is it human? Conversely, if a mentally disabled person fails the test, are they not human?
- In conclusion, it seems that we have no way of knowing whether the object we are observing has a human soul, nor is there a suitable external condition test that can 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 truly human. We don't even know if we ourselves are truly human. We can only use some experience and indirect methods to some extent to test whether the other party is 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 human; we cannot say that a humanoid robot with actions and behaviors identical to a human is a real person, so behavior and actions cannot be used as an absolute standard to judge whether an object is human. So, what can be used to judge whether an object is human?
- Due to the limitations of current knowledge, we cannot objectively judge whether a person is human. We can only construct a subjective definition through certain methods and then judge whether an object is human based on that definition. Therefore, discussing the definition of a person based on this is irrelevant, as long as you feel it is right.
- Setting aside the objective judgment, we can subjectively define a person. For example, the definition mentioned earlier, "an object with the ability to communicate, intelligence, and highly developed judgment is human," or we can say, "Only I am human, and everyone else is an NPC in Earth Online, not human." Or even, you can say, "Paper people are also human, so it is legal for me to marry my paper wife."
So, what can a person do?#
- After making our own judgment about whether a baby or a sheepdog is a person, it is obvious that we should think about 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 a person can do, to the point of being overwhelming, and even more things are being added.
- 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 make 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 here. Is citizenship considered 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, using freedom doesn't seem 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 these, but is freedom considered 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 BDSM, can we say that they violate 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 quoting seem to have not solved these problems, or at least they have not extended to this in a literal sense. 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 extensive as before, including 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 calculation rules of this system, and the calculation elements of this system. Now we have the key points summarized above, so we can analyze them based on real-life experience and finally construct them.
- 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 we cannot explain, but can only understand through its 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.
- the human right, which means the right that human can do sth, where we can see that right is a morpheme that we cannot explain, but can only understand through its usage. However, you can clearly understand its usage: for a morpheme called "right," we use it to indicate the boundary between justice and evil.
- For right, we have three calculation rules that make the system of right and wrong work:
- When you cross the defined boundary, evil will be imposed upon you.
- When we talk about a person's rights, it includes everything that does not involve persecution and destruction.
- 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 "calculation element" to determine the boundary of 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.
- The object can be a person or a natural process (physical 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 they have lost their free will.
- Contracts, we expand the definition of contracts. Family relationships come from contracts between family members, friendships come from contracts between friends, and the relationship between a country and its citizens comes from contracts signed by both parties. When a person signs a contract under legal conditions, they must fulfill the content 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 reevaluate these rules.
- 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.
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 hinder the elements of another set. When both parties sign a contract under legal conditions, the elements of this set will change according to the contract. This is what can be done within human rights.
- Obviously, natural disasters, instincts, and stupidity can harm human rights, including situations where your own instincts violate your own human rights.
- When a person with free will and clear malice deliberately violates human rights, but legally signs 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 check 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 human or not, and the contract that comes with it.
written by schele