Comment on Multi-culturism by dickie

H

hyokkim · 7/16/2026, 9:35:52 AM · permalink

6 bumps

dickie · 7/16/2026, 11:17:51 PM · permalink

3 bumps

H

hyokkim · 7/16/2026, 11:40:39 PM · permalink

1 bump

H

hyokkim · 7/16/2026, 9:30:38 AM · permalink

4 bumps

dickie · 7/16/2026, 11:34:51 PM · permalink

The question is whether you can justify it consistently.

If humans receive rights because they possess logic and reasoning, then there should be a test. Pass it and you get rights. Fail it and you do not. That would exclude infants, people with severe cognitive disabilities, advanced dementia patients and probably a fair number of ordinary adults.

It would also mean that a superintelligent alien should receive rights, perhaps more rights than we do. At some point, a sufficiently conscious and self-aware AI would qualify too. Refusing rights solely because something is not biologically human would expose the standard as species loyalty rather than logic.

Nonhuman animals do not need every human right. A cow does not need voting rights, just as a toddler does not need the right to sign a mortgage. Rights can correspond to relevant capacities and interests. An animal capable of pain, fear and suffering has an interest in not being tortured or killed unnecessarily.

The secular position cannot scientifically prove that human rights exist. Rights are not visible in nature, measurable in a laboratory or encoded as physical laws. Nature does not grant rights to humans, animals, aliens or computers. Nature grants whatever you can possess and defend. Everything beyond that is a moral claim created and enforced by someone.

My answer is easier because I believe in God. Human beings have a distinct moral status because they are made in the image of God, not because every individual human passes an intelligence test. That preserves the rights of infants, disabled people and people with dementia without pretending they all possess equal reasoning ability.

It also gives humans duties toward animals. Animals may not have identical human rights, but they are living creatures created by God, not disposable objects whose suffering is meaningless.

Without God, you still have to draw the line somewhere, but you cannot call your preferred boundary scientifically proven or objectively natural. You chose it. Someone else can choose animals, aliens or conscious machines. The argument then becomes whose moral preference has enough power behind it.

1 bump

sacredcow · 7/16/2026, 12:47:37 PM · permalink

2 bumps

Signature