Humans and other sentient beings

[Bagheera]

In another thread the question of sentient beings came up, and I presented a short (maybe not exhaustive list) of different sentient beings. I asked how these different entities should be treated.
There was no answer. So I will try in a new thread.

1. biologically human where the DNA is within the tolerance of the so far examined humans.
2. biologically human looking mutant, where the DNA is outside the known limits.
3. artificially grown human-like androids, whose DNA is close to the human DNA to the extent that they can “interbreed”.
4. artificially grown human like androids, whose DNA is incompatible with human DNA.
5. animals, which became sentient due to some natural, random mutation.
6. animals, which became sentient due to some artificially induced mutation.
7. animals (or biological beings), which are naturally sentient (space aliens).
8. hybrid beings, partially containing human tissue and partially composed of electronic equipment (cyborgs).
9. fully electronic sentient beings.

There is one thing in common among these beings: they behave like “normal humans do”. They have a “nervous system”, which allows them to think, to reason, which makes them capable of distinguishing themselves from the surrounding environment (self-conscious).

All these belong to the class of “sentient” beings, and all should be treated just like sentient humans should be treated – in my opinion, of course.

What is your opinion?

 

[PaulfromIowa]

All these belong to the class of “sentient” beings, and all should be treated just like sentient humans should be treated – in my opinion, of course.

Human beings and animals should be treated the same? Equal rights? Entitlement programs for animals?

 

[Qoeleth]

In another thread the question of sentient beings came up, and I presented a short (maybe not exhaustive list) of different sentient beings. I asked how these different entities should be treated.
There was no answer. So I will try in a new thread.

1. biologically human where the DNA is within the tolerance of the so far examined humans.
2. biologically human looking mutant, where the DNA is outside the known limits.
3. artificially grown human-like androids, whose DNA is close to the human DNA to the extent that they can “interbreed”.
4. artificially grown human like androids, whose DNA is incompatible with human DNA.
5. animals, which became sentient due to some natural, random mutation.
6. animals, which became sentient due to some artificially induced mutation.
7. animals (or biological beings), which are naturally sentient (space aliens).
8. hybrid beings, partially containing human tissue and partially composed of electronic equipment (cyborgs).
9. fully electronic sentient beings.

There is one thing in common among these beings: they behave like “normal humans do”. They have a “nervous system”, which allows them to think, to reason, which makes them capable of distinguishing themselves from the surrounding environment (self-conscious).

All these belong to the class of “sentient” beings, and all should be treated just like sentient humans should be treated – in my opinion, of course.

What is your opinion?

That is a good question. But I am sure DNA has nothing to do with the answer. The easy answer, for a Christian, is to say that humans have souls.

But, if confronted with an ape with a human-like IQ, my feeling is that it would be entitled to all the respect due to a human being- except, it should be prevented from breeding.

A fully sentient electronic being, even if it had human-like intelligence, would not have the same emotions as humans (since this come largely from our physical make up and instincts). I would say it had no rights.

On the whole, I think that sentient non-human beings would be a very, very bad thing, and any project which tried to create them (or any form of life, os quasi-life) would be extremely unethical. If there were ethical problems with killing such beings (which I concede could well be the case), they would have to be prevented from reproducing.

 

[JerryZ]

In another thread the question of sentient beings came up, and I presented a short (maybe not exhaustive list) of different sentient beings. I asked how these different entities should be treated.
There was no answer. So I will try in a new thread.

1. biologically human where the DNA is within the tolerance of the so far examined humans.
2. biologically human looking mutant, where the DNA is outside the known limits.
3. artificially grown human-like androids, whose DNA is close to the human DNA to the extent that they can “interbreed”.
4. artificially grown human like androids, whose DNA is incompatible with human DNA.
5. animals, which became sentient due to some natural, random mutation.
6. animals, which became sentient due to some artificially induced mutation.
7. animals (or biological beings), which are naturally sentient (space aliens).
8. hybrid beings, partially containing human tissue and partially composed of electronic equipment (cyborgs).
9. fully electronic sentient beings.

There is one thing in common among these beings: they behave like “normal humans do”. They have a “nervous system”, which allows them to think, to reason, which makes them capable of distinguishing themselves from the surrounding environment (self-conscious).

All these belong to the class of “sentient” beings, and all should be treated just like sentient humans should be treated – in my opinion, of course.

What is your opinion?

I will try to address the “Fully Electronic Sentient beings” question.
Where does the sentient capability of such an entity comes from?

A machine depends from a collection of circuits but more importantly from the Operating System that drives the circuits. So you see you cannot claim that shuch an “entity” has a soul. It merely mimicks sentience, it does not have intrinsically.
No matter how complicated you make it, at the base of it all it will be the kernel that is man made. And as I hope you know we are incapable of producing a Soul.

–

 

[GEddie]

Soul is life. A being that is alive, whether human or animal, has soul. A machine however highly programmed does not.

An alien being, if alive, would be a “sentient being” if it evidenced a cognitive mind, however, R2D2 would not.

ICXC NIKA

 

[kantus12]

As regards the electronic sentient being question, I think the answer to that question is heavily dependent on one’s philosophical outlook. If you hold that the rational part of human thought is simply and solely the result of a complex combination of physical states, then of course it is conceivable that a fully electronic being could in theory obtain consciousness, provided that it was sufficiently complex. However, quite a few philosophers (and most Catholics, whether or not they’re aware of it) reject that possibility, holding that rational thought is not reducible to these states, or the interaction between them. Now, I am not much of a philosopher, never having studied the topic or read any text on the matter more substantial than The Philosophy Files and a few blogs. Therefore, I cannot really argue the merits of one viewpoint over the other.

However, I think I can draw the line between the two schools of thought and show that one’s opinion on the possibility of fully sentient electronic life is dependent on which school one falls into.

 

[inocente]

I would agree with utilitarian ethics on this - if it looks like a sentient being and behaves like a sentient being then it must be treated as a sentient being:

The day may come, when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been withholden from them but by the hand of tyranny. The French have already discovered that the blackness of the skin is no reason why a human being should be abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor. It may come one day to be recognized, that the number of the legs, the pilosity of the skin, or the termination of the os sacrum, are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being to the same fate. What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason, or, perhaps, the faculty of discourse? But a full-grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an infant of a day, or a week, or even a month, old. But suppose the case were otherwise, what would it avail? the question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer? - Jeremy Bentham, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (1789)

 

[Bagheera]

Paulfromiowa:

Human beings and animals should be treated the same? Equal rights?

The word is “sentient animals”. If I would about step on a cockroach, and it would cry out: “please don’t hurt me, I would die”, I would yank my foot away, and accept it as an “honorary human”.

---

Qoeleth:

That is a good question. But I am sure DNA has nothing to do with the answer. The easy answer, for a Christian, is to say that humans have souls.

If only, just once, I would see a coherent definition of “soul” (I have seen several ones so far all advocated by catholics), and some compelling evidence that a “soul” exists, then such a claim would have to be taken seriously. Up until that point it firmly belongs to the “who the heck cares?” category.

Qoeleth:

But, if confronted with an ape with a human-like IQ, my feeling is that it would be entitled to all the respect due to a human being- except, it should be prevented from breeding.

You mean: “castration” if necessary? Even if that being expressed desire to breed?

Qoeleth:

A fully sentient electronic being, even if it had human-like intelligence, would not have the same emotions as humans (since this come largely from our physical make up and instincts). I would say it had no rights.

How can you tell the difference between “natural” emotions, and extremely well “emulated” emotions? A good actor can “pretend” any emotion.

Qoeleth:

On the whole, I think that sentient non-human beings would be a very, very bad thing, and any project which tried to create them (or any form of life, os quasi-life) would be extremely unethical. If there were ethical problems with killing such beings (which I concede could well be the case), they would have to be prevented from reproducing.

Why this xenophobia? If you think that outright killing might be considered unethical, then what kind of ethical argument can you bring up prevent its reproduction?

Anyhow you at least attempted to reflect on some points. Thank you for that. What about the rest? Naturally sentient (alien) life? Cyborgs? Naturally mutated animals?

---

kantus12:

However, I think I can draw the line between the two schools of thought and show that one’s opinion on the possibility of fully sentient electronic life is dependent on which school one falls into.

Good post. Thanks. What about the other sentient beings? Any thoughts on those?

 

[Bagheera]

onocente:

I would agree with utilitarian ethics on this - if it looks like a sentient being and behaves like a sentient being then it must be treated as a sentient being:

The day may come, when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been withholden from them but by the hand of tyranny. The French have already discovered that the blackness of the skin is no reason why a human being should be abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor. It may come one day to be recognized, that the number of the legs, the pilosity of the skin, or the termination of the os sacrum, are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being to the same fate. What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason, or, perhaps, the faculty of discourse? But a full-grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an infant of a day, or a week, or even a month, old. But suppose the case were otherwise, what would it avail? the question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer? - Jeremy Bentham, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (1789)

Thank you very much.

 

[kantus12]

As to the other points, Bagheera:

1. I don’t understand how this isn’t simply a bog-standard human.
2. If its DNA is “outside the known limits”, then would we really be able to call it “human”?
   Sure, it might be a hominid, or a bipedal ape-like animal, but would that be enough for humanity? Science was never my strong suit, so please clear up my confusion if I’ve made
   some elementary error in my understanding.

3 & 4. I don’t know what you mean by “android”, but I’ve always used it to mean “humanoid robot.” If you mean that, then I can’t see how you can coherently call them artificially grown, instead of built. If you don’t mean that, I fail to see how 3 is different from a clone or test-tube baby, which I’m fairly sure are human. Again, please correct me if I’m misunderstanding this.

5 & 6 both come under the umbrella of my first post. One’s philosophy is very important when it comes to deciding one’s opinion of these questions. If rationality is reducible to a number of physical states and their interactions, then of course it is possible for these things to exist, and they would be sentient. However, if rationality is not reducible to states, then either it isn’t possible for these things to happen (i.e animals cannot be rational) or else whatever caused us to become rational has also happened to them.

7: Since I use “human being” to mean “rational animal”, then yes, I’d concede that these are humans. On a related note, I’d also mention that these wouldn’t pose any problems for the Church unless we knew that A) They needed redemption (had been subject to the Fall), B) Needed redemption in the same manner and mode as we did (Jesus), and C) Had been denied this. But since we haven’t even established that they exist yet, I think those are rather hasty questions to be asking.

8: If a human being has their arm replaced with a prosthetic, I don’t think they cease to be a human. However, you can clearly see in that case that the artificial thing is clearly a substitute, something external added into what is normally the human body. They started as ordinary humans and had some accident of their nature changed, but that doesn’t change what they are.

Again, please correct any misunderstandings on my part. I’m not particularly fond of this area of thought, so I rarely spend much time on it. I think we’d need to establish that such creatures are there, or even possible, before we start worrying about how we treat them. Of course, it doesn’t do much harm to speculate…

P.S. I think the whole “some animals are smarter than some people” objection is a bit suspect. The validity of the question appears, once again, to depend on one’s metaphysics. If, for the sake of argument, a dog is conscious and a newborn isn’t, it must be remembered that the dog is fully grown, has become a complete dog and cannot go any further. The child has not become fully actualised yet, but has the capacity to become much, much more intelligent than the dog will ever be. If you believe that the difference between these two things is merely a difference in degree, that it could just as easily have been dogs that tamed us and built cities, that given enough time they could easily become rational, then the question is valid. If you believe that the difference is a difference in kind, that even if dogs went on forever they would never become rational, then the question is utterly invalid, because it is comparing two things that are not like each other. The fact that some people failed to become fully actualised does not make them dogs.

As I said, it is beyond my powers to defend or attack either of these positions, merely to lay out a rough outline of what they are. Thanks for the interesting thread, Bagheera. You always provide something worth chewing over, even if I don’t like your metaphysics. You’re a damn sight better than the New Atheists, that’s for sure.

 

[Bagheera]

kantus12:

1. I don’t understand how this isn’t simply a bog-standard human.

But it is. I had to include the “garden-variety” humans, too, for the sake of completeness.

kantus12:

1. If its DNA is “outside the known limits”, then would we really be able to call it “human”?
   Sure, it might be a hominid, or a bipedal ape-like animal, but would that be enough for humanity? Science was never my strong suit, so please clear up my confusion if I’ve made
   some elementary error in my understanding.

You are just fine in your understanding. The taxonomy is a somewhat useful, but arbitrary subdivision of beings into categories. By my standards this being would be a “mutant human”.

kantus12:

3 & 4. I don’t know what you mean by “android”, but I’ve always used it to mean “humanoid robot.”

Androids are artificial biological beings, who have human appearance and human nervous system. For example (but this is just an example) they can be originated by gene-splicing or “manufacturing” a “zygote”, creating an artificially growing being. Whether we call this process “building” or “growing” is not really important. One of the two different hypothetical beings has a DNA which allows “it” to interbreed with humans, while the other one’s DNA is incompatible.

kantus12:

5 & 6 both come under the umbrella of my first post.

Actually, this is quite interesting. There are higher apes, “who” can conduct conversations via sign language. They certainly have a lower level of sentience. They do not exhibit a sign of abstract thinking (as far as I know), however, some autistic people cannot think in abstractions either. If they hear the word “dog”, for example, they do not have an “abstract dog” in their mind, rather they “review” all the actual dogs they have ever seen. So the problem is not too farfetched. I remember a somewhat satirical proposition, which said: “the difference between apes and humans is that we can experiment on them, while they cannot experiment on us”.

kantus12:

7: Since I use “human being” to mean “rational animal”, then yes, I’d concede that these are humans. On a related note, I’d also mention that these wouldn’t pose any problems for the Church unless we knew that A) They needed redemption (had been subject to the Fall), B) Needed redemption in the same manner and mode as we did (Jesus), and C) Had been denied this. But since we haven’t even established that they exist yet, I think those are rather hasty questions to be asking.

Very well. Of course we only deal with thought experiments here. (As the sign said on the old pinball machines: “For amusement only”)

kantus12:

8: If a human being has their arm replaced with a prosthetic, I don’t think they cease to be a human. However, you can clearly see in that case that the artificial thing is clearly a substitute, something external added into what is normally the human body. They started as ordinary humans and had some accident of their nature changed, but that doesn’t change what they are.

Agreed! But let’s bring this to the limit. Substituting a few organs with artificial counterparts does not pose a problem. Substituting ALL the organs – except the brain – is not a problem either. (This is a cyborg) Therefore we can conclude that it is our brain / mind which makes us human. Let’s make one more step. Let’s substitute a neuron with an electronic counterpart. Would that one artificial neuron “deprive” us our human nature? Clearly not. Now we can continue, and keep substituting neurons with electronic pieces, which work the same way… What is the resulting “being”? You guessed! A fully artificial being, sometimes called a “robot”.

kantus12:

Again, please correct any misunderstandings on my part. I’m not particularly fond of this area of thought, so I rarely spend much time on it. I think we’d need to establish that such creatures are there, or even possible, before we start worrying about how we treat them. Of course, it doesn’t do much harm to speculate…

More power to you, since you were (so far) the only one who explored the possibilities.

kantus12:

P.S. I think the whole “some animals are smarter than some people” objection is a bit suspect. The validity of the question appears, once again, to depend on one’s metaphysics. If, for the sake of argument, a dog is conscious and a newborn isn’t, it must be remembered that the dog is fully grown, has become a complete dog and cannot go any further.

Don’t forget that there are levels of consciousness. The quotation simply asserted that a fully grown dog has a higher level of consciousness than a newborn human – nothing else. It did not say or insinuate anything further than that.

kantus12:

The child has not become fully actualized yet, but has the capacity to become much, much more intelligent than the dog will ever be. If you believe that the difference between these two things is merely a difference in degree, that it could just as easily have been dogs that tamed us and built cities, that given enough time they could easily become rational, then the question is valid.

It would need much more than training and taming dogs to get to a human level. However, an artificially induced mutation could do the trick. (Have you read the novel “City” by Clifford D. Simak? An excellent story.)

kantus12:

As I said, it is beyond my powers to defend or attack either of these positions, merely to lay out a rough outline of what they are. Thanks for the interesting thread, Bagheera. You always provide something worth chewing over, even if I don’t like your metaphysics. You’re a damn sight better than the New Atheists, that’s for sure.

That is the nicest thing anyone has ever said to me. Thank you for your contribution. If you have other thoughts you wish to share, I will be happy to see them.

 

[polytropos]

There is one thing in common among these beings: they behave like “normal humans do”. They have a “nervous system”, which allows them to think, to reason, which makes them capable of distinguishing themselves from the surrounding environment (self-conscious).

Your argument seems to be based on an equivocation. You say that these are sentient creatures, but you also say that what they have in common is that they behave like “normal humans” do. But sentience has nothing to do with behavior.

We know that humans are sentient and trivially behave like humans do. But suppose some x is sentient and not necessarily human. It does not follow that x behaves like a human. (A huge number of animal kinds are sentient; there is no evidence that any of them can behave like humans, since there are an inconceivably large number of activities that humans can engage in that other animals cannot. The similarities, like tool-use and sign language in apes, are low-level and generally contrived; there is little evidence, for instance, that such activities are not imagistic rather than intellectual.)

Likewise, suppose some y behaves like a human. It does not follow that y is sentient, for the behavior could be present without “feeling,” “perceiving,” or “experiencing subjectivity” (all internal, subjective characters, which need not accompany the exterior behavior).

There is simply no one-to-one correspondence between sentience and behaving like a human. (This is on top of the problem of the bare assertions that a “nervous system” is a sufficient condition for thinking and reasoning, and that there is such a thing as a “fully sentient electronic being.” Such claims merely beg the question on the most contentious topics in philosophy of mind… and the ones with which materialism the most struggles.)

 

[N0X3x]

That is a good question. But I am sure DNA has nothing to do with the answer. The easy answer, for a Christian, is to say that humans have souls.

Yes, but then what is a human? You might say “a human being is an animal with a spirit”, but how would we know for sure which animals have spirits? This line becomes especially blurred if one considers the possibility of implementing cross-species genetics.

 

[Qoeleth]

If only, just once, I would see a coherent definition of “soul” (I have seen several ones so far all advocated by catholics), and some compelling evidence that a “soul” exists, then such a claim would have to be taken seriously. Up until that point it firmly belongs to the “who the heck cares?” category.

You mean: “castration” if necessary? Even if that being expressed desire to breed?

How can you tell the difference between “natural” emotions, and extremely well “emulated” emotions? A good actor can “pretend” any emotion.

Why this xenophobia? If you think that outright killing might be considered unethical, then what kind of ethical argument can you bring up prevent its reproduction?

Anyhow you at least attempted to reflect on some points. Thank you for that. What about the rest? Naturally sentient (alien) life? Cyborgs? Naturally mutated animals?

I admit that the answer about the ‘soul’ is something I cannot explain rationally- for example, in what sense would the soul of a donkey with human intelligence be different from a regular human? I don’t know.

I admit, I cannot find a rational basis for distinguishing between organic life, and non-inorganic ‘life’ (e.g. robots).

Sentience is the cause of all suffering. Therefore, unless it is ordained by God for His own purposes (unknown to us), we should not create it. But, killing often involves anguish beforehand, then physical pain, and then often some mourning for those who are left. For this reason, it seems unethical to kill sentient beings (or even to castate them). I suggest keeping them in pleasant captivity, but where they will not be able to reproduce.

If they are merely computers, and can be switched off painlessly, that would certainly be the best and kindest thing.

It is not xenophobia- my approach is that these there poor wretches have no obligation or higher cause to exist (since God has not ordained their lives), so best let them go into peaceful non-existence, or remove their sentience.

Aliens would seem to be created by God. If sentient aliens arrive, I suggest a course of passive non-resistance. If they want to live here in peace, let them. If the want to take over, let them. By neither actively resisting nor co-operating (but just passively ignoring), the question of moral rights is avoided.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

All these belong to the class of “sentient” beings, and all should be treated just like sentient humans should be treated – in my opinion, of course.

What is your opinion?

Not treated like sentient humans, but certainly with respect as they belong to God. They are God’s creatures entrusted to our care.

 

[edwest2]

Opinions don’t matter. Animals are only animals. They can feel pain and have emotions but they are not human beings.

There will never be a point where it would be desirable to genetically modify an animal. This sort of thing rightly belongs in comic books. Such speculation has nothing to do with the present or near future. I create fictional worlds and such a thing would be nosensical. In reading the literature where animals have been trained to do helpful things by humans, they do not lose their animal nature. I would not regard an android as anything other than an elaborate device. If I found it smashed one day, oh well. I won’t have the money or need to buy another. They may have hazardous utility uses if developed but that’s it. Humans will always be in control.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Bagheera]

polytropos:

Your argument seems to be based on an equivocation.

Since these are all thought experiments, which are sometimes the subject of science fiction, I use the word in the widest possible sense. Some of its synonyms: “aware, self-aware, cognizant, mindful” etc.

---

Qoeleth:

I admit that the answer about the ‘soul’ is something I cannot explain rationally- for example, in what sense would the soul of a donkey with human intelligence be different from a regular human? I don’t know.

I admit, I cannot find a rational basis for distinguishing between organic life, and non-inorganic ‘life’ (e.g. robots).

Precisely my sentiment. Thanks for the sharing it.

Qoeleth:

Sentience is the cause of all suffering.

In what sense? Even if one uses sentience in the strictest possible sense (and I use it in the widest possible one) there is no logical reason why sentience should cause suffering. Sentience is more than having pain receptors. And having pain receptors is not necessary to be “aware, self-aware, etc…"

Qoeleth:

It is not xenophobia- my approach is that these there poor wretches have no obligation or higher cause to exist (since God has not ordained their lives), so best let them go into peaceful non-existence, or remove their sentience.

I see. But why not let them make that decision? On what ground can you assume that you are in the position to make judgment about: “what is in their best interest?”. I think that you are extremely pessimistic about existence. (However, I admit that I am very optimistic.) And I hate the “nanny-state” to make all those of decisions in my “best” interest. Don’t you? I recall the pretty good prayer: “Please Lord, save me from the people, who wish to save me from myself!”

---

Michael Mayo:

Not treated like sentient humans, but certainly with respect as they belong to God. They are God’s creatures entrusted to our care.

Would you care to elaborate a little? We kill animals for our nutritional needs, and there is no problem there (in the mind of most people). What if that animal would beg you to spare its life? We also buy and sell animals. What if that animal would be aware and ask you not to treat it like that? What if one of them would quote the famous “life, libery and pursuit of happiness” to you?

---

edwest2:

There will never be a point where it would be desirable to genetically modify an animal. This sort of thing rightly belongs in comic books. Such speculation has nothing to do with the present or near future. I create fictional worlds and such a thing would be nonsensical. In reading the literature where animals have been trained to do helpful things by humans, they do not lose their animal nature. I would not regard an android as anything other than an elaborate device. If I found it smashed one day, oh well. I won’t have the money or need to buy another. They may have hazardous utility uses if developed but that’s it. Humans will always be in control.

It would be interesting to see your reaction if some incredibly advanced space aliens came to Earth, and treat us exactly like you would treat animals and androids. I bet you would be “annoyed”. And I would suggest to stay away from the indiscriminate use of “never”. All those people who made such predictions ended up with (virtual) egg on their face.

 

[Bahman]

A being with free will cannot be designed therefore cannot be produced.

 

[Qoeleth]

I see. But why not let them make that decision? On what ground can you assume that you are in the position to make judgment about: “what is in their best interest?”. I think that you are extremely pessimistic about existence. (However, I admit that I am very optimistic.) And I hate the “nanny-state” to make all those of decisions in my “best” interest. Don’t you? I recall the pretty good prayer: “Please Lord, save me from the people, who wish to save me from myself!”

---

Yes, that is quite true. Once a being exists, and is sentient, it has the fundamental right of self-determination, including whether it continues to exist.

I suppose my position is more that we should not create (either biologically or electronically) sentient beings, as all sentient beings are subject to suffering. To do so is like abortion in reverse. In abortion, a being is deprived on its right to self-determination. The same applies to creating artificial life- existence is imposed on something without its consent.

Now, I recognise that logically, the same principle, objecting to artifical life, could be applied to natural procreation, since also it involves imposing sentience, and hence suffering, on someone. But I raise this only hypothetically…

 

[Bagheera]

Qoeleth:

Yes, that is quite true. Once a being exists, and is sentient, it has the fundamental right of self-determination, including whether it continues to exist.

I suppose my position is more that we should not create (either biologically or electronically) sentient beings, as all sentient beings are subject to suffering. To do so is like abortion in reverse. In abortion, a being is deprived on its right to self-determination. The same applies to creating artificial life- existence is imposed on something without its consent.

Now, I recognise that logically, the same principle, objecting to artifical life, could be applied to natural procreation, since also it involves imposing sentience, and hence suffering, on someone. But I raise this only hypothetically…

Excellent hypotheticals! But I am not sure what precisely you mean by suffering. Do you think only of mental anguish, fear and/or anticipating something “unpleasant” coming down the pipeline? Or do you also talk about extended physical pain as well? The first one is restricted to sentient beings, while the other one happens to all beings with a nervous system, which includes pain receptors. Theoretically there can be biological sentient being which do not have pain receptors (vegetation and trees come to mind).

Would you clarify, please?