You may be aware of the phrase philosophical zombie (p-zombie), meaning someone who is indistinguishable from a normal human being, but who supposedly lacks some construct such as qualia or a soul.
The p-zombie is used in thinking about those constructs. For instance, suppose philosophers decide you are a p-zombie. Even though they can’t tell from your body or your behavior or anything physical, they conclude on grounds of logic alone that you don’t have a soul.
So that thought experiment asks philosophical questions such as: Is there a physical test for the presence of a soul? If there is no test, how can we possibly know whether an entity (human or alien) has or doesn’t have a soul? In those circumstance is it even moral, according to Christian values, to try to judge, or is this something only God ought decide?
As far as I know, Christian values only consider two classes of entity in terms of who is owed as “ethical” treatment - God and humans. It does not offer anything along the lines of a physical test to determine whether some particular individual is owed ethical treatment prior to living out that obligation.
You, yourself, admitted that p-zombies could exist, in human form, such that we couldn’t know whether they were human or not. However, the ethical treatment of other humans does not depend upon this determination. Such treatment is not accorded to other humans based upon whether they pass some test or other. It is simply accorded based upon the presumption of their being human.
Demons ostensibly have souls, and perhaps of a higher order than humans, but their having a soul is not what determines the treatment owed to them
In other words, Christian values do not accord worth because of some test for a soul, but rather on the humanity of the person. Christianity, in terms of revealed teachings, is entirely mute on the question of according worth to other hypothetical beings. Now that may be because the revealed teachings are based upon certainty that such entities do not exist, but for sure, Christianity does not advocate testing to determine human status before endowing worth. It isn’t approached in those terms at all.
It is when we begin to use such presumptions that we get into trouble and, for example, end up killing millions upon millions of humans precisely because such claims are being made that we cannot know for certain that some particular humans (the unborn) have souls and because of this essentially misconceived notion that soul determination is within our prerogative that they don’t pass our arbitrary criteria for “personhood” and, therefore, we are in a position to deny them rights to life. This is completely off the rails, as far as Christianity is concerned and entirely beyond our pay grade.
As far as Christianity is concerned, there are two classes of beings that are morally relevant and that relevancy creates obligations on every individual human - God and other humans. All humans are presumed to be human and, in fact, we have a moral obligation to act on that presumption.
Angels are quite capable of looking after themselves and, no doubt, consequences will be forthcoming if the level of respect shown them is not appropriate, but no where is there a set of moral principles regarding what is our obligation towards them or any other class of being.
Treat other human beings as we would treat ourselves and render to God our entire will, mind and heart - that is all we need to know. There are no moral obligations with regard to any other being - although pragmatic determinations are always possible.
?
)? It is not like you are actually doing anything productive here from your point of view… And it doesn’t look like much of entertainment (you give an impression of being more angry than all other participants combined, and you lose most of the fun by refusing to hear out counterarguments)…