Neanderthal Rights

[Sean G.R.]

If we were to somehow bring back the Neanderthals from extinction, would they be afforded the same rights as human beings, or merely treated as animals? Or even just as a science experiment?

[zapatos]

I imagine they would have the same rights as human beings; some would be slaves, some would be taken advantage of to the benefit of the rich, and a few would be afforded as many rights as the rich or the majority.

[dimreepr]

54 minutes ago, Sean G.R. said:

If we were to somehow bring back the Neanderthals from extinction, would they be afforded the same rights as human beings, or merely treated as animals? Or even just as a science experiment?

Ethically (this is a moral maze) every living thing should be afforded the same rights, but what if I'm starving and my only chance of survival is to eat my pet pig?

Is it OK if I kill 'porky' humanely?

[Silvestru]

9 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Ethically (this is a moral maze) every living thing should be afforded the same rights, but what if I'm starving and my only chance of survival is to eat my pet pig?

Is it OK if I kill 'porky' humanely?

Who got your team (you and Porky) in this dire situation in the first place? The way I see it he is the victim here haha. 

All jokes aside it's kind of weird how even between animals there is a rights hierarchy based on their....intelligence I guess or how endangered they are.
Too bad that doesn't apply to humans. Your knowledge on a subject, let's say IQ should be the weight of the vote that you cast in a democracy.

I am not sure how intelligent a Neanderthal would be in our modern day society but they would absolutely be discriminated I think. They could not leave as equals  realistically speaking.

[dimreepr]

8 minutes ago, Silvestru said:

All jokes aside it's kind of weird how even between animals there is a rights hierarchy based on their....intelligence strength I guess or how endangered they are much they're needed.

1

 

 

FTFY

Edited May 23, 2018 by dimreepr

[Ten oz]

2 hours ago, Sean G.R. said:

If we were to somehow bring back the Neanderthals from extinction, would they be afforded the same rights as human beings, or merely treated as animals? Or even just as a science experiment?

All modern humans with European and Asian ancestry have Neanderthals in their family trees. Hundreds of millions of people alive today have genes passed down by Neanderthals. 

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

All modern humans with European and Asian ancestry have Neanderthals in their family trees. Hundreds of millions of people alive today have genes passed down by Neanderthals. 

But not all have the same rights.

[Ten oz]

9 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

But not all have the same rights.

Within the legal systems of each individuals country dichotomy based on genetics.  

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Within the legal systems of each individuals country dichotomy based on genetics.  

So, ethics is just what the majority says?

[NimrodTheGoat]

14 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

So, ethics is just what the majority says?

its relative (subjective?), yes

Edited May 23, 2018 by NimrodTheGoat

[dimreepr]

Just now, NimrodTheGoat said:

its relative, yes

Then ethics is a non-subject, it's just politics in fancy dress.

[NimrodTheGoat]

4 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Then ethics is a non-subject, it's just politics in fancy dress.

The Neanderthals would be tosseled by politics. If they prove to be a financial burden on society, I am certain most governments would refrain from giving them human rights.

[zapatos]

24 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

So, ethics is just what the majority says?

Ethics is what the individual says it is.

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, NimrodTheGoat said:

The Neanderthals would be tosseled by politics. If they prove to be a financial burden on society, I am certain most governments would refrain from giving them human rights.

Immigrants, statistically, are a financial benefit to any society; I'm certain they're persecuted for different reasons. 

4 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Ethics is what the individual says it is.

That depends on the individual.

[NimrodTheGoat]

Just now, dimreepr said:

Immigrants, statistically, are a financial benefit to any society; I'm certain they're persecuted for different reasons. 

Good point. 

 

[Ten oz]

36 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

So, ethics is just what the majority says?

Not sure what you mean. Currently, to my knowledge, there are not any ethical dilemma's any where based on Neanderthal genes. The point of my initial post was that Neanderthals were human and that all ethical standards attributed to humans should apply. 

Edited May 23, 2018 by Ten oz

[dimreepr]

7 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

The point of my initial post was that Neanderthals were human and that all ethical standards attributed to humans should apply. 

 

 

Indeed they should, but all ethical standards depend on politics, not ethics...

Edited May 23, 2018 by dimreepr

[Moontanman]

47 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

So, ethics is just what the majority says?

Yes in fact that is true, we are a social species and there are no objective ethics. We have to agree on what is ethical before we can have ethics. 

22 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Ethics is what the individual says it is.

No, it's what society decides ethics is. If society decides it's ok to steal from people too stupid to protect their valuables then it's ethical in that society. If a society decides to kill everyone that society deems unfit to live then it's ethical from their point of view. 

5 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Indeed they should, but all ethical standards depend on politics, not ethics...

Things like ethics and morals are what the majority say they are. Often such ideas change as people's knowledge and the application of empathy to that knowledge changes... 

[dimreepr]

3 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Things like ethics and morals are what the majority say they are. Often such ideas change as people's knowledge and the application of empathy to that knowledge changes... 

Politics. 

[Ten oz]

4 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Indeed they should, but all ethical standards depend on politics, not ethics...

Which is why I referred legal standards of countries throughout the world. Considering the presence of their genes in European and Asian populations I suspect populations with those ancestries would not treat Neanderthals like something less than human. Lets not forget that only within the last couple decades was it even conformed Neanderthals intermixed with Homo Sapiens. The revelation that hundred of millions alive today carry their genes was not one which has been met with horror or discrimination. I don't even view Neanderthals as entirely extinct considering they are part of the current gene pool. 

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Which is why I referred legal standards of countries throughout the world. Considering the presence of their genes in European and Asian populations I suspect populations with those ancestries would not treat Neanderthals like something less than human. Lets not forget that only within the last couple decades was it even conformed Neanderthals intermixed with Homo Sapiens. The revelation that hundred of millions alive today carry their genes was not one which has been met with horror or discrimination. I don't even view Neanderthals as entirely extinct considering they are part of the current gene pool. 

So, why are we arguing?

[Ten oz]

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

So, why are we arguing?

Beats me?

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

That depends on the individual.

Correct, each individual could have their own set of ethics.

59 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Yes in fact that is true, we are a social species and there are no objective ethics. We have to agree on what is ethical before we can have ethics. 

No, it's what society decides ethics is. If society decides it's ok to steal from people too stupid to protect their valuables then it's ethical in that society. If a society decides to kill everyone that society deems unfit to live then it's ethical from their point of view. 

Things like ethics and morals are what the majority say they are. Often such ideas change as people's knowledge and the application of empathy to that knowledge changes... 

So if the majority says it is ethical to steal, then you would claim those are your ethics too?

If the majority holds the same ethics, that may translate into into a law saying it is illegal to steal, but the law doesn't say 'everyone agrees it is unethical to steal'.

If the ethics of the majority were the same for the whole society, then we would never find a soldier debating a conscientious objector. Or a million other things that people disagree about.

Edited May 23, 2018 by zapatos

[OldChemE]

They should have the same rights, since they are also humans.  DNA studies tell us that neanderthal genes are present in much of society (I myself have 2.6% neanderthal genes).  This clearly indicates that neanderthals were able to successfully mate with other early ancestors of the rest of humans-- by definition this means they are of the same species, but maybe a subgroup.

[YaDinghus]

22 hours ago, Silvestru said:

I am not sure how intelligent a Neanderthal would be in our modern day society but they would absolutely be discriminated I think. They could not leave as equals  realistically speaking.

It's hard to be sure of the intelligence of any member of an extinct species - heck it's hard enough to know how intelligent other animals are that live with us today. The size of the Neanderthal brain cavity suggests they'd be of comparable intelligence to H. Sapien, and they also have the same FOXP2 (Wikipedia) variation as H. Sapien, so they should have been able to speak as we do. 

20 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Not sure what you mean. Currently, to my knowledge, there are not any ethical dilemma's any where based on Neanderthal genes. The point of my initial post was that Neanderthals were human and that all ethical standards attributed to humans should apply. 

Racial Bigots aren't usually very knowlegdeable in the field of molecular biology. If they were, they'd know that racism isn't supported by science. Also I totally agree

20 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Indeed they should, but all ethical standards depend on politics, not ethics...

If we didn't afford them the same rights as we have, it would be unethical to bring them back to life in the first place. And no, not all ethics are based on politics. Ethics isn't even about being good or evil, it's at its core about consistent codes of conduct, usually in regard to a set of values to be maximized or minimized. So, which values are we attempting to maximise/minimize, and where do Neanderthals fit into this if we de-extincted them?