Neanderthal Rights

[dimreepr]

16 minutes ago, YaDinghus said:

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.

As I said.

16 minutes ago, YaDinghus said:

And no, not all ethics are based on politics.

I said depend not based.

24 minutes ago, YaDinghus said:

So, which values are we attempting to maximise/minimize, and where do Neanderthals fit into this if we de-extincted them?

Why are you asking me?

[Ten oz]

21 minutes ago, YaDinghus said:

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. 

Do you consider Neanderthals to be extinct? As OldChemE posted they are 2.6% neanderthal. Here in the U.S. recently as the 1980's such a percentage of African American would have bee enough for one to legally be classified as African American in Southern States. Linked below is an article covering an actual 1984 court proceeding.

Quote

 

Lawyers for a woman who found out six years ago that her birth certificate had classified her as ''colored'' have asked a state appeals court to allow her to change the designation to ''white.''

The hearing Nov. 14 before the Louisiana Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit was the second on the plea by Susie Guillory Phipps, a 50- year-old Sulphur, La., resident who is the great-great-great-great-granddaughter of a black slave and a white plantation owner.

Mrs. Phipps, whose skin is white, found that she was not legally white six years ago when she was getting a passport to fly to South America.

She failed in a suit to have declared unconstitutional a state law classifying as ''colored'' anyone with as little as one thirty-second black ancestry. However, the Louisiana Legislature last year repealed the 13-year-old law, which was designed to give Louisiana a legal description of what constitutes black and white for challenges of racial designations on birth certificates. Until the law was passed, ''any traceable amount'' of black heritage was enough to warrant a designation of black. Court Asked to Set Standards.

https://www.nytimes.com/1984/11/23/us/woman-seeks-change-in-racial-designation.html

 

 

[YaDinghus]

34 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Do you consider Neanderthals to be extinct? As OldChemE posted they are 2.6% neanderthal. Here in the U.S. recently as the 1980's such a percentage of African American would have bee enough for one to legally be classified as African American in Southern States. Linked below is an article covering an actual 1984 court proceeding.

I see where you're going with the court proceeding; that is quite extreme and I am so happy to live in Europe. I do consider Neanderthals to be extinct in the sense that their specific genome from 40,000 years ago doesn't exist in a complete set in a single living human individual, and even that wouldn't be enough, as there are practically extinct species on our planet of which small groups still live, but the groups aren't large enough to be considered stabile and diverse. The other question is: if Neanderthals lived today, would they even be considered a species seperate from H. Sapien, or just another race (from a geneticist's POV)

Edited May 24, 2018 by YaDinghus

[Moontanman]

21 hours ago, zapatos said:

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

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.

I didn't say the ethics of the majority are ethical to everyone, nor did I claim to have any ethical view, but if you were raised in a society that told you your whole life it was ethical to kill everyone's first born then you would believe that to be ethical, you might personally object, it's unlikely if you were raised to believe it, but it would be considered ethical by your society. 

Their are societies even today that consider somethings to be ethical that we would probably not consider ethical.  

[Ten oz]

40 minutes ago, YaDinghus said:

if Neanderthals lived today, would they even be considered a species seperate from H. Sapien, or just another race (from a geneticist's POV)

Not all humans with Neanderthal DNA carry the same genes. It is believed at least 20% of the Neanderthal genome exists today. While 1-3% is the common today Otzi the ice man (5,000 old) had double that amount. Go back 10,000 years and the percentage must have been even greater still. Neanderthals are part of the modern human story. Because of this I can't see any rational reason why Neanderthals would be considered separate. They were interbred with us (homo sapiens) and would surely do so today if around. Same goes for Denisovans.

[YaDinghus]

9 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Not all humans with Neanderthal DNA carry the same genes. It is believed at least 20% of the Neanderthal genome exists today. While 1-3% is the common today Otzi the ice man (5,000 old) had double that amount. Go back 10,000 years and the percentage must have been even greater still. Neanderthals are part of the modern human story. Because of this I can't see any rational reason why Neanderthals would be considered separate. They were interbred with us (homo sapiens) and would surely do so today if around. Same goes for Denisovans.

Well I didn't know the exact number but I figured as much. 

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, YaDinghus said:

if Neanderthals lived today, would they even be considered a species seperate from H. Sapien, or just another race

Does it matter? 

[zapatos]

23 hours ago, zapatos said:

Ethics is what the individual says it is.

 

23 hours ago, Moontanman said:

No...

 

30 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

I didn't say the ethics of the majority are ethical to everyone...

My mistake then. Your response to my statement made me believe otherwise but I guess I read it wrong.

9 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Does it matter? 

Since Neanderthals don't exist, then ultimately no, it doesn't matter.

However, from the perspective of exploring genetics, perspectives of race, and human psychology, it is an interesting exercise.

[Moontanman]

5 minutes ago, zapatos said:

 

 

My mistake then. Your response to my statement made me believe otherwise but I guess I read it wrong.

 

5 minutes ago, zapatos said:

 

 

My mistake then. Your response to my statement made me believe otherwise but I guess I read it wrong.

Not my morning evidently, coffee is required for thinking, Unless you know of an objective ethics someplace we can only have ethics when we agree on what it is.. 

Edited May 24, 2018 by Moontanman

[Ten oz]

6 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Does it matter? 

After further consideration I find the question fascinating in the context of both Religion and Philosophy. In religion, particularly Arbrahamic ones, humans are treated as something special and individually unique from other animals created by a supreme entity. In philosophy many people, not all,  often constraint consciousness to being a uniquely human experience. It would be interesting to see how the existence of other humans would impact those ideas of thought. 

[zapatos]

19 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

 

Not my morning evidently, coffee is required for thinking, Unless you know of an objective ethics someplace we can only have ethics when we agree on what it is.. 

That was kind of my point. We don't have to agree on anything. We can each have our own ethics (which I believe is the norm). We may agree on many ethical issues, but agreeing is not required for anything.

Edited May 24, 2018 by zapatos

[dimreepr]

8 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

After further consideration I find the question fascinating in the context of both Religion and Philosophy. In religion, particularly Arbrahamic ones, humans are treated as something special and individually unique from other animals created by a supreme entity. In philosophy many people, not all,  often constraint consciousness to being a uniquely human experience. It would be interesting to see how the existence of other humans would impact those ideas of thought. 

In terms of religion, it seems very close to what many people see as race, i.e. different to us. In terms of philosophy, a far more interesting question would be a mechanical entity that could equal human intelligence/consciousness. But this is an ethical question, so what should be and what is, depends on the political environment.

[Moontanman]

8 minutes ago, zapatos said:

That was kind of my point. We don't have to agree on anything. We can each have our own ethics (which I believe is the norm). We may agree on many ethical issues, but agreeing is not required for anything.

 

Can you tell me where your ethics came from? 

[dimreepr]

4 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Can you tell me where your ethics came from? 

 

Partly my culture and partly me.

[zapatos]

3 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

 

Can you tell me where your ethics came from? 

From the environment, experiences and brain that are unique to me.

Some people think it is ethical to take advantage of a situation if a person misunderstood a contract they signed. Others don't.

Some think things are ethical if you follow the letter of the rules. Others think ethics require you to follow the spirit of the rules.

Is there some reason people must agree on what they find ethical?

 

[Moontanman]

20 minutes ago, zapatos said:

From the environment, experiences and brain that are unique to me.

Some people think it is ethical to take advantage of a situation if a person misunderstood a contract they signed. Others don't.

Some think things are ethical if you follow the letter of the rules. Others think ethics require you to follow the spirit of the rules.

Is there some reason people must agree on what they find ethical?

 

Even some animals have a sense of fairness ingrained in them but your post pretty much sums it up, 

Quote

From the environment, experiences and brain that are unique to me.

Do not think that if you had been born a long time ago you would have thought slavery was unethical, you might have not liked it, especially if you were a slave, but even slaves could be convinced of the ethics of holding slaves, ethics is fluid to your own experiences... 

[Ten oz]

47 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

In terms of religion, it seems very close to what many people see as race, i.e. different to us. In terms of philosophy, a far more interesting question would be a mechanical entity that could equal human intelligence/consciousness. But this is an ethical question, so what should be and what is, depends on the political environment.

This question doesn't interest me as I do not conflate the two. 

[dimreepr]

21 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

This question doesn't interest me as I do not conflate the two. 

Does it matter?

[Ten oz]

22 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Does it matter?

It does to me but getting into it would be off topic. On topic it is my opinion that many people believe, both religiously and philosophically, that modern human consciousness represents something mysterious and unique which has never existed before. I do not advocate that view and think a another type of human would expand debates about what consciousness is. 

[dimreepr]

9 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

It does to me but getting into it would be off topic. On topic it is my opinion that many people believe, both religiously and philosophically, that modern human consciousness represents something mysterious and unique which has never existed before. I do not advocate that view and think a another type of human would expand debates about what consciousness is. 

1

On topic, this is an ethical question that existed throughout history.

[Ten oz]

Just now, dimreepr said:

On topic, this is an ethical question that existed throughout history.

Have ethics existed throughout history? Do ethics exist in the absence of consciousness?

[dimreepr]

Just now, Ten oz said:

 Do ethics exist in the absence of consciousness?

Now, that's off topic. 

[Ten oz]

3 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Now, that's off topic. 

If homo sapiens and Neanderthals had different types on consciousness would they in turn have different ethics?

 

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Ten oz said:

If homo sapiens and Neanderthals had different types on consciousness would they in turn have different ethics?

2

Maybe, but that's not the question you asked:

11 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Do ethics exist in the absence of consciousness?

 

 

[Ten oz]

Just now, dimreepr said:

Maybe, but that's not the question you asked:

 

 

I asked multiple questions. Feel free to answer the "on topic" one.