I apologize for taking so long to respond. I am extremely busy with work/school and considering the fact that I have finals tomorrow I probably shouldn't be on here in the first place haha
To respond to your post, Cthulhu, I fully admit that there may indeed be a distinction between a human being and a person. (However, I am not quite convinced I could be swayed one way or the other on this point.) But in regards to my argument, you are correct, I am using human beings and the idea of human rights as my definitional and metaphysical reference in regards to this argument. I am working from the starting point of morality and believe that the law should emulate morality not vice versa. In response to your statement concerning consciousness and ethical behavior as the be all end all as far as humans go I believe we can discover I few problems with this definition.
To back up, a theory should be rejected if it has underlying issues, doesn't explain facts of reality as well as another theory, or contradicts other well accepted facts ect. By reducing humans to purely cognitive and moral function it confuses functionality with ontology. Stated similarly, what a thing can do with what it actually is. Furthermore, it raises ethical issues such as do people who are amoral lack the requirements of human rights? Or how about someone who is half conscious? One quarter conscious? Say, half the population in Earth come down with a virus and cease to have these qualities, do they loose there human rights and is not permissible to kill them? I think in these cases the answer is no.
To respond to your post, Cthulhu, I fully admit that there may indeed be a distinction between a human being and a person. (However, I am not quite convinced I could be swayed one way or the other on this point.) But in regards to my argument, you are correct, I am using human beings and the idea of human rights as my definitional and metaphysical reference in regards to this argument. I am working from the starting point of morality and believe that the law should emulate morality not vice versa. In response to your statement concerning consciousness and ethical behavior as the be all end all as far as humans go I believe we can discover I few problems with this definition.
To back up, a theory should be rejected if it has underlying issues, doesn't explain facts of reality as well as another theory, or contradicts other well accepted facts ect. By reducing humans to purely cognitive and moral function it confuses functionality with ontology. Stated similarly, what a thing can do with what it actually is. Furthermore, it raises ethical issues such as do people who are amoral lack the requirements of human rights? Or how about someone who is half conscious? One quarter conscious? Say, half the population in Earth come down with a virus and cease to have these qualities, do they loose there human rights and is not permissible to kill them? I think in these cases the answer is no.