In a message dated 99-12-03 07:09:54 EST, Daniel Ust writes:
<< As for if it would be coercion, we have to ask what exactly is coercion.
Depends on whether you think octopodes have no volition.
That's a very big issue and I subscribe to the Randian/Objectivist view --
viz., coercion is basically violation of an individual's rights. Inside
that view, the only organisms which possess rights are those with a rational
(volitional) mind. (See Rand and Branden's _The Virtue of Selfishness_,
which is a very brief book -- about 150 pages -- for more on this.) If you
agree with this, then it would appear octopodes have no rights.>>
<<In this context, does this mean that we can do as we wish with them? (I'm
qualifying with "in this context" because there might be a better view on
this issue. I'm just trying to stick in this one since it seems to be the
best I know of.) That's another matter all together. Just because
something doesn't have rights does not, to me, seem to justify any action to
it. E.g., though I don't think cats have rights, I do not think it is right
to go around torturing them.>>
I think that things begin to accrue moral rights when they begin to care
about things. I am still trying to work out where to draw the line
<< That said, uplifting does not seem to be a form of torture. The goal is
not
pain or sadistic pleasure. It's not even exploitation -- unless one
considers having another intelligent species around a form of exploitation.>>
This is true. It would seem to us that uplifting would be an absolute benefit to the species in question. But would that species think so?
Glen Finney