posted on Jan, 31 2008 @ 08:34 AM
reply to post by lifestudent
Also, just to make things a bit more clear, I'm not saying that animals, sentient beings other than humans, artificial beings (including
corporations, though not necessarily alive), and artificial sentient beings would not deserve rights. What I am saying is that they would not deserve
the same rights as humans or rights that would supersede the rights that humans have. So, yes, they could be considered persons, its just that they
would be defined as different types of persons than what humans are. They would also have a different set of rights than humans have.
So, to retract an earlier statement that I made, I wouldn't change anything with your proposal. I'd just add language to it that would relieve any
ambiguity of who and what types of persons are being addressed. As well as the other things that I've mentioned.
As I write this, though, I have to say that I see huge potential for conflict between humans and anything else that is able to voice what it believes
its inherent rights to be. Even what I have said so far may not seem too popular with persons that are not human. I've always advocated for the
human race as a whole, and have been an opponent of the discrete racial classification systems that we continue to use today. Yet I'm not going to
pretend that I don't see the implication and invitation to racial divide in the words that I have written here that pertain to different types of
persons. Especially with our talk of providing corporations with a "conscience" that is expressed in legal terms. As I said previously, you have
given me a lot to think about! Mainly on the issue of how to legally address equality and fairness of rights among all types of persons. A case by
case approach seems the only way, I guess. All of this said in the context of being applicable in a least the United States, of course.
Phew! So, no, I don't think that your explanation of corporations having a "soul" was too out there. But thinking about it certainly took