A musing about intelligence and rights.

[Shilya]

Neither is correct, but A is closer.

B, ignoring intelligence, pretty much fails ethics.

A ignores the first concepts of human rights. They're given to humans, independent of other qualifiers - you can be dumber than any gorilla, you still get them. We'd need to develop a new set of rights for all creatures meeting certain standards.

[Mysterious Stranger 2]

What does it matter who made the gryphon? They didn't make themselves- by that standard are they the property of their parents?

[Sociobiology]

Neither is correct, but A is closer.

B, ignoring intelligence, pretty much fails ethics.

A ignores the first concepts of human rights. They're given to humans, independent of other qualifiers - you can be dumber than any gorilla, you still get them. We'd need to develop a new set of rights for all creatures meeting certain standards.

to be fair if you mentally handicapped enough you actually don't have full rights, your rights start to mirror those of a child.

[Sociobiology]

Where do you place the Apes? How do you explain to the adult ape it only has the rights of a child and is not your equal.

[/quote]
I think he is talking about real apes not your hypothetical super ape. See the problem with using a real organism in your hypothetical?

[Prusslandia]

Is the Gryphon thinking independently, or is it merely learning facts and skills?

[Dagyon]

Is the Gryphon thinking independently, or is it merely learning facts and skills?

I did in fact say it was capable of thinking independently. Please reread the OP.

[Sociobiology]

Is the Gryphon thinking independently, or is it merely learning facts and skills?

honestly whats the difference?
You could accuse a large portion of humanity of not thinking independently.

[Aahmerica]

Sounds like a spinoff the plot of Ted 2.

[Deanson]

In my opinion, the only thing that makes something inherently human is its very high capacity for self-awareness/sentience. Legally speaking, this should be the only defining factor when it comes to human rights laws IMO and anything that is capable of producing feelings and thoughts that are subjective deserves to be treated how we'd treat any other complex person with emotions.

[Neo-Vinnland]

So, before I delve into the scenario itself, I'll set forth a few definitions so that we're all on the same page (all definitions taken from the Oxford U.S. English dictionary):

Intelligence:
noun
1 The ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills

Speech:
noun
1 The expression of or the ability to express thoughts and feelings by articulate sounds

Now, with those taken care of, I'll launch into a bit of background; I was actually talking with one of my classmates in my A.P.E.S class (Advanced Placement Environmental Science, for those of you not familiar with the AP program here in the U.S.) while we were reading up on human rights and needs when a hypothetical scenario popped into my mind:

Say, in a laboratory somewhere, two scientists have managed to genetically engineer an intelligent creature, which for the sake of consistency is a gryphon, capable of human speech and forming independent thoughts. For the first year or two of its existence, the gryphon is given a basic education up to a sixth grade level in reading, maths, and history.

Up until this point, the two scientists have been simply teaching and observing the gryphon. After two more years, the scientists come to a conflict of interest: Scientist A wishes to treat the gryphon as a human being, entitled to the same human rights laid out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, based on it's intelligence and capacity for expression of thought (i.e. speech), while Scientist B views the gryphon as property because it was created as part of an experiment and thus is subject to whatever tests the scientists wish to perform, regardless of its intelligence.

Now, my question to you all is: Which scientist would you support in this argument? Is Scientist A right for citing intelligence and capability of speech as an argument for human rights, or is Scientist B correct for saying that the gryphon is property because they created it, and thus subject to whatever its owners require?

When dealing with the facts as laid here, there is only one option, realistically speaking.

Scientist A has their heart in the right place, but B is right.

The ability to replicate human intelligence does not make it human, so human rights do NOT apply. In addition, the components synthesized to create the 'Gryphon' belong to whoever owns the lab, so they could seize, legally, the creature.

Mice don't have rights, Cecil the lion didn't have rights, the gryphon doesn't have rights; it is property.

[Councilmembers]

Scientist A, of course.

The only scenario I would side with Scientist B is if the said organism had the ability to go rogue and use intelligence to attack others. That doesn't seem to be the case, though.

[Grenartia]

Scientist A, of course.

The only scenario I would side with Scientist B is if the said organism had the ability to go rogue and use intelligence to attack others. That doesn't seem to be the case, though.

Actually, even in that case, the only rational option is to side with Scientist A. Denying the gryphon its rights will only give it a reason to 'go rogue' and attack others.

[Ethel mermania]

Neither is correct, but A is closer.

B, ignoring intelligence, pretty much fails ethics.

A ignores the first concepts of human rights. They're given to humans, independent of other qualifiers - you can be dumber than any gorilla, you still get them. We'd need to develop a new set of rights for all creatures meeting certain standards.

Us patent law says otherwise. The griffon is property of the lab.

[Grenartia]

Neither is correct, but A is closer.

B, ignoring intelligence, pretty much fails ethics.

A ignores the first concepts of human rights. They're given to humans, independent of other qualifiers - you can be dumber than any gorilla, you still get them. We'd need to develop a new set of rights for all creatures meeting certain standards.

Us patent law says otherwise. The griffon is property of the lab.

Basic logic says otherwise, since parents don't literally own their children as property.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

Us patent law says otherwise. The griffon is property of the lab.

US patent law doesn't have anything to do with this, especially as it has been ruled that you cannot patent a genetic sequence.

[Sekuo]

This is a scenario that can be applied to conscious machines as well. Though it does bring up the idea that humans are also just really squishy, moist conscious machines... But aside from that.

Anything with intelligence can be considered as human. Bonus if it is conscious and self aware. However, I'd say we simply attribute the concept of consciousness to it, as well as intelligence. Does that mean it's any less than us? No, not at all. After all I only assume another person to have consciousness and intelligence (though the intelligence may be debated, haha), and that other person assumes the same.

In short, scientist A.

[Sociobiology]

Scientist A, of course.

The only scenario I would side with Scientist B is if the said organism had the ability to go rogue and use intelligence to attack others. That doesn't seem to be the case, though.

you mean if the creature was actually intelligent?
Any intelligent creature will have that ability there is literally no way to prevent it.

the major argument against giving chimps rights was that they cannot bear any of the responsibility required by rights, the gryphon however would be able to bear them and so should receive legal personhood. Interestingly the one thing guaranteed under law would be it's ability to sue for personhood.

[Ethel mermania]

Us patent law says otherwise. The griffon is property of the lab.

Basic logic says otherwise, since parents don't literally own their children as property.

And that has to do with an artificially created beijng, how?

[Ethel mermania]

Us patent law says otherwise. The griffon is property of the lab.

US patent law doesn't have anything to do with this, especially as it has been ruled that you cannot patent a genetic sequence.

If it's an artifically createx sequence it can be. Is a Jackson mouse patentable?
Yes it is.

http://www.jax.org/news/archives/2012/patent.html

[Grenartia]

Basic logic says otherwise, since parents don't literally own their children as property.

And that has to do with an artificially created beijng, how?

Would you hold that IVF fetuses (or, in the future, the process to produce a biological child containing genetic information from two same-sex parents) are "artificially created"? If so, then would you say they're property, or people?

[Ethel mermania]

And that has to do with an artificially created beijng, how?

Would you hold that IVF fetuses (or, in the future, the process to produce a biological child containing genetic information from two same-sex parents) are "artificially created"? If so, then would you say they're property, or people?

Current Ivf's do not change genetic sequence, so they are not patentable.

Now for the future. if it's two or three naturally occurring sequences, just being spliced it's not patentable.

For discussions sake, let's say a sequence has to be artifically created to merge the two, current law says it's owned by the lab, now in an birthing agreement, the lab can for the fee they are getting, sign away their rights to the parents. Or legislation can be Enacted that just covers the artifical sequence and not the entire being. (to protect the lab from other labs using their techniques to do the same thing). But as it stands today, it's the labs until legislation or case law says otherwise.

[Grenartia]

Would you hold that IVF fetuses (or, in the future, the process to produce a biological child containing genetic information from two same-sex parents) are "artificially created"? If so, then would you say they're property, or people?

Current Ivf's do not change genetic sequence, so they are not patentable.

Now for the future. if it's two or three naturally occurring sequences, just being spliced it's not patentable.

For discussions sake, let's say a sequence has to be artifically created to merge the two, current law says it's owned by the lab, now in an birthing agreement, the lab can for the fee they are getting, sign away their rights to the parents. Or legislation can be Enacted that just covers the artifical sequence and not the entire being. (to protect the lab from other labs using their techniques to do the same thing). But as it stands today, it's the labs until legislation or case law says otherwise.

In English?

[Ethel mermania]

Current Ivf's do not change genetic sequence, so they are not patentable.

Now for the future. if it's two or three naturally occurring sequences, just being spliced it's not patentable.

For discussions sake, let's say a sequence has to be artifically created to merge the two, current law says it's owned by the lab, now in an birthing agreement, the lab can for the fee they are getting, sign away their rights to the parents. Or legislation can be Enacted that just covers the artifical sequence and not the entire being. (to protect the lab from other labs using their techniques to do the same thing). But as it stands today, it's the labs until legislation or case law says otherwise.

In English?

Lack of comprehension is not my issue. We are done.

[Neo-Vinnland]

Us patent law says otherwise. The griffon is property of the lab.

US patent law doesn't have anything to do with this, especially as it has been ruled that you cannot patent a genetic sequence.

ACTUALLY..

You can. Genetically modified organisms are regularly patented. Check out Monsanto.

[Dagyon]

US patent law doesn't have anything to do with this, especially as it has been ruled that you cannot patent a genetic sequence.

ACTUALLY..

You can. Genetically modified organisms are regularly patented. Check out Monsanto.

That is unfortunately true, in the case of the U.S., but I never did mention in the OP in which country this was taking place. This scenario could be set in a place like China or North Korea for all we know However, for the sake of consistency, and since we keep using U.S. patent law, we can assume that the hypothetical lab is somewhere in the U.S.