Do the ends justify the means?

[Belthus]

What makes my brother, from my perspective, more worthy of having basic rights than a robot that looks exactly like my brother and, from my perspective again, acts like my brother, but does not have free will or internal cognitive functions? And what's the difference between the "brain + central nervous system" (or lack thereof) that the robot owns and that my pet rock owns?

Also, people who are in comas make no contribution to society, yet are they not still in possession of basic human rights. How are people in comas not objects being acted upon?

An intelligent robot could have rights. I see no obstacle other than prejudice.

As for people in comas, they have protection. Right and responsibility are reciprocal. My right not to have my nose punched can only exist if you and other people have the responsibility not to punch my nose. A rock can never behave responsibly. It can't even behave at all.

People whose cognitive capacity is temporarily impaired or low may have additional consideration because they may someday qualify for rights. Someone in a coma may wake up. A child will grow up and become able to understand and fulfill responsibilities. So the protection they are given must take into account that the inability to behave responsibly is or might be, in these cases, temporary.

[BluePriest]

What makes my brother, from my perspective, more worthy of having basic rights than a robot that looks exactly like my brother and, from my perspective again, acts like my brother, but does not have free will or internal cognitive functions? And what's the difference between the "brain + central nervous system" (or lack thereof) that the robot owns and that my pet rock owns?

Also, people who are in comas make no contribution to society, yet are they not still in possession of basic human rights. How are people in comas not objects being acted upon?

An intelligent robot could have rights. I see no obstacle other than prejudice.

As for people in comas, they have protection. Right and responsibility are reciprocal. My right not to have my nose punched can only exist if you and other people have the responsibility not to punch my nose. A rock can never behave responsibly. It can't even behave at all.

People whose cognitive capacity is temporarily impaired or low may have additional consideration because they may someday qualify for rights. Someone in a coma may wake up. A child will grow up and become able to understand and fulfill responsibilities. So the protection they are given must take into account that the inability to behave responsibly is or might be, in these cases, temporary.

The problem I see with robots (and rocks for that matter) is that even if it has thoughts and can make intelligent decisions, that does not mean it has a sense of feel, or any type of emotion.

[Pineapple]

What makes my brother, from my perspective, more worthy of having basic rights than a robot that looks exactly like my brother and, from my perspective again, acts like my brother, but does not have free will or internal cognitive functions? And what's the difference between the "brain + central nervous system" (or lack thereof) that the robot owns and that my pet rock owns?

Also, people who are in comas make no contribution to society, yet are they not still in possession of basic human rights. How are people in comas not objects being acted upon?

An intelligent robot could have rights. I see no obstacle other than prejudice.

As for people in comas, they have protection. Right and responsibility are reciprocal. My right not to have my nose punched can only exist if you and other people have the responsibility not to punch my nose. A rock can never behave responsibly. It can't even behave at all.

People whose cognitive capacity is temporarily impaired or low may have additional consideration because they may someday qualify for rights. Someone in a coma may wake up. A child will grow up and become able to understand and fulfill responsibilities. So the protection they are given must take into account that the inability to behave responsibly is or might be, in these cases, temporary.

The problem I see with robots (and rocks for that matter) is that even if it has thoughts and can make intelligent decisions, that does not mean it has a sense of feel, or any type of emotion.

The only problem I see is that the ability of a robot, who acts like it thinks and feels, to think or feel cannot be proven, while the ability of a human, who certainly acts like it thinks and feels, to think or feel is a given.

[BluePriest]

What makes my brother, from my perspective, more worthy of having basic rights than a robot that looks exactly like my brother and, from my perspective again, acts like my brother, but does not have free will or internal cognitive functions? And what's the difference between the "brain + central nervous system" (or lack thereof) that the robot owns and that my pet rock owns?

Also, people who are in comas make no contribution to society, yet are they not still in possession of basic human rights. How are people in comas not objects being acted upon?

An intelligent robot could have rights. I see no obstacle other than prejudice.

As for people in comas, they have protection. Right and responsibility are reciprocal. My right not to have my nose punched can only exist if you and other people have the responsibility not to punch my nose. A rock can never behave responsibly. It can't even behave at all.

People whose cognitive capacity is temporarily impaired or low may have additional consideration because they may someday qualify for rights. Someone in a coma may wake up. A child will grow up and become able to understand and fulfill responsibilities. So the protection they are given must take into account that the inability to behave responsibly is or might be, in these cases, temporary.

The problem I see with robots (and rocks for that matter) is that even if it has thoughts and can make intelligent decisions, that does not mean it has a sense of feel, or any type of emotion.

The only problem I see is that the ability of a robot, who acts like it thinks and feels, to think or feel cannot be proven, while the ability of a human, who certainly acts like it thinks and feels, to think or feel is a given.

The problem with this is that a robot can be programmed to act however it wants, and can be changed in a moment (especially if it had a wireless interface) therefor it will feel whatever it is told to feel.

[Belthus]

An intelligent robot could conceivably (1) be aware of social standards of acceptable and expected behavior, and (2) conform to those standards. A human in a coma can't do those things. A rock or a tree can't do those things. Some animals like dogs would be an intermediate case, in that they can have a simple understanding of basic rules.

[maverixk]

The problem with this is that a robot can be programmed to act however it wants, and can be changed in a moment (especially if it had a wireless interface) therefor it will feel whatever it is told to feel.

And humans are different? Chemical reactions in our brain tell us what to feel.

[Nepycros]

Whazzis about programming?

[nerd1]

if the ends do more good than the means did harm, then the ends do justify the means, but otherwise they don't.

[BluePriest]

An intelligent robot could conceivably (1) be aware of social standards of acceptable and expected behavior, and (2) conform to those standards. A human in a coma can't do those things. A rock or a tree can't do those things. Some animals like dogs would be an intermediate case, in that they can have a simple understanding of basic rules.

(1) based on how they are programmed.  (2) see 1

The problem with this is that a robot can be programmed to act however it wants, and can be changed in a moment (especially if it had a wireless interface) therefor it will feel whatever it is told to feel.

And humans are different? Chemical reactions in our brain tell us what to feel.

For humans its a natural process. For robots, its a created process by a being that is trying to create human characteristics.

So yes, there is a difference.

[asymmetry]

Context?
I, for example, am reading "Europe at War; 1939-1945" by british historian Norman Davies, specifically a part where it details the soviet Gulag.
My slanted answer, given the circumstances is NO.

[OldTrees]

The problem with this is that a robot can be programmed to act however it wants, and can be changed in a moment (especially if it had a wireless interface) therefor it will feel whatever it is told to feel.

And humans are different? Chemical reactions in our brain tell us what to feel.

For humans its a natural process. For robots, its a created process by a being that is trying to create human characteristics.

So yes, there is a difference.

What if the robot was created accidentally.
What if the human were created by a being?

[BluePriest]

What if the robot was created accidentally.
What if the human were created by a being?

Was it created accidentally by a human, or accidentally by nature? If the latter then thats one thing, if its the former, then it was still created.
As for as if we were created by a being, that brings up many possible answers. If it was a being like religions tend to recognize, then the point still stands, otherwise, I would need more specifics. However, I feel the "what if" is derailing this topic. Not that I dont mind replying to them, just that rhetoricals can be talked all day, however the more rhetorical the situation, the less impact it usually has on reality.