Are all sentient beings persons?

Animals are obviously not moral subjects but what about other sentient beings than humans, for example space aliens or intelligent species created with genetic engineering?

Would humans have a right to cause suffering to non-human sapient beings in the same way as animals? Is membership in the human species or sapiency crucial?

Consider the implications of these positions:

If non-humans are not considered persons humans could genetically engineer intelligent servants and use them ruthlessly to our benefit like domestic animals. On the other hand, if only sapiency is considered relevant there should be no moral problem with creating a non-human, superior species that would replace humanity (the "Terminator" scenario).

These both alternatives are intuitively distasteful so could there be some kind of compromise?

I prefer to consider "persons" as those with sapience rather than sentience. Sentience is a rather fuzzy property, since even quite "simple" animals posess it.

I prefer to consider "persons" as those with sapience rather than sentience. Sentience is a rather fuzzy property, since even quite "simple" animals posess it.

Yes, the wording of the poll should be changed. I picked the English term incorrectly.

So why should Marxists and other leftists consider non-humans with sapience persons?

Yes, the wording of the poll should be changed. I picked the English term incorrectly.

So why should Marxists and other leftists consider non-humans with sapience persons?

Because sapience is pretty much one of the defining characteristics of personhood. I can't see how one can be a person without being sapient.

Because sapience is pretty much one of the defining characteristics of personhood. I can't see how one can be a person without being sapient.

I agree but it is likely possible in the future genetically engineer non-human species which are sapient. The apes in the movie "Planet of the Apes" are sapient. Should they be considered persons?

All sapients should be considered persons and afforded all rights. In addition, all those who have the capacity to be, but are not, sapient, such as the severely mentally impaired, should be afforded appropriate protections. They obviously cannot vote, but they should be protected from abuse.

All sapients should be considered persons and afforded all rights. In addition, all those who have the capacity to be, but are not, sapient, such as the severely mentally impaired, should be afforded appropriate protections. They obviously cannot vote, but they should be protected from abuse.

I agree with this.
The apes in the movie "Planet of the Apes" (from what I can remember of it) should certainly be considered persons, and have 'human rights' (unless they enslave us, or something, you know! )
There's no reason to subjugate something that has the potential to live beside us.
I care about and respect human beings because of our intelligence - anything which shares that with us is also deserving of that care and respect.

All sapients should be considered persons and afforded all rights. In addition, all those who have the capacity to be, but are not, sapient, such as the severely mentally impaired, should be afforded appropriate protections. They obviously cannot vote, but they should be protected from abuse.

that sums up my position quite well

By "creating a non-human, superior species" do you mean A.I?

Both A.I. and genetically engineered biological non-human species are possible.

Why do you think they would repalce (eradicate?) us?

If this non-human species has significantly higher intelligence than humans the society they create would more advanced. Humans would be incapable of living or at least advancing that kind of society as they could not perform productive labor. Although I am not a social Darwinist between different species the principle of natural selection would apply and humans would be gradually extinct.

I'm assuming this because of "the terminator scenario".

I agree with most people in this thread, Any being with sapience should be afforded the same rights as us.

The book War with the Newts is a good read.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_with_the_Newts

I am just saying that giving equal moral status to non-humans leads to the logical conclusion that the existence of humanity is irrelevant. Is this really so?

I support the improvement of humanity with transhumanistic methods but I don't support the replacement of humanity with another species. As an anthropocentric Marxist I am loyal to my species because Marxism is supposed to benefit humanity.

If this non-human species has significantly higher intelligence than humans the society they create would more advanced. Humans would be incapable of living or at least advancing that kind of society as they could not perform productive labor. Although I am not a social Darwinist between different species the principle of natural selection would apply and humans would be gradually extinct.

Why would natural selection ensure the extinction of humanity, and why would natural selection be taking place when in all likelyhood by the time we have the capability to create artificial intelligences we will be in the process of artficial evolution?

Just because humans may not be as smart as AI does not ensure our extinction, any more than the lesser intelligence of the dog ensures it's extinction. In fact, the vast majority of animals are not sapient, and you don't need intelligence to last long as a species - look at the dinosaurs, they were dominating the Earth for over 160 million years yet most of them had brains that could fit in the palm of your hand.

I am just saying that giving equal moral status to non-humans leads to the logical conclusion that the existence of humanity is irrelevant. Is this really so?

I'm not seeing it. Do you mind explaining your logic?

I support the improvement of humanity with transhumanistic methods but I don't support the replacement of humanity with another species. As an anthropocentric Marxist I am loyal to my species because Marxism is supposed to benefit humanity.

When you start tinkering with genotypes and phenotypes, you begin to blur what it means to be "human" hence why I tend to refer to future societies that use H+ techniques as "transhuman" rather than "human".

Suppose you had two populations, one of them living on a cold planet and other living on a hot planet. Both planets are pretty uncomfortable if not deadly to standard baselines, but suppose the two populations were to use genetic engineering to adapt themselves to living on their respective planets without too much in the way of technological aid. Give it a few decades, and pretty soon you have two distinct populations, each adapted to their local conditions and living in them as easily as you and I do on temperate Earth. Neither population would be really "human" if the temperature differences on each planet required radical alterations, as they would be genetically incompatible with baselines. But they are still sapient beings worthy of the rights that all sapients should have.

If this sort of thing happens on a large scale, you will get a wide variety of different "transhuman" species, each one with a common human ancestor and therefore sharing a genetic heritage. They may share a cultural commonality if they weren't too far away from baseline humans and other transhuman types for regular communication to be a possibility.

I believe that the diversification of the human species through genetic engineering, creation of AIs with a psychological rather than genetic commonality with humanity and other such methods is a good thing - diversity is one of the key reasons that natural life on Earth has lasted so long in spite of several great disasters over billions of years. We should aim to emulate this, as it will ensure us millions if not billions of years of continued existance as a sapient civilisation, even if the species of that civilisation changes or mutates over those eons.

The answer is: In the future all sapient (rather than sentient, like NoXion already pointed out) beings, organic and non-organic, will be persons if we make them such. We should for example create braindead clones for spare parts, but can also choose to make a self-conscious AI. This latter I would advice to use extreme caution with, as we must not let the machines become the singularity on their own, but must strive to become the singularity ourselves.

See this previous discussion: Implications from Robot Rights

Btw, I accidentally voted for Sentience, when should have hit Other.

This latter I would advice to use extreme caution with, as we must not let the machines become the singularity on their own, but must strive to become the singularity ourselves.

I was going to mention something along those lines ("If you are afraid of non-humans become sepient and gaining the same rights why not just consider sentinel's position of becoming "one with singularity" {I suppose merging with machines; transhumanism}")