Quote:

---

what, exactly, is the purpose of rights? It is to protect individuals from harm brought upon by other individuals. But why would one do such a thing? Why would one harm other individuals? Well, obviously people, like all living things, naturally act in their own self-interest (discouraged word, but not banned). Unfortunately, in doing so, they may harm others. Without restrictions, instead of pursuing their own aims, people would have to worry about protecting themselves and their property all the time. This would actually impede general self-interest. So society (which is composed of individuals) agreed to limit each other. Though in the short run this was acting against people's self-interest, in the long run it was in favor of it.

Now, the question arises, who is included in "society"? Well, obviously society creates rights for individuals that are part of it, to protect each other from runaway selfishness. But who is protected? Who should be included?

The first question that the original "core" society should ask itself is, "Would society benefit from giving these [name of group] rights?" In the case of black people and women, the answer is obviously "yes", for the same reason that rights were created in the first place; that is, if people keep being infringed upon, they can't act in their full maximum capacity, which not only harms them but also everybody else. That is, it makes no sense to keep people forcibly enslaved and denied opportunities simply on basis of their skin color when both sides would certainly benefit from giving them rights. That is, people who work without being forced to do so work better, and don't look for attempts to work as little as possible. When people are paid according to what and how they produce, that will of course be more efficient than slavery.

If the answer to this first question is "yes", then society should give these beings rights, and that's that. But if the answer to the first question is "no", that does not necessarily mean that it shouldn't. Take, for example, TheDeath's favorite analogy: the aliens on Mars are sentinent, but aren't interested in talking to or dealing with humans. Why, then, would it not be all right to force this group into slavery? Simple - because they are sentinent. Society is not agile or shapable. Society can only give general rules - it can't be very specific. If it tries, it seriously risks endangering a group that it is trying to protect, or protecting a group it doesn't want to protect. In this case, if society said, "Enslaving humans is bad, but enslaving these aliens is OK.", some people would ask, "Hey, these aliens are sentinent, just like us. If we can enslave them, why can't we enslave humans?" And they might take action on this line of thought. That is clearly undesirable. Thus, these aliens should also have rights.

But what about animals? Here we run into a problem. First, we can't make animals respect our rights. Thus, any kind of social contract with them would be laughably one-sided. Let's say that a hunter is hunting wildebeest in the savanna, and he runs into a lion. He says, "You know what, I could kill you, and you could kill me. So let's just leave each other alone." The lion replies, "Rawr, no.", and eats the hunter. Not much of a contract, is it? Second, would we, the "core" society, gain anything from giving animals rights? No, except for maybe a few people who would get an emotional benefit. Third, if we use animals, can anyone confuse themselves and think that it's also okay to use humans like that? No, probably not.

Thus, to extend rights to someone, the group of beings has to be able to keep the contract, and also it has to be useful to original group and/or this being could be confused with humans.

---