It's a little insulting to compare Synths to Slaves : Fallout 4

» Sat Jan 16, 2016 3:40 am

Animal shelters don't do a thing for domestic violence victims. Hate them, too, do you?

» Sat Jan 16, 2016 10:38 am

pics or it didnt happen!!

» Sat Jan 16, 2016 1:40 am

what? dude i was talking about the fact that the synths are waaaaaaaaaay better off just staying in the institute

It's not like they're getting whipped at the stake

just do your work and dont try to bring down the society around you

easy fkn living

» Sat Jan 16, 2016 4:13 am

In the game fiction, they're threatened with being shut down and dismantled all the time. Like, every NPC idle is an institute whitecoat yelling at a synth.

Also, interesting questions about whether or not clean toilets is sufficient recompense for servitude. We may have slightly different priorities.

» Sat Jan 16, 2016 11:07 am

What if all cats in fo4 were synths and they were made to spy on the people of the waist and all they had to do is act like jerks of the animal world and people would open there homes to them...

» Sat Jan 16, 2016 1:45 am

Thats only if they misbehave

» Sat Jan 16, 2016 11:51 am

To those of you who are saying that, in effect: "Synths are sentient, therefore they deserve human rights."

1. Can you define sentience?

2. Can you explain why "sentience" is the sole necessary condition on which affordance of human rights hinges?

3. Are you not aware of other sentient mammals on real world Earth?

If you are confused by any of these questions or do not really have good answers, please, enroll in a course in behavioral biology, comparative psychology, or primate behavior.

Crows are in many respects "sentient." Dolphins are in many respects "sentient." Chimpanzees and bonobos are in most respects "sentient." Dogs are in some respects "sentient." Elephants are in most respects "sentient." Neanderthals (which our ancestors may have driven into extinction else assimilated) were almost certainly "sentient" to within a tiny margin of human equivalence.

» Fri Jan 15, 2016 9:55 pm

I don't know about "can't just build one with a fancy machine" considering I see the human body as just that a fancy machine, biological sure, but still a machine and they do not get much fancier. The last I knew "new" humans are built by these very same fancy machines, they do not just pop out of thin air and I learned a long time ago that storks don't bring them either.

» Sat Jan 16, 2016 2:58 am

Well.. there is the memory den. Its not exactly a large leap for it mess with human memory as well. Heck, all you would need is a drug to wipe out long term memory, then just give that person the memories you wanted them to have. At least that is as plausible as other tech in this game.

» Sat Jan 16, 2016 6:25 am

Actually it's if they begin to think in a way the Insititute don't want them to. They don't have to be doing anything bad.

Besides this reasoning makes no sense. " Hi slave I know you master will beat you or kill you for asking questions or wanting to free and it's your 100% your fault. Just do what your master ask. Besides you live in a really nice prison"

» Fri Jan 15, 2016 7:46 pm

I feel that synths are sentient, but I don't believe anyone has such a thing as a 'human right'...such 'rights' can only exist within a society when all agree to their creation and application, but as they can always be denied, through circumstance, then they are not a 'right', but merely 'wishful thinking'.

» Sat Jan 16, 2016 9:00 am

Bravo SIR! We have countless threads in these forums about what a Synth is and how they should be treated. Of all of them your post seems to go to the heart of the matter. VERY WELL SAID.

» Sat Jan 16, 2016 1:18 am

Well, me and most sovereigns who are identified as "democratic" disagree (or at least pay lip service to disagreeing) with you there!

Human rights are by definition, automatic, inherent and universal to all humans. To the extent they are violated it is a breach of what virtually all International legal institutions and many national legal institutions consider to be the most fundamental basis for due process, and society as a whole. In many cases, breaches of human rights are true crimes with well-codified and thoroughly considered definitions, standards of proof and potential consequences.

The fact that not all people on Earth today enjoy the full range of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights (nor at all times in history, nor according to all societies ethos) does not undermine the concept nor disprove it.

Following is not actually a spoiler but simply a large quote that I don't want to hog screen space unless you choose to read it . . .

Spoiler

Human rights are moral principles or norms,[1] that describe certain standards of human behavior, and are regularly protected as legal rights in municipal and international law.[2] They are commonly understood as inalienable[3] fundamental rights "to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being,"[4] and which are "inherent in all human beings"[5] regardless of their nation, location, language, religion, ethnic origin or any other status.[3] They are applicable everywhere and at every time in the sense of being universal,[1] and they are egalitarian in the sense of being the same for everyone.[3] They require empathy and the rule of law[6] and impose an obligation on persons to respect the human rights of others.[1][3] They should not be taken away except as a result of due process based on specific circumstances;[3] for example, human rights may include freedom from unlawful imprisonment, torture, and execution.[7]

The doctrine of human rights has been highly influential within international law, global and regional institutions.[3] Actions by states and non-governmental organizations form a basis of public policy worldwide. The idea of human rights[8] suggests that "if the public discourse of peacetime global society can be said to have a common moral language, it is that of human rights." The strong claims made by the doctrine of human rights continue to provoke considerable skepticism and debates about the content, nature and justifications of human rights to this day. The precise meaning of the term right is controversial and is the subject of continued philosophical debate;[9] while there is consensus that human rights encompasses a wide variety of rights[5] such as the right to a fair trial, protection against enslavement, prohibition of genocide, free speech,[10] or a right to education, there is disagreement about which of these particular rights should be included within the general framework of human rights;[1] some thinkers suggest that human rights should be a minimum requirement to avoid the worst-case abuses, while others see it as a higher standard.[1]

Many of the basic ideas that animated the human rights movement developed in the aftermath of the Second World War and the atrocities of The Holocaust,[6] culminating in the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Paris by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948. Ancient peoples did not have the same modern-day conception of universal human rights.[11] The true forerunner of human rights discourse was the concept of natural rights which appeared as part of the medieval natural law tradition that became prominent during the European Enlightenment with such philosophers as John Locke, Francis Hutcheson, and Jean-Jacques Burlamaqui, and which featured prominently in the political discourse of the American Revolution and the French Revolution.[6] From this foundation, the modern human rights arguments emerged over the latter half of the twentieth century,[12] possibly as a reaction to slavery, torture, genocide, and war crimes,[6] as a realization of inherent human vulnerability and as being a precondition for the possibility of a just society.[5]

Gungho1, on 14 Jan 2016 - 2:38 PM, said:

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world...
—?1st sentence of the Preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Gungho1, on 14 Jan 2016 - 2:38 PM, said:

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
—?Article 1 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)[13]

Yes it is well said, but that line of argument might also obscure another facet of this particular fictional element: every year humanity does in fact progress a bit further along the evolutionary progression culminating with "creation of human like robots." Our descendants may even one day face the moral dilemma that is the subject of the debate in this thread, so discussing the specifics is not "missing the point." Indeed, addressing the specifics as the OP did, can be considered much more "getting the point" than not.

» Sat Jan 16, 2016 4:01 am

While an excellent quote and backup there is a rub. It is all about "human". Who made "humans" the end all and be all of everything?

Personally I have very little respect for "humans". Humans are, in general, a plague on the face of this planet (or any other we may visit in the future) and, IMHO, the universe would be immeasurably better if "Humans" never had existed.

Don't forget that ALL of the problems in Fallout were caused by "Humans".

Perhaps "Human Rights" are truly undeserved.

» Sat Jan 16, 2016 7:31 am

This line of thinking was very edgy. In the late 19th century. Pretty sure Wittgenstein addressed this example directly as merely a question of definitions, though, after which a lot of western thinkers got together and defined it.

Spoiler

We're not using your definition.

TL;DR because I know you're not going to go off and read the relevant texts: when we talk about "rights," we are in fact already talking about what principles we should agree on as just and correct. The fact that the circumstances of an indifferent world may work to deprive an individual of these rights does not diminish their standing as principles we believe in.

» Fri Jan 15, 2016 10:46 pm

@Anthropoid, you negated your own argument...anything that is only a concept, cannot be an inalienable right, because it can't exist as a certainty, the concept can only be a reality when it is allowed to exist. I don't have a right to life, but I have the choice to fight like hell to keep living...no one gives me that 'right', other than myself.

@hairlessOrphan, exactly the point...much of the philosophical discussion will always be in intangibles, and will be dependant on definition...which in itself invalidates the discussion in terms of what is actually achievable in reality.

» Fri Jan 15, 2016 9:04 pm

While humans are assuredly a very, VERY "mixed bag," . . . I don't necessarily think that that kind of cynicism will get "us" anywhere.

» Sat Jan 16, 2016 6:32 am

Humans did. And in the continued absence of a replacement apex predator that can impose its will on humanity by force (or by negotiation at its pleasure), we will be responsible (not privileged) for continuing to do so.

» Sat Jan 16, 2016 5:46 am

So the fact that you can choke on a Weiner Schnitzel negates the fact that you need to breath? I don't think so

Don't confuse "human rights" with "socialism" or some sort of Nanny state dynamic. That is really not what it is about.

» Sat Jan 16, 2016 9:06 am

I think people are confusing terminology.

"Sentient" means "Capable of perceiving and reacting to the environment". Some real-life robots (like the self-driving car) and every living creature on earth passes that test.

"Sapient" essentially means "Mentally capable of understanding and debating the philisophical ramifications of its own existance." So far, only Humanity has clearly passed that test. Other primates, whales/dolphins, and elephants may or may not pass that test, but we can't know for certain without a means to actually communicate with them. No other robot or animal passes that test.

If a Synth is capable of debating its own existence and understand said debate, then it is sapient. Any fully-operational synth is sentient.

» Sat Jan 16, 2016 8:55 am

Uh no. It just means you have to agree on definitions. Which most of us have. This is a solved problem with respect to "rights."

This is like listening to people say, "we still haven't proven the world is round!" Yes. Yes, we have. Go read the texts. Or don't. That's fine, too. But then shhhhh.