"This term we've been looking at reality and free will, testing the boundaries of each. We've tried to extend that to 'created' or 'artificial' intelligence, and I'll expect your reports on my desk at the end of class for that, along with last week's homework.
Today, we're pushing those boundaries one step further, with the work of one Peter Singer, most widely known for his philosophical work on animal rights. Now, most human civilisations have functioned on the basic premise that being human means you're better, and more worthy of life, than anything that is not. Here in Fandom, that premise falls apart - we've got a number of residents here who are not human, either extraterrestrial or supernatural in origin, and they're clearly as worthy and as good as our human residents. On a one to one basis, some of one group might fairly be judges as even
more worthy than individuals of the other.
So what determines the right to free will? The right to life, and to fight for that life? Sentience is an easy answer... but how do you judge sentience? Moreover, how do you integrate the concept of evolution into that? Humans were not always foreward thinking individuals - scientists are fairly firm in their agreement that we were once apes. Does that mean that apes should be accorded the same rights and respects as human life? At what point in between them and us do those rights magically appear?
With reference to
Singer's work and your own logic, I ask you to define what qualities should be possessed by a given being to award them the 'human' rights of freedom - including the right not to be executed for food."