non human intelligent beings.
if they are rational and in their own minds they consider themselves self-owners then that answers the question on a theoretical basis. then there is a practical problem of pragmatically recognising them as intelligent and/or receiving a communication that at least one of their species is a self-owner so we should be careful not to assume that they just arent. I dont see too much point in arguing the pragmatics…
Interesting question.
If we managed to colonize outer space, it would be a good idea to respect the property rights of any intelligent being we might encounter. We wouldn’t want to start an inter-galactic war, after all.
Even if other beings were entirely defenseless before us, we would still want to have a peaceful coexistence and engage in trade for mutual benefit. More competition, division of labor, all that good stuff.
Yes, assuming they are not going to be our natural predators or inherently violent/ deadly. If a peacful alien lifeform was toxic to us just to be around, killing it would be method of survival and perfectly natural I would think.
Pragmatism would argue that we cross that bridge when we get there
In general if they have self ownership, free will, and the capacity to communicate then yes
or not inviting it onto your property or straying on to its? im not down with the genocide of NAP abiding toxic aliens thank you.
no, you would have to stay off its planet/respect its property. If a toxic alien landed on your planet, then you could kill it.
we can’t ignore the fact that many possible intelligences would not place any value on self determination and would therefore be coercive from our definition.
socialist aliens !
I never mentioned colonizing thier inhabited planets. But, to take the situation in the extreme, if for some reason the human species had to colonize that planet to survive or die would that be acceptable to kill? It would certainly seem like a natural reaction, that is what species do. Either way it’s not really worth thinking too much about, until it occurs.
no, it would be immoral, like a starving man coming to my home and stealing all my food .
someone more morally minded than self centered a spock perhaps? might choose to starve rather than violate NAP if they could not find charity.
I don’t know if you could consider kiling a species that is deadly to you as technically evil, it really does seem to follow “natural law” (whatever that is) to do so.
Or to make matters even more crazy, if the humans had to colonize a planet in order to survive, and our only form of survival would be killing and eating cute rational fuzzy Ewoks in order to survive, I think that is not unantural, not preferable sure, but not wholley evil
I don’t care, as long as they don’t coerce us!
Why couldn’t you purchase a plot of land from the inhabitants?
If they are rational, we don’t have to kill them.
Because they are unwilling to sell, they may have a completley different culture from us that is incompatible with our forms of barter, there can only be so many of them existing on the planet for them not to be toxic to us, etc. It’s hard to really talk about alternative rational lifeforms would be my main point though, too little knowledge too many variables. If we were vampires who could only live off the blood of humans we killed would we be bad?
If for whatever fantastic reason we had to in order to survive, we would be irrational not to, we are biologically driven to survive.
Does the NAP apply to pets owned by aliens ?