hwithumalut

There are some worldviews I am interested in thinking about today.

Expanding the concept of human rights, and animal rights, to inanimate objects.

The way I’ve heard this be done before is that certain geographical locations, like waterfalls, and beautiful views have a right to exist, and to be seen. This would justify why people need to see these beautiful landmarks.

I’m interested in more extreme versions of inanimate rights.

One framework would basically say that all objects animate or inanimate, deserve rights.

How could someone possibly justify such an absurd belief?

It’s pretty simple actually. Many people believe that conscious experience can be deconstructed, and that what we perceive as perception and sensory experience is a hallucination, generated by brain electricity. Take this cognitive science based philosophy and the concept of animal rights. Now consciousness doesn't exist, or is’t a valid idea, because it’s a hallucination. So if you extend rights to animals you have to extend them to all forms of matter.

I say matter, and not all objects, because this philosophy is a materialist one, hence the consciousness is a fake thing.

You could also justify inanimate rights in an even more radical third way.

If you believe that everything exists, material or otherwise. Like the UN, or ghosts, or the Planet mars, than you can make an immaterialist inanimate rights campaign work. Or an object rights campaign.

Inanimate right’s activists argue that consciousness does not determine wheter or not something gets rights or not. The only criteria determining rights is existence. Everything that exists get’s rights.

“As an Inanimate rights activist I propose that all objects have a right to exist, no matter how debatable it's objecthood is, including this speech which is why it will go on forever…” —final words of inanimate rights activist

What is the opposite of inanimate rights? One would first think that it’s giving rights only to one human being, or one entity. That would be a singular right belief system. One would secondly think that it is right’s nihilism, where you don’t believe in rights. You don’t think anyone is owed anything. But comparatively those philosophies are close-ish to universal inanimate right’s activism.

If you make a spectrum where full inanimates rights is at 100% rights having on one end, and right’s nihilism has 0% right’s having on the other, there is another position that would be at negative 100% right’s having

That’s right unrights exist! Unrights are when something is undeserved by a person. For example in a moderate unrights based society.

An unright is just a silly word for banning something. This is why most societies are both rights and unrights societies. And why most societies are anti-centrist by default