We can tell whether it's of the human species. For the benefit of protecting the inalienable right not to be killed, we should not allow the killing of any human who is no immediate danger to life.
If we codify which humans are human enough to be protected and which are not, we codify discrimination and build a system to justify discrimination, we end up in conversations such as Peter Singer's monologues on the ethical equivalents/equivalency of adult chickens and neonates. Or geriatric value versus young adult value.
There are no clean cut lines other than 'living' and 'dead' and 'human' and 'non-human.'
I'd be willing to give any species which engages in this sort of discussion the designation of 'human.' But, I wouldn't require that each member of the species be competent at all times to engage in the discussion to my satisfaction.
Go read the portion of Dr. Spitzer's book that is sampled on Amazon. He begins his discussion on defining and naming in those pages.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0898707862/ref=lib_rd_next_7/002-4150258-6226432?v=glance&s=books&vi=reader&img=7#reader-linkIf we codify which humans are human enough to be protected and which are not, we codify discrimination and build a system to justify discrimination Is this the belief, the fear, that causes people to avoid giving meaning to a word they seem to hold very precious--"rights"?
If we codify which humans are human enough to be protected and which are not, we codify discrimination and build a system to justify discrimination
What do you mean by this? Seems pretty clear cut to me.
I'd be willing to give any species which engages in this sort of discussion the designation of 'human.'
I wonder if you aren't onto something here, since surely no other creature we've encountered has this ability. I wonder if we can generalize this statement (beyond "this sort of discussion") to finally identify the critical uniqueness of humans that endows them with rights.