I agree this is a risk of the claim, and I will address that more in my response to your next point because I feel that raises some key issues. But if we demand proof that humans abd human life are special, rather than take for granted that does open the doors to mistreatment of other human beings
Why? Or more completely, why do we require humans to be special, to treat them well? Yes, there are many things you can do to an animal that you can't do to a human, but we do also general recognize that there is moral value in treating animals well. We have laws punishing people for torture and abuse of animals. They don't have to be "special" for it to be the right thing to do, to treat them well.
I truly don't see why we need to be "special" for us to be able to say "harming other humans is bad". We can be unfair and treat sapient life better than non-sapient life, on the basis of sapience alone. That's allowed.
True, and I think that is a worthy thing to do. I wouldn't put limits on that
I mean, I wouldn't want government censorship, but I certainly would put some limits on it, based on your definition of limits. People use fantasy and sci-fi as cover for horrifically evil ideas pretty regularly. And we need to be able to say "no, these ideas are wrong", especially as they are used for violence against people rather consistently. Because as much as people on here like to say that "they are fictional, it doesn't mean anything", those with hatred in their hearts? They get the message. That's why we call it a dog whistle and not an air horn.
Yes and this is definitely something that could happen and something I would be against were we to create a digital intelligence. But I think AI also raises serious questions about what constitutes sapience and free will. What I would say is my primary concern with how personhood gets separated from humanity is it enables us to say humans with X qualities or humans lacking Y qualities may not qualify as people. So I think whatever personhood is, it always needs to encompass every human being. If we want to extend that or create new categories of -hood I am fine with that. But so far these are all theoretical so I am just more worried about what is in front of us in reality.
But to a degree, isn't this like saying you should never paint yellow apples, because all apples are red? There can be a wide variety, there can be nuance beyond the simple and pithy. We say "apples are red" without the fear that we will exlcude these apple-like green and yellow fruits from applehood. Yes, people might try and say that, but they can be proven wrong with more nuanced discussion.
Here I don't know. Your theoretical assumes we will be in a position of power enough to be the ones repeating the worst moments of our history (at least in the sense of being the ones committing the atrocities). It's is just as, maybe more likely, if that happens we will be the ones being conquered (and the ones trying to persuade them to acknowledge our personhood).
While true, I am less worried about humanity in a position of weakness, than I am about humanity in a position of strength. If we must persuade something of our personhood, then we are discussing and arguing in context. And we can do that. But if we are in a position where we must hear those arguments... the very fact that we would be needing to hear them
again, indicates something went terribly, terribly wrong.
But what if we do meet an alien species and it turns out they are wholly malevolent, have minds that are in no way, shape or from like ours, and bent on our destruction? Is calling them people useful or helpful? The truth is we have no idea what an alien species could be like. The only example we have is what has happened here on earth (and even here the range of species is quite stunning). It is easy to imagine that what we meet may in no way resemble people intellectually, spiritually, emotionally, etc.
That isn't to say we should mistreat these hypothetical aliens, but I do think we should at least see what they are before we automatically confer personhood
Is calling them people useful or helpful? Yes, I think it is. After all, people who are bent on our destruction is a common occurence. People who are malevolent and bent on our destruction even more so. But keeping in mind that they are people means that we recognize that a war to kill all of them is problematic. It prevents us from treating them like something to be exterminated with no other alternative.
