@Mr. Jaggers: we are not proposing a perfect system here, nor that it even is possible. Philosophy can help create an inperfect system, which still has to rely on people behaving morally.
@MRiGnS: I was talking in a more general sense. And in that sense I feel that rights should theoretically be based on a per-creature basis. But, practically, i agree that things like the law should not state it that way. Plenty of people are idiots or will delude themselves that other humans do not have the same rights.(same could be said for what is moral in the first place; i argued in #73, but what is moral is more culturally defined) I do not agree with Kants idea; there is no single level of "rationalness" or consciousness. We have animal rights, right? We hardly give ants and dogs the same right.
@SenixMarcoviAhaa: Sensory feelings are hardly universal, animals have very different kinds of sensory feelings. I am sure there are differences between humans too.

I think some of these post have the same misunderstanding. When i say "consciousness" I do not only mean humans.
PS hope i didnt scare utabintarbo off? (hehe get real defensive when people claim life is just a game.)