What is that thing in human beings, animals, and robots to which legal rights accrue? It seems that right is a soul-like notion rather than a spiritual concept or a bodily one. We hardly perceive or even introspect the spirit of the things, and there is a lost ring between the rights of live matters and the rights of dead bodies of the objects. However, the soul is not a body-free concept like the spirit and not a body-oriented notion as solid objects; it is an interval between the terrestrial body and the celestial spirit. We can adequately introspect and even perceive the presence of the soul when we are suffering bodily pain. The article introduces the eyes as the objective criterion for the soul. So, every soul-like creature with both eyes, like a sentient animal, has human-like rights. I mean by the eyes the exact organ that we patently see on the face of the creature and utterly perceive that it is watching us. Therefore, the embryo in the twelfth week, whose eyes have been completed, has to be considered a competent person to hold legal rights. Moreover, an animal and even a robot whose look at a human being is obviously perceived as a human-like look have at least the right not to be annoyed.
Jafaritabar, H. (2023). Soul-like Law On the joint essence of rights between human beings, animals, and robots. Society, Development and Commercial Law review, 1(1), 52-65.
MLA
Hassan Jafaritabar. "Soul-like Law On the joint essence of rights between human beings, animals, and robots", Society, Development and Commercial Law review, 1, 1, 2023, 52-65.
HARVARD
Jafaritabar, H. (2023). 'Soul-like Law On the joint essence of rights between human beings, animals, and robots', Society, Development and Commercial Law review, 1(1), pp. 52-65.
VANCOUVER
Jafaritabar, H. Soul-like Law On the joint essence of rights between human beings, animals, and robots. Society, Development and Commercial Law review, 2023; 1(1): 52-65.
