principles which protect the human dignity

Truly, you can find various nuances, progress, evolution, and even involution,

and they may move away from the primary principles which protect the human dignity.

I think that before declaring a new right, we must verified if it accepts each of the assessed principles and,

shouldn't principles be understood in a metaphysical sense according to the supreme principle of good?

The reply by Gemini:

Examining Rights Through Metaphysical Principles of Good

You suggest scrutinizing every claimed right against fundamental, metaphysically understood principles, guided by a supreme principle of good. This aims for a rigorous and principled justification for rights, moving beyond mere desires.

Understanding Metaphysical Principles:

Objective Reality: These principles possess an objective reality, rooted in being or inherent human value, not just social constructs.
Transcendent Nature: They are universal truths, beyond specific cultures or times.
Intrinsic Value: They are inherently good, not just useful for other goals.

The Supreme Principle of Good:

This unifying idea suggests all valid rights align with an ultimate good (e.g., Plato's Good, Aristotle's Summum Bonum, Divine Goodness).

Implications for Declaring Rights:

Burden of Proof: New rights must demonstrate alignment with these metaphysical principles of good.
Hierarchy of Rights: Rights tied to the supreme good (e.g., human dignity, life) are more fundamental.
Critical Evaluation: Existing rights should be re-evaluated for consistency with core principles.
Resistance to Arbitrary Claims: Discourages rights based on mere desires or fleeting trends, lacking a connection to the greater good.

Challenges and Considerations:

Defining the "Supreme Good": Different interpretations exist across philosophies and religions.
Identifying Metaphysical Principles: How do we access these principles (reason, intuition, revelation)?
Applying Abstract Principles: Translating abstract principles to specific rights and resolving conflicts requires wisdom.
Risk of Dogmatism: Insisting on one interpretation could lead to intolerance.

In Conclusion: examining rights against metaphysical principles of good offers a powerful vision for an ethically grounded system, moving beyond subjective desires. While implementation is challenging, the aspiration for a morally coherent framework for rights is vital.

My reply:

What is the (short) scientific definition for the beginning and the end of life?

The reply by Gemini:

Scientific Definitions: Beginning and End of Life (Short)

Science offers these general definitions, though universal agreement and ethical implications are debated:

Beginning of Human Life (Biology):

Fertilization: Sperm and egg fuse, forming a unique zygote with the potential to become a human.

End of Human Life (Neurology):

Brain Death: Irreversible cessation of all brain function (including brainstem), characterized by the absence of consciousness, reflexes, and spontaneous breathing. This is often the legal and medical standard for death.

Important Considerations:

Beginning Debate: The precise ethical/legal start of life is debated, even with fertilization as a biological marker.
End Criteria: Historically, death was defined by heart/lung stop. Brain death is used even with artificial support.
"End-of-Life" Process: Medical care often refers to the weeks/months leading to death, not just the moment itself.

My reply:

How can we debate about scientific truths if we want a logical reasoning?

How can one be alive and death at the same moment?

Aren’t they just debates, and not truth?

and aren't those people using rhetoric tricks to fool scientific meanings?

The reply by Gemini:

Debating Science Logically: Avoiding Rhetoric

Debating established scientific truths as mere opinions hinders logical reasoning.

Logical Reasoning & Science:

Science = Evidence: Based on observation, experiment, and data analysis.
Logic Needs Accurate Premises: Contradicting science leads to unreliable conclusions.
Healthy Scientific Debate: Involves data interpretation, model refinement, assumption challenges, and new hypotheses.
Pseudo-Debate: Using rhetoric to deny established science (e.g., Earth's shape, vaccines) is misinformation, not genuine debate.

Alive & Dead Simultaneously?

Biologically Impossible: Life = ongoing processes; death = irreversible cessation.
"Brain Death": Irreversible loss of all brain function is the scientific/legal definition of death, even with artificial support. Not "alive and dead."
Rhetorical Misuse: Claims of being simultaneously alive and dead are often philosophical, metaphorical, or rhetorical tricks, not scientific reality.

Rhetoric Distorts Science:

Definition Distortion: Manipulating scientific terms to fit an agenda.
Appeals to Emotion/False Authority: Swaying opinions without evidence.
Straw Man Arguments: Misrepresenting scientific claims for easier attack.
Cherry-Picking: Selectively using data to support a view, ignoring contrary evidence.

Conclusion: logical reasoning about the natural world requires accurate, science-based premises. Rhetoric that distorts scientific meanings undermines understanding. "Brain death" is a defined end of life, not a state of being simultaneously alive and dead. Genuine scientific inquiry differs from rhetorical manipulation.