 |
| |
|
|
Rufus T. Firefly
|
 |
is one way of saying it, though I prefer "mensch"
Sep 2000
time: 07:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Thus it is natural that the society without rights will give way to the society with rights. Therefore rights are natural. |
All societies, even the most tyrannical have rights. The question is, are they the right rights? The right of a man to kill the daughter who dishonored him is, indeed, a right. The right to own slaves is a right. Your rights/no rights binary is a red herring.
The question is not whether rights are natural, but whether specific rights (life, liberty, property, for example) are natural. I contend they are not; we have created these rights, just as previous societies created primogeniture and indentured servitude. Do I believe our rights are right? Yes, absolutely. Do I believe they are natural? No, they are man-made.
This becomes clearer if we take a look at the right most likely to be called "natural" -- the right to life, per Mr. Fun's example -- and actually look at it closely. If this right were natural, surely there would be some broad agreement on its nature. But is there? American conservatives think it extends to the unborn, but not to convicted criminals. Mainstream Western Europe thinks just the opposite. No one but the hard left talks about the 100,000+ civilian deaths in Iraq as a deprivation of rights, though perhaps they should. The fact is, we don't believe in a right to life, separate from a very human discussion of where, when, and to whom such a right obtains. To say that it's a natural right, but that man gets to decide when that right exists, is a flat contradiction. And since the man-made part of the process is so easily observable, while the natural part of the process requires a mystic leap of faith, requires us to weild Occam's Razor and declare rights man-made.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
It's not about living up to the principle; it's about the fact that the "principle" is a moving target, which is the very thing that makes it human.
My position is pretty clear on this. Tell me yours: what is the right to life? Who has it, and when? Is there ever a time when we have a right to end someone else's life? If so, how does that square with your natural, universal right?
Beyond that, tell me how you know -- not why you believe, but how you know -- such a right is natural. |
If it's a moving target may I suggest a machine gun?
Back during the Iraq war I remember seeing a video of this plane with a cannon mounted in it trying to nail this one Iraqi soldier. The plane had a video camera which it used to follow the guy and direct the shots. It seemed to work pretty well. He dodged and darted around, but he couldn't avoid the inevitable. Maybe you need one of those planes.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrFun
|
 |
of Iowa
Nov 2000
time: 23:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
It's not about living up to the principle; it's about the fact that the "principle" is a moving target, which is the very thing that makes it human.
My position is pretty clear on this. Tell me yours: what is the right to life? Who has it, and when? Is there ever a time when we have a right to end someone else's life? If so, how does that square with your natural, universal right?
Beyond that, tell me how you know -- not why you believe, but how you know -- such a right is natural. |
Humans are the only creatures on Earth to have the capability to reason. This is what makes us distinct from all other creatures on our planet.
We can take life from plants and animals because none of the plant and animal species have the capability to reason. Because none of them have the capability to reason, they cannot argue with us as to why we should not control them, exploit them, and kill them.
Thus, a horse is different from a human. Because a horse cannot rationalize why their subordination to humans is unjustified, humans have used them as a means for transportation for most of our history.
In my opinion, plants and animals are subordinate to humans because they lack reasoning and rationalization capabilities. This allows us to exploit them for our own purposes.
So when do I believe a human has the right to life? And which individual humans in varying circumstances have the right to life whereas others do not?
First, let's take abortion for an example. A fetus is incapable of reasoning and rationalization. Yet, because the fetus can develop into a human with the capability of reasoning and rationalization, humans have developed different opinions on whether abortion is ever justifiable. And we decide according to each of our own opinion under what circumstances is abortion justifiable.
I believe that because of the fetus's potential development, that abortion needs to be restricted to: endangerment of pregnant woman's life, rape, or if the doctor reveals that the fetus will have such severe abnormalties as to significantly diminish the quality of its life once it is born.
The second example is capital punishment. I already do not believe that capital punishment is a justifiable form of punishment, so I don't think I have any need to elaborate on this issue.
The third example is humans who suffer from mental disabilities such as down syndrome. If humans cannot exploit and control other humans because we normally have the capabilities to reason and rationalize, what prevents us from treating mentally disabled as chattel, or even as undiserables set apart for extermination?
The answer is that in this case, we can still treat such persons with dignity and integrity because their mental disability does not take away the fact that they are still humans.
So how do these examples of my opinion square with the concept of the univeral, natural right to life? It's universal because no matter where a human lives, he/she has the right to life -- from an executive of metropolitan city in Italy to an pygmy in western part of Africa.
It's natural because it's based on the simple, unchangeable fact that humans have the capability to reason and rationalize. A human can rationalize why another human ought not to exploit or control him/her. A horse does not have that capability.
The only exception from this consistency that I allow for, are humans with mental disabilities. So I guess I have to ask you then -- does an important exception necessarily disqualify "right to life" from being natural then?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rufus T. Firefly
|
|
is one way of saying it, though I prefer "mensch"
Sep 2000
time: 07:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MrFun
Humans are the only creatures on Earth to have the capability to reason. This is what makes us distinct from all other creatures on our planet.
We can take life from plants and animals because none of the plant and animal species have the capability to reason. Because none of them have the capability to reason, they cannot argue with us as to why we should not control them, exploit them, and kill them. |
By this logic, we can kill babies. If we can't because they may someday be able to reason, then we can still kill the severly mentally retarded. Is that where reason takes you? You say it isn't, but read on...
quote:
Thus, a horse is different from a human. Because a horse cannot rationalize why their subordination to humans is unjustified, humans have used them as a means for transportation for most of our history. |
Chimps are more like humans than horses. Chimps can, in fact, reason in a rudimentary fashion. Can we kill chimps? Do chimps have a right to life?
quote:
So when do I believe a human has the right to life? And which individual humans in varying circumstances have the right to life whereas others do not?
First, let's take abortion for an example. A fetus is incapable of reasoning and rationalization. Yet, because the fetus can develop into a human with the capability of reasoning and rationalization, humans have developed different opinions on whether abortion is ever justifiable. And we decide according to each of our own opinion under what circumstances is abortion justifiable. |
If each of us gets to decide based on our own opinions/beliefs, then the right isn't natural -- it's a human construct.
quote:
I believe that because of the fetus's potential development, that abortion needs to be restricted to: endangerment of pregnant woman's life, rape, or if the doctor reveals that the fetus will have such severe abnormalties as to significantly diminish the quality of its life once it is born. |
Why does rape mitigate anything? A life is a life. Why does the life inside of a woman whose birth control failed have a right to exist, but the life inside of a woman who was raped does not? If there is a natural right to life, there is no way Reason could lead you to this conclusion. If, on the other hand, the right to life was a human construct, you'd be free to construct it this way -- as you have.
quote:
The third example is humans who suffer from mental disabilities such as down syndrome. If humans cannot exploit and control other humans because we normally have the capabilities to reason and rationalize, what prevents us from treating mentally disabled as chattel, or even as undiserables set apart for extermination?
The answer is that in this case, we can still treat such persons with dignity and integrity because their mental disability does not take away the fact that they are still humans. |
Yes it does. You just said that what makes us human is our ability to reason. Therefore, any being that cannot reason is, by definition, not human. And we get to kill them. You said so.
You see my point. It's all well and good to declare that a Right to Life is natural, not man-made. But such a right, like all rights, is meaningless in the abstract and must be concretized. The problem is, the minute you concretize it, you realize that it is a profoundly human construct.
And, again, there's nothing wrong with that; it does not diminish in the least the importance of such a right.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
 |
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:23
|
|
quote:
So how do these examples of my opinion square with the concept of the univeral, natural right to life? It's universal because no matter where a human lives, he/she has the right to life -- from an executive of metropolitan city in Italy to an pygmy in western part of Africa.
It's natural because it's based on the simple, unchangeable fact that humans have the capability to reason and rationalize. A human can rationalize why another human ought not to exploit or control him/her. A horse does not have that capability. |
But how is it universal (except in your own, personal, reasoning) when people disagree on whether the capability to reason and rationalize are the criteria? After all, the conservative who thinks abortion violates the right to life in all circumstances because someone is a human when the egg is fertilzed does not share the same belief as you.
Someone who is a Buddhist probably would not take 'reason' as a justification for a right to life, but would take sentience, meaning that animals have a right to life as well, and thus our eating them is violating their 'natural' rights.
IIRC, Eastern religions and cultures did not recognize a right to life until Western values were imposed upon them, indicating a 'right to life' being a cultural conquest rather than a natural right.
If everyone doesn't agree, how can it be a universal natural right?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
notyoueither
|
 |
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
This becomes clearer if we take a look at the right most likely to be called "natural" -- the right to life, per Mr. Fun's example -- and actually look at it closely. If this right were natural, surely there would be some broad agreement on its nature. But is there? American conservatives think it extends to the unborn, but not to convicted criminals. Mainstream Western Europe thinks just the opposite. No one but the hard left talks about the 100,000+ civilian deaths in Iraq as a deprivation of rights, though perhaps they should. The fact is, we don't believe in a right to life, separate from a very human discussion of where, when, and to whom such a right obtains. To say that it's a natural right, but that man gets to decide when that right exists, is a flat contradiction. And since the man-made part of the process is so easily observable, while the natural part of the process requires a mystic leap of faith, requires us to weild Occam's Razor and declare rights man-made. |
There would be zero reason for the left to object to Iraq without appeal to the 'right to life' at the most basic level.
Iraq is only wrong because of the death and misery it causes to Iraqis. It is wrong because war is wrong. Period. Why? Because people die.
OTOH, Iraq is only right because of the death and misery that countless other Iraqis will avoid. It is right because war can be right. Why? Because fewer people will die.
People from both sides can approach the same problem from the same basis, but come to different conclusions, but they all proceed from the basis that loss of life is morally negative.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MrFun
In my opinion, |
This is the key phrase here.
For a roight top be natural, it must be universal, i.e., it must be observed everywhere and at all times, except in extreme circumstances, such as insanity.
No right has ever been obersved in all societies, for all people, in all times. Thus no right can be considered universal, thus no right is natural.
There is nothing wrong with the recognition that rights are man-made. In fact, this makes rights more important, since we can create new ones, or take old ones away. We took away the right to own slaves. We took away the right to kill your inferiors. We added the right to free speech.
Like any tool, there is an inherent danger. Hammers and screwdrivers can be used to kill as weapons as well as tools to build. We can lose rights we consider crucial as well as add rights which we could consider evil.
Last edited by chegitz guevara on 31-05-2005 at 21:34
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrFun
|
|
of Iowa
Nov 2000
time: 23:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
By this logic, we can kill babies. If we can't because they may someday be able to reason, then we can still kill the severly mentally retarded. Is that where reason takes you? You say it isn't, but read on...
Chimps are more like humans than horses. Chimps can, in fact, reason in a rudimentary fashion. Can we kill chimps? Do chimps have a right to life?
If each of us gets to decide based on our own opinions/beliefs, then the right isn't natural -- it's a human construct.
Why does rape mitigate anything? A life is a life. Why does the life inside of a woman whose birth control failed have a right to exist, but the life inside of a woman who was raped does not? If there is a natural right to life, there is no way Reason could lead you to this conclusion. If, on the other hand, the right to life was a human construct, you'd be free to construct it this way -- as you have.
Yes it does. You just said that what makes us human is our ability to reason. Therefore, any being that cannot reason is, by definition, not human. And we get to kill them. You said so.
You see my point. It's all well and good to declare that a Right to Life is natural, not man-made. But such a right, like all rights, is meaningless in the abstract and must be concretized. The problem is, the minute you concretize it, you realize that it is a profoundly human construct.
And, again, there's nothing wrong with that; it does not diminish in the least the importance of such a right. |
Ok, so if the right to life is not natural and is a social construct, what aspect of humanity IS natural and universal that still distinguishes us from other animals?
For instance, humans sexually reproduce in essentially the same basic way that many other mammalian species do. But are there any natural characteristics of humans that do not exist in other animals? Can we say that reasoning and rationalization are natural traits of humans that does not exist in other animals?
The reasoning of chimpanzees that you already mentioned is not the same form of reasoning of humans, is it? Or could we say that they are essentially the same, only with human reasoning being more advanced than that of chimpanzees?
Oh, and please be patient with me as I try to sort all this out -- I'm not experienced in philosophical discourse as others may be. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrFun
|
|
of Iowa
Nov 2000
time: 23:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
quote:
So how do these examples of my opinion square with the concept of the univeral, natural right to life? It's universal because no matter where a human lives, he/she has the right to life -- from an executive of metropolitan city in Italy to an pygmy in western part of Africa.
It's natural because it's based on the simple, unchangeable fact that humans have the capability to reason and rationalize. A human can rationalize why another human ought not to exploit or control him/her. A horse does not have that capability. |
But how is it universal (except in your own, personal, reasoning) when people disagree on whether the capability to reason and rationalize are the criteria? After all, the conservative who thinks abortion violates the right to life in all circumstances because someone is a human when the egg is fertilzed does not share the same belief as you.
Someone who is a Buddhist probably would not take 'reason' as a justification for a right to life, but would take sentience, meaning that animals have a right to life as well, and thus our eating them is violating their 'natural' rights.
IIRC, Eastern religions and cultures did not recognize a right to life until Western values were imposed upon them, indicating a 'right to life' being a cultural conquest rather than a natural right.
If everyone doesn't agree, how can it be a universal natural right? |
I understand what you mean in reference to different cultural understandings of such ideas "right to life."
I have to think about this some more before I respond more fully, though.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrFun
|
|
of Iowa
Nov 2000
time: 23:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
This is the key phrase here.
For a roight top be natural, it must be universal, i.e., it must be observed everywhere and at all times, except in extreme circumstances, such as insanity.
No right has ever been obersved in all societies, for all people, in all times. Thus no right can be considered universal, thus no right is natural.
There is nothing wrong with the recognition that rights are man-made. In fact, this makes rights more important, since we can create new ones, or take old ones away. We took away the right to own slaves. We took away the right to kill your inferiors. We added the right to free speech.
Like any tool, there is an inherent danger. Hammers and screwdrivers can be used to kill as weapons as well as tools to build. We can lose rights we consider crucial as well as add rights which we could consider evil. |
But read the earlier posts -- does the lack of universal, faithful adherence to the natural right to life mean that it is not natural?
Sexual reproduction for example, is a natural form of perpetuation and continuation of a species. Does this mean that because some humans choose to never bear children that sexual reproduction is not natural?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23.
Apolyton Time is 00:23. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
31-05-2005 04:53
|
|