> > In every case I know of, those who were trying to > > expand the recognition of the existing right(s) > > argued that all those whose right(s)were already > > recognized and acknowledged had those rights on > > the basis of certain significant shared characteristics.
> And non-human animals do not share the most significant > characteristic necessary for rights - the ability to > reciprocate
> If animals have "inherent" rights, they have those rights > regardless of the transgressor. The rabbit would have > just as much a claim against a fox as it does a human. > Since it does not, your "theory" collapses into the > incoherent briar patch from which it came.
Where were you the last time I pointed this out? Let me guess, a certain somebody who can't find a decent library threatened to killfile you because he couldn't respond to this fact, am I right? Kevin
> Pointing to other historically aggrieved minorities only > weakens your argument - if you were correct, you wouldn't > have to continually whine "It's the same thing as..."
> Where were you the last time I pointed this out? Let me guess, a > certain somebody who can't find a decent library threatened to killfile > you because he couldn't respond to this fact, am I right?
I think that "certain somebody" pretends to not read my posts anyway but he doesn't hold to his word very often.
Anyway, I do not read all of the posts in the newsgroup and if I'm out doing skiing or kayaking, I don't read any of the posts and do not review old ones.
The fox-rabbit point is one that's been around for years.
> > There are several falacies here. First, > > rescuing the animal will not destroy any > > existing research; it will only prevent > > future use of that animal.
> To the degree that the existing research depends upon the > animals "rescued", the existing research will most > certainly be destroyed.
> ALF "rescuers" have yet to demonstrate any ability to be > selective in their vandalism. They wantonly destroy and > damage labs without care.
> > Second, this sees > > the animal only as a means, of value only > > for his/her use to humans. That is a view I > > reject. Third, the suffering and injustice > > to the animal exists now. The obligation to > > end that suffering and injustice exists now.
> The "obligation" exists only in the minds of self-selected > fascists intent on forcing their beliefs onto the rest of > society.
> ALF members are nothing but a bunch of chicken-shit > cowards.
could you explain "self-selected fascists"? "No" to NATO, "No" to WTO, "No" to NAFTA
> > Where were you the last time I pointed this out? Let me guess, a > > certain somebody who can't find a decent library threatened to killfile > > you because he couldn't respond to this fact, am I right?
> I think that "certain somebody" pretends to not read my > posts anyway but he doesn't hold to his word very often.
> Anyway, I do not read all of the posts in the newsgroup > and if I'm out doing skiing or kayaking, I don't read any > of the posts and do not review old ones.
> The fox-rabbit point is one that's been around for years.
I realize that, just making a light-hearted joke. I try to avoid serious conversations on Sundays. Kevin
> <snip> > > I agree that democratic rights are beneficial, but that begs the original question. > > Are they "inherent" or granted and enforced by governments? When there are changes, > > such as in the womens' sufferage movement, did we just wake up and recognize a right > > that was inherent all along or did we simply add a new one? Is there a difference?
> Virtually every movement to expand protection > and participation in the social group has been > based on the belief that the excluded group HAD/ > HAS a right, which should be recognized by > society and by law (in legally-based societies). > No one that I know of has ever led a protest > movement with the slogan" "Let's create a right > to (do X)...or for (group X)." It is always assumed > that the right already exists, is inherent, > and recognition of it is being unfairly denied > by the power structure. Otherwise, there would be > no sense of legitimacy to the movement.
The idea of the founders of America was to create a free and democratic society where every man had an equal opportunity for happiness. This charter, this mindset, is the place where these rights exist, not in reality. In the wild, the bigger and stronger kill the weak. In feudal times you had the right to go on breathing if you obeyed the lord faithfully. No inherent right to freedom in sight yet things went along quite well for centuries.
All that is true is that we are here, and we have the luxury to choose to consider the suffering of animals. There is no mystical mandate, just freedom to choose.
> In every case I know of, those who were trying to > expand the recognition of the existing right(s) > argued that all those whose right(s)were already > recognized and acknowledged had those rights on > the basis of certain significant shared characteristics. > Those who argued against the expanded definition of > the class of those holding the right(s) argued that > the significant shared characteristics must include ones > which excluded the protesting (or protested-for) group. > Those arguing for the excluded group argued that the > excluding characteristics were not significant (were > not necessary) for recognition in the class of those > holding the inherent, already-existing, right. The > AR movement is continuing in this tradition, and > the anti-AR movement is continuing in the tradition > which denied rights to women, blacks, the poor, > the non-noble, and gay people. That is why the > comparison with the liberation movements for > those groups is frequently cited by ARAs.
A small village in Indonesia... the surrounding poor land supports a small herd of oxen and boar. During special festivals each season an animal is ritually slaughtered in the town square. A sweeping stroke with a razor-sharp machete and the animal is instantly unconcious. The people rejoice and thank their great friend the ox for providing for them. The diet is complimented with wild roots. This diet involves NO animal suffering. If these people switched to a diet like yours the amount of animal suffering would be increase astronomically. Their lives and centuries old customs turned upside down. Are you saying they should do all that because some guy over in California thinks so?
> What people in both camps sometimes forget is that the > contemporary opponents of expanding the class of > rights-holders to include such groups <snip>
This is NEVER going to happen so forget it, and it isn't necessary. There is nothing inherently wrong with what we're doing, provided that it is done in a compassionate way.
> > > > > But I am vegan because I believe raising > > > > > and slaughtering animals for food violates > > > > > those animals' inherent rights.
> > > > Does this inherent right of the animal also exist between it and other animals, or > > is > > > > a special right that only comes into effect in relation to humans?
> > > In relation to humans, because only humans > > > are moral agents (as far as we know; some > > > animals may be moral agents, but we don't, > > > I think, know which, if any, are at this > > > point.)
> > Following that reasoning, the inherent right does not exist for that animal, except in > > the specific case of it's interaction with the moral agent. Doesn't that suggest to > > you that it's the moral agent that carries this imperative, since it only exists when > > he is present?
> The moral agent carries the imperative to > recognize and respect the right, because only > the moral agent has the ability to do so. > The right is inherent in the subject, but only > the moral agent is capable of recognizing it > exists. We usually agree that a human > has a right not to be murdered, but if > a landslide buries the person, we do not try the > landslide for murder, because the landslide is > not a moral agent. That does not mean we deny > the victim of the landslide had a right not to > be murdered by a human.
> > > >the latter, you > > > > might consider the possibility that the right is granted by you. In fact all > > rights > > > > are granted, there are no "inherent rights".
> > > Ipse dixit. That is your opinion, > > > no more.
> > Logic supports it. Throughout history human societies have existed, and very few have > > recognized these so-called "inherent rights". Nothing about these rights suggests they > > are anything more than agreeable to the social and constitiutional environment. > > Certainly in recent history, before blacks or women were recognized as "equal", > > inherent rights did not apply to them.
> No, IMO, their inherent rights were not > recognized. If it had not become the > accepted belief that women and blacks had > such inherent rights, they would not now > be seen as equal. You may, of course, > feel that such rights are a social fiction -- > many people throughout history have held that > opinion. But most of our existing Western > culture is based on the belief that rights are > inherent.
The rights are inherent "in the existing culture" nowhere else. They don't predate the culture nor do they exist as such in all cultures.
> > > > Even if > > > > > veggie production created more absolute suffering, > > > > > I could not, ethically, replace veggies with > > > > > non-human animal meat, any more than I could > > > > > replace veggies with flesh of slaughtered humans.
> > > I wouldn't say it is selfish. I would say > > > it is an ethical view which creates a moral > > > obligation for me.
> > Why isn't it selfish to choose a preferred diet over one that you admit causes less > > suffering?
> I don't admit it causes less suffering. The > Great Collateral Deaths Debate has, IMO, come > to the consensus that it is a disputed > question to which we have no definite answer.
I'm not talking about collateral deaths, I could care less about mice..
I am talking about your own statement,
> > > > > Even if > > > > > veggie production created more absolute suffering, > > > > > I could not, ethically, replace veggies with > > > > > non-human animal meat,
It was a candid admission that your personal anti-cruelty agenda is paramount over the suffering of animals, and I'll bet you didn't blink. Mercer would call it classic cognitive dissonance.
> > Rat & Swan <lab...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> <snip> > > > The issue of reducing suffering is > > > secondary for me, so the nit-picking > > > argument about how much suffering is > > > created by alternate forms of food > > > production is not the deciding factor. > > > I certainly agree that when practices > > > that _increase_ suffering can be > > > easily identified -- as many in > > > the meat industry can be -- it becomes > > > a good and important goal to reduce or > > > eliminate them, as much as possible. > > > But I am vegan because I believe raising > > > and slaughtering animals for food violates > > > those animals' inherent rights. Even if > > > veggie production created more absolute suffering, > > > I could not, ethically, replace veggies with > > > non-human animal meat, any more than I could > > > replace veggies with flesh of slaughtered humans.
> > If I understand you, then, it doesn't particularly bother you that billions > > of nonfood animals are killed in the process of raising vegetables/grains,
> It certainly "bothers" me -- just as much > as the humans killed in in the process > bothers me. But I can see no practical or > ethical reason why replacing veggies with > meat will create the sort of change which > will encourage farmers to kill fewer of > them.
> > but it does bother you that other animals (hogs, cattle, poultry, etc.) are > > raised and killed specifically for food?
> Yes.
> > I would assume, then, that it isn't the killing of animals that bothers you > > at all, but the fact that with food animals, *humans* are doing the raising > > and are the ones benefiting from it.
> It is the intentional raising and killing > of animals by humans.
> > Is this is indeed your opinion (as it seems to be), it's little wonder that > > ARA's are often accused of having an "anti-human" attitude. Your argument > > certainly sounds that way to me.
> It's not. If I were really anti-human > I would suggest raising humans on > hydroponically-produced veggie diets and > slaughtering _them_ for food. I don't.
> Rat
I wish people would get their facts straight. I come closer to being anti-human than anyone else I have seen post on this ng. Honestly, I can see perfectly well why Rat's argument makes sense to her, when it is applied from an AR perspective. I don't see any problem with the structure of the argument, but rather in its application. Kevin
> Virtually every movement to expand protection > and participation in the social group has been > based on the belief that the excluded group HAD/ > HAS a right, which should be recognized by > society and by law (in legally-based societies).
That does not make it inherent.
> No one that I know of has ever led a protest > movement with the slogan" "Let's create a right > to (do X)...or for (group X)."
The social construction of the right predates the protest movement. Your causal attributions are off-base.
> It is always assumed > that the right already exists, is inherent, > and recognition of it is being unfairly denied > by the power structure.
No, the movements don't "always" assume that the right already exists. They have to socially construct its existence and convince others of it. Creating a fiction that it is "inherent" is just a handy way to prevent or preclude others from arguing against its existence.
You are making unfounded assumptions and your social movement theory is under-conceptualized.
> I wish people would get their facts straight. I come closer to being > anti-human than anyone else I have seen post on this ng. > Honestly, I can see perfectly well why Rat's argument makes sense to > her, when it is applied from an AR perspective. I don't see any problem > with the structure of the argument, but rather in its application. > Kevin
Rat's position is based on a the premise that other species have an inborn right protecting them from being killed by species homo sapiens. Her belief in this principle is so strong that it matters not if cultures are destroyed, or there is much more animal suffering so long as no man kills an animal. The ethical position is a black hole of ignorance.
From a practical standpoint of course it's laughable
"Martin L. Martens" <rattle.st...@ya.hoo.com> wrote
[..]
> No, the movements don't "always" assume that the right > already exists. They have to socially construct its > existence and convince others of it. Creating a fiction > that it is "inherent" is just a handy way to prevent or > preclude others from arguing against its existence.
A right can be inherent or not within the parameters of a given society. Without the connection to that society it's nothing.
> "Martin L. Martens" <rattle.st...@ya.hoo.com> wrote
> [..] > > No, the movements don't "always" assume that the right > > already exists. They have to socially construct its > > existence and convince others of it. Creating a fiction > > that it is "inherent" is just a handy way to prevent or > > preclude others from arguing against its existence.
> A right can be inherent or not within the parameters of a given society. Without the > connection to that society it's nothing.
Inherent, as I understand it, means that it exists independent of human cognition. I have not seen it used to mean something that is a taken-for-granted fact assumed to exist within a particular society.
> > "Martin L. Martens" <rattle.st...@ya.hoo.com> wrote
> > [..] > > > No, the movements don't "always" assume that the right > > > already exists. They have to socially construct its > > > existence and convince others of it. Creating a fiction > > > that it is "inherent" is just a handy way to prevent or > > > preclude others from arguing against its existence.
> > A right can be inherent or not within the parameters of a given society. Without the > > connection to that society it's nothing.
> Inherent, as I understand it, means that it exists > independent of human cognition.
That would make in unconcious, not inherent.
I have not seen it used to
> mean something that is a taken-for-granted fact assumed to > exist within a particular society.
The right must derive out of the essence of the social contract. If it's to have a free and democratic society where people are considered equal under the law, then certain rights are inherent under that set of criteria. They are culture-specific and definitely not universally inherent in life, which could best be described as a free-for-all.
In article <t6ndm8i8umc...@news.supernews.com>, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
> <brandon1...@my-deja.com> wrote in> > [..] > > I wish people would get their facts straight. I come closer to being > > anti-human than anyone else I have seen post on this ng. > > Honestly, I can see perfectly well why Rat's argument makes sense to > > her, when it is applied from an AR perspective. I don't see any problem > > with the structure of the argument, but rather in its application. > > Kevin
> Rat's position is based on a the premise that other species have an inborn right > protecting them from being killed by species homo sapiens.
True, and that is a position disagree with.
Her belief in this
> principle is so strong that it matters not if cultures are destroyed, or there is much > more animal suffering so long as no man kills an animal.
Which is one of my reasons for disagreeing with it, because I believe the application has inherent flaws.
The ethical position is a
> black hole of ignorance.
Agreed, but I give her credit for the strength of her beliefs, I just happen to believe she's wrong.
> From a practical standpoint of course it's laughable
Completely impractical, due to, among other problems, no requirements on animals to recognize these supposed rights of other animals (or of humans for that matter). Whenever I hear any group calling for a recognition of rights for any "oppressed group", I cringe, what it means is they want "more rights", not "equal rights". Kevin
> > <snip> > > > > The issue of reducing suffering is > > > > secondary for me, so the nit-picking > > > > argument about how much suffering is > > > > created by alternate forms of food > > > > production is not the deciding factor. > > > > I certainly agree that when practices > > > > that _increase_ suffering can be > > > > easily identified -- as many in > > > > the meat industry can be -- it becomes > > > > a good and important goal to reduce or > > > > eliminate them, as much as possible. > > > > But I am vegan because I believe raising > > > > and slaughtering animals for food violates > > > > those animals' inherent rights.
> The whole idea of inherent rights collapses under any scrutiny. Also nothing inherent > in nature as I view it objectively suggests anything like the
inherent right not to be
> killed for food, quite the reverse, it is one's role and obligation to be, except for > the top animal in each food chain.
There is no 'top animal" in any food chain. The closest any animal i know of comes to having that distinction is the grizzly bear, and even it is sometimes killed by other predators.
Certainly there exists no inherent right to not be
> kept in a barn and fed. What I believe is that we have the absolute right as free > moral agents to do whatever we want with animals.
Which is an inherent right. I have the inherent right to do anything I choose to do so long as I do not harm another human. I also have an answer for invalid laws that violate this premise: I ignore them.
This is only limited by prevailing
> AW laws. This is not a corrupt model, it needs refining, yes. Don't throw the baby out > with the bathwater.
> Animals raised as food animals get a lot of good treatment, some bad. Take that bad > away, and... problem gone.
> > The whole idea of inherent rights collapses under any scrutiny. Also > nothing inherent > > in nature as I view it objectively suggests anything like the > inherent right not to be > > killed for food, quite the reverse, it is one's role and obligation > to be, except for > > the top animal in each food chain.
> There is no 'top animal" in any food chain. The closest any animal i > know of comes to having that distinction is the grizzly bear, and even > it is sometimes killed by other predators.
You are at the top of a food chain, so are eagles. But since you were in cognitive dissonance over my first sentence, which challenges a religious belief, you failed to comment on the meat of that paragraph, which strongly reinforces your view that man is a natural part of the food chain, opting to make a weak and incorrect quibble about "top animal".
> Certainly there exists no inherent right to not be > > kept in a barn and fed. What I believe is that we have the absolute > right as free > > moral agents to do whatever we want with animals.
> Which is an inherent right. I have the inherent right to do anything > I choose to do so long as I do not harm another human.
An absolute right means that you can do anything you want as long as it's physically possible.
An inherent right is a right which is self-evident from the charter of your society and applicable within that society.
> I also have an > answer for invalid laws that violate this premise: I ignore them.
Do you mean you demand the right to say what is animal cruelty or not? Sorry I don't think that is an inherent right in this society. Some societies maybe, but not western.
> This is only limited by prevailing > > AW laws. This is not a corrupt model, it needs refining, yes. Don't > throw the baby out > > with the bathwater.
> > Animals raised as food animals get a lot of good treatment, some bad. > Take that bad > > away, and... problem gone.
> > Inherent, as I understand it, means that it exists > > independent of human cognition.
> That would make in unconcious, not inherent.
It's the basic definition of an "inherent right".
> > I have not seen it used to > > mean something that is a taken-for-granted fact assumed to > > exist within a particular society.
> The right must derive out of the essence of the social contract.
This is severely inconsistent with any use of the idea of "inherent rights". Inherent rights are used pretty much to argue against social contract theory. The only serious rights theorists who use the idea of "inherent" rights are environmental and animal rights advocates. They purport the existence of something that is independent of human cognition - animals (trees, rocks, etc.) have an "inherent value" or the "inherent right". This is what Rat is doing. From what I've read, Rat is rather opposed to the fundamental ideas of social contract theory.
> If it's to have a > free and democratic society where people are considered equal under the law, then > certain rights are inherent under that set of criteria. They are culture-specific and > definitely not universally inherent in life, which could best be described as a > free-for-all.
If you can offer some sources that agree with this, I'll read it but your use of the term is inconsistent with how I understand its use in the rights literature.
"Martin L. Martens" <rattle.st...@ya.hoo.com> wrote ...
> Dutch wrote: > [...]
> > > Inherent, as I understand it, means that it exists > > > independent of human cognition.
> > That would make in unconsious, not inherent.
> It's the basic definition of an "inherent right".
I take it that there is a proscribed meaning of "inherent right". I may be using the term in an atypical way.
> > > I have not seen it used to > > > mean something that is a taken-for-granted fact assumed to > > > exist within a particular society.
> > The right must derive out of the essence of the social contract.
> This is severely inconsistent with any use of the idea of > "inherent rights". Inherent rights are used pretty much > to argue against social contract theory.
I mean in reality that in social context is the only way in which I would agree that a right could be called inherent (inherent in *something*). I'm saying that all rights are the children of a social contract. To say a right is self-evident or inherent is to say it follows necessarily and obviously from the spirit of the contract. To say it exists outside any social context is suborning a foolish fantasy.
The only serious
> rights theorists who use the idea of "inherent" rights are > environmental and animal rights advocates. They purport > the existence of something that is independent of human > cognition - animals (trees, rocks, etc.) have an "inherent > value" or the "inherent right".
This is what Rat is doing.
> From what I've read, Rat is rather opposed to the > fundamental ideas of social contract theory.
In browsing briefly it seems like the term "inherent right" is commonly used to describe whichever advantage a particular group wants to lay claim to.
> > > The whole idea of inherent rights collapses under any scrutiny. Also > > nothing inherent > > > in nature as I view it objectively suggests anything like the > > inherent right not to be > > > killed for food, quite the reverse, it is one's role and obligation > > to be, except for > > > the top animal in each food chain.
> > There is no 'top animal" in any food chain. The closest any animal i > > know of comes to having that distinction is the grizzly bear, and even > > it is sometimes killed by other predators.
> You are at the top of a food chain,
No I'm not, and I have no delusions of grandeur about it. The whole idea of a food "chain" is rather antiquted at best. There is a food web, everything that lives is potential food for something else. Any ideas I have about being st the top of any food chain could quickly and easily be proven wrong by a cougar or a grizzly.
so are eagles.
Nope, sometimes killed by other predators as well. Even without the rare, but still existent, circumstance of one predator killing and eating another, all forms of life eventually die and provide nourishment for other forms of life. As I said, no food chain, a continuous food web. Trying to find the top of it would be like Polly trying to find four corners on a sphere.
But since you were in cognitive
> dissonance over my first sentence, which challenges a religious
belief,
What has this got to do with anything I have said?
you failed to
> comment on the meat of that paragraph, which strongly reinforces your view that man is > a natural part of the food chain,
My view that man is a part of nature has nothing to do with any food chain. Nor do I have to view myself as supreme lord of nature in a position above all else (top). As I recently told Bob (farrell77), if I go hunting in an area populated by cougars, I do so recognizing that I may encounter a cougar intent on making me its next meal. If that happens, one of us will live and one will die (possibly, but not likely, both will die). Regardless of which one dies, survival of the fittest takes its allotted toll. I see no reason to think that I should, by any self-serving and ultimately self-misleading view of superiority over nature, automatically be the one to live. If I do, I'm still not on top of any food chain, no more than the cougar would be if it killed and ate me. The victor is simply that, and will still eventually become food for something else.
opting to make a weak and incorrect quibble about
> "top animal".
There was nothing incorrect about it. To be "top animal" one would have to be totally immune from being prey, as well as live forever. No living creature satisfies either of those two requirements, much less both. The weak argument is the one that claims there is a "top animal" of a "food chain" when neither exists because nature just doesn't work that way. The whole concept of "top animal" is a view shared by people who have never really had any true connection with nature. Walks through a park don't qualify. Spend a night in the Montana wilderness after your rifle's firing pin has broke with no other weapons but a small axe and a knife. Any self-serving delusions will evaporate before dawn.
> > Certainly there exists no inherent right to not be > > > kept in a barn and fed. What I believe is that we have the absolute > > right as free > > > moral agents to do whatever we want with animals.
> > Which is an inherent right. I have the inherent right to do anything > > I choose to do so long as I do not harm another human.
> An absolute right means that you can do anything you want as long as it's physically > possible.
> An inherent right is a right which is self-evident from the charter of your society > and applicable within that society.
I won't argue semantics.
> > I also have an > > answer for invalid laws that violate this premise: I ignore them.
> Do you mean you demand the right to say what is animal cruelty or not? Sorry I don't > think that is an inherent right in this society. Some societies maybe, but not > western.
Actually, that statement was simply a further explanation for the previous one. It was probably better applicable to another post of yours where you responded directly to my use of "inalienable rights". Sorry, similar ideas and I may have temporarily forgotten exactly which post I was replying to. Kevin
> > This is only limited by prevailing > > > AW laws. This is not a corrupt model, it needs refining, yes. Don't > > throw the baby out > > > with the bathwater.
> > > Animals raised as food animals get a lot of good treatment, some bad. > > Take that bad > > > away, and... problem gone.
Let's look at this another way. If you don't think, as Rat does, that rights are granted by a Creator, then you have to look at why humans grant each other rights. We generally do it because we recognize that humans have vital interests, and we then decide that no human should be deprived of the things that these interests demand, like food, shelter, social interaction with others, and the ability to have some say in what happens to our society. It is obvious that we don't follow this principle strictly, but it forms the basis for our conception of "rights".
(Some argue that reciprocity is necessary to have rights bestowed or recognized, but they are forced to admit that not all humans are capable of this reciprocity, while all humans do have vital interests, even if they consist merely of continuing to live. The reciprocity argument fails because it is not actually what we base rights on at the present time.)
Once we see that rights are granted based on vital interests, we must logically examine why the vital interests of humans are considered, but not those of nonhumans. We can say that rights are granted simply because we are human, but that implies that interests are not then the basis - the whole system is arbitrary. If we decide to state something like "All humans have certain rights, while no nonhumans have any rights", then we are admitting that we are simply making an arbitrary decision that can be reversed or modified at any time, because it has no sound basis in reason. What most AR philosophy does is simply to attempt to apply the reasoning behind human rights theory to all those beings who have vital interests, and to grant them rights that 'match up' with these interests. That's why we say that dogs have a right to food, shelter, and social interaction, but no right to vote. Is it possible to perfectly implement such a system of rights? No. Have we even come close to fully respecting our own human rights on a universal basis? No. All we can do is try to come as close as is reasonably possible.
If the above is correct, then Dutch is right - up to a point. We do grant rights, but only because we recognize that doing so is the ethically appropriate thing to do. This is not an arbitrary process - if it were, then we would have no basis to question horrific human rights abuses in countries where such abuses are legal.
BTW, I think that Dutch's interpretation of the intext of the framers of the US constitution is more than a little naive. The document was originally designed to give white male landowners a say in how they were governed, and that's about it. --
"People should be held accountable for their actions." -GW Bush
m...@albany.net wrote: > Let's look at this another way. If you don't think, as Rat > does, that rights are granted by a Creator, then you have to > look at why humans grant each other rights. We generally do > it because we recognize that humans have vital interests, and > we then decide that no human should be deprived of the things > that these interests demand, like food, shelter, social > interaction with others, and the ability to have some say in > what happens to our society. It is obvious that we don't > follow this principle strictly, but it forms the basis for > our conception of "rights".
> (Some argue that reciprocity is necessary to have rights > bestowed or recognized, but they are forced to admit that > not all humans are capable of this reciprocity, while all > humans do have vital interests, even if they consist > merely of continuing to live. The reciprocity argument > fails because it is not actually what we base rights on > at the present time.)
> Once we see that rights are granted based on vital > interests, we must logically examine why the vital > interests of humans are considered, but not those of > nonhumans. We can say that rights are granted simply > because we are human, but that implies that interests > are not then the basis - the whole system is arbitrary. > If we decide to state something like "All humans have > certain rights, while no nonhumans have any rights", > then we are admitting that we are simply making an > arbitrary decision that can be reversed or modified > at any time, because it has no sound basis in reason. > What most AR philosophy does is simply to attempt to > apply the reasoning behind human rights theory to all > those beings who have vital interests, and to grant > them rights that 'match up' with these interests. That's > why we say that dogs have a right to food, shelter, > and social interaction, but no right to vote. Is it > possible to perfectly implement such a system of rights? > No. Have we even come close to fully respecting our > own human rights on a universal basis? No. All we can > do is try to come as close as is reasonably possible.
> If the above is correct, then Dutch is right - up > to a point. We do grant rights, but only because we > recognize that doing so is the ethically appropriate > thing to do. This is not an arbitrary process - if it > were, then we would have no basis to question horrific > human rights abuses in countries where such abuses are > legal.
> BTW, I think that Dutch's interpretation of the > intext of the framers of the US constitution is more > than a little naive. The document was originally > designed to give white male landowners a say in how > they were governed, and that's about it.
I didn't see where Dutch made any such interpretation. He may have and I missed it, or I might have simply forgotten it. However, I made such an ihterpreation. Now, I challenge you to prove your last sentence or retract it and admit it concerns an area you have no expertise in. Kevin
> --
> "People should be held accountable for their actions." -GW Bush
> I mean in reality that in social context is the only way in which I would agree that a > right could be called inherent (inherent in *something*). I'm saying that all rights > are the children of a social contract. To say a right is self-evident or inherent is > to say it follows necessarily and obviously from the spirit of the contract. To say it > exists outside any social context is suborning a foolish fantasy.
While I may take issue with your terminology, I agree with your basic argument here.
> Let's look at this another way. If you don't think, as Rat > does, that rights are granted by a Creator, then you have to > look at why humans grant each other rights. We generally do > it because we recognize that humans have vital interests, and > we then decide that no human should be deprived of the things > that these interests demand, like food, shelter, social > interaction with others, and the ability to have some say in > what happens to our society. It is obvious that we don't > follow this principle strictly, but it forms the basis for > our conception of "rights".
> (Some argue that reciprocity is necessary to have rights > bestowed or recognized, but they are forced to admit that > not all humans are capable of this reciprocity, while all > humans do have vital interests, even if they consist > merely of continuing to live. The reciprocity argument > fails because it is not actually what we base rights on > at the present time.)
You are in absolutely no position to make such an authoritative claim. Your first paragraph presents the initial foundation of social contract theory. You then contradict the very premise of social contract theory in the second paragraph. Reciprocity is the heart of social contract theory.
Your argument also fails because reciprocity does not exist as a capacity within a person but as a social exchange among and within a society. The reciprocity argument holds up quite well. All you've done is misrepresent it and make a false assertion about it. It is the fundamental basis for rights in the US, in particular, as the US Constitution is based on the thinking of philosophers who created the notion of social contract theory.
> Once we see that rights are granted based on vital > interests, we must logically
What follows is not logical and is fallacious as you've now built a strawman and are whacking away at false and inaccurate claims.
But that's nothing new for you.
[...]
> BTW, I think that Dutch's interpretation of the > intext of the framers of the US constitution is more > than a little naive.
Not at all, he's right on target. You, as usual, are misrepresenting his argument and presenting false and inaccurate arguments to back up your erroneous political assertions.
> I didn't see where Dutch made any such interpretation. He may have > and I missed it, or I might have simply forgotten it. However, I made > such an ihterpreation. Now, I challenge you to prove your last sentence > or retract it and admit it concerns an area you have no expertise in.
That's something he never does. Besides, I'd say we both know that Cerkowski's entire post concerns an area in which he has no expertise.
|
