News Are Human Rights Truly Compatible or Just a Matter of Semantics?

[nismaratwork]

Interesting. That's a quote from Locke. This is kind of what I had in mind for a list of rights. Very Asimovian. I wonder if Locke copied Asimov.

I also like what Paine had to say (I pretty much always like what Paine has to say):


It doesn't make much progress in enumerating human rights, but the description is sound.

If we place the ongoing debate about form aside, in terms of an ideal, those are a very good starting point.

 

[FlexGunship]

If we place the ongoing debate about form aside, in terms of an ideal, those are a very good starting point.

Would you admit that there could be rights without endowment? Or is the concept itself an impossibility to you?

 

[nismaratwork]

Would you admit that there could be rights without endowment? Or is the concept itself an impossibility to you?

The concept of endowment is alien to my thinking as an atheist, but it's possible so I can imagine it. It's also possible that a complete understanding of the ecosystem, final answers about which animals experience what we consider suffering, or think and how... THEN you could find out that they SHOULD, from a human perspective... have rights. From there, you formulate rights for higher mammals, and finally humans.

I think the entire concept of a RIGHT implies that through some mechanism that neuvo-religious folks like to say is, 'Darwinism, or nature, or whatever!', which is really pure crap. Endowment by Darwinism = human. Nature is a concept.

I'm open to possibilities, I just haven't seen a convincing argument made that isn't relying on medieval semantics.

 

[Al68]

I think the entire concept of a RIGHT implies that through some mechanism that neuvo-religious folks like to say is, 'Darwinism, or nature, or whatever!', which is really pure crap. Endowment by Darwinism = human. Nature is a concept.

I'm open to possibilities, I just haven't seen a convincing argument made that isn't relying on medieval semantics.

Believing in Darwinism is "neuvo-religious"? That aside, it's not "medieval semantics" to point out that "endowment by Darwinism" obviously precludes "created by humans".

 

[FlexGunship]

The concept of endowment is alien to my thinking as an atheist, but it's possible so I can imagine it.

Well, my post said "without endowment." I feel the same way. This is why I've been arguing since the beginning that human rights are "implicit" in the human. In the same way that we think of wave-particle duality as implicit in nature, we should think of sufficiently complex systems as having rights that are implicit in nature.

It's also possible that a complete understanding of the ecosystem, final answers about which animals experience what we consider suffering, or think and how... THEN you could find out that they SHOULD, from a human perspective... have rights. From there, you formulate rights for higher mammals, and finally humans.

I still don't like the idea that human rights are defined by humans. Just as it took science and technology to define the mass of an electron, we should rely on careful and rigorous application of science and technology to find our human rights. They should be peer reviewed, carefully validated, and meticulously maintained.

Only then can we say that rights are implicit and not contingent upon something external.

 

[mheslep]

Interesting. That's a quote from Locke. This is kind of what I had in mind for a list of rights.

That's a Wikipedia paraphrase of Locke, from, in part, the Second Treatise of Government, http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr02.htm

The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions: for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent, and infinitely wise maker; all the servants of one sovereign master, sent into the world by his order, and about his business; they are his property, whose workmanship they are, made to last during his, not one another's pleasure: and being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us, that may authorize us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another's uses, as the inferior ranks of creatures are for our's. Every one, as he is bound to preserve himself, and not to quit his station wilfully, so by the like reason, when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind, and may not, unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away, or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another.

 

[nismaratwork]

Well, my post said "without endowment." I feel the same way. This is why I've been arguing since the beginning that human rights are "implicit" in the human. In the same way that we think of wave-particle duality as implicit in nature, we should think of sufficiently complex systems as having rights that are implicit in nature.

The implicit nature of physical constants is something that we can't seem to shake, but they exist with or without us to measure or experience them (presumably). Human rights don't. Nature isn't this monolithic thing, but a mutable and changing thing that we're altering faster than we can keep track. LITERALLY. It may or may not have an effect on the environment, that's not my point, but we're losing species by the thousands before we ever discover them. Where's our lab, our control, our objectivity? I don't see this as an issue open to DISCOVERY... I see it as one open to enlightened INVENTION.

I still don't like the idea that human rights are defined by humans. Just as it took science and technology to define the mass of an electron, we should rely on careful and rigorous application of science and technology to find our human rights. They should be peer reviewed, carefully validated, and meticulously maintained.

Only then can we say that rights are implicit and not contingent upon something external.

The electron was presumably around with what we call its mass, long before we were. A completely alien form of life could have done the same, even one that had no concept or concern for "rights". The same cannot be reversed. I like your methodology, and I like your content, but your assumptions... not so much. I prefer my assumptions.

 

[Al68]

I like your methodology, and I like your content, but your assumptions... not so much. I prefer my assumptions.

OK, you acknowledged the possibility that animals could have rights, which I agree with. Would you agree that an elephant, for example, had the same rights 2 million years ago that an elephant has today? And if so, what was the source of those rights?

 

[mugaliens]

OK, you acknowledged the possibility that animals could have rights, which I agree with. Would you agree that an elephant, for example, had the same rights 2 million years ago that an elephant has today? And if so, what was the source of those rights?

This summer I ran into a cougar, near the creek running by our apartment complex. Scary? Heck yes!

Somewhere along the line, though, mankind became the dominant species on our planet. I know it. The cougar knew it (thank God), as did the bear I ran into a few years back, and the wolf, a couple of years before then.

I think they get it. Mostly, anyway.

I've never run into a wild elephant, though. I don't think I'd care to, either, and firmly believe I'd be toast! African crocodiles are similarly not on my list of "friendly species."

Here in the U.S., we've largely domesticated our wildlife, if not simply pushed them into the great white north.

Still, I've kayaked with killer whales, swam with dolphins, barracudas, and sharks (never a great white, though! Thankfully)

Honestly, seals scare me more than sharks. They are so dang smart! They could have easily taken me apart six ways to Sunday. But they didn't. They simply swam alongside me as I kayaked (a different trip than the killer whale trip) in So. California.

Why is that? Why is it that most of our interaction with other animals tends to involve mutual respect?

Getting back to https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3068147&postcount=1", I'm not really sure I get it. Russ Waters, post #2, seemed to be scratching his head, as well.

Meanwhile "the rights to be harmonious" is a very nebulous statement, so if others here have piggybacked on whatever they thought it meant and ran off with a tangent, more power to them! Robert A. Heinlein was a staunch supporter of "bull sessions," whereby college students would sit around debating whatever came to mind, so in that spirt, let's carry on. :)

I'd like to be harmonious myself, but quite frankly, I cannot. It's not in my nature to relinquish my beliefs, particularly when so many of them came at such a dear price.

If anything, this may be what separates us from the other animals on our planet.

 

[Al68]

Somewhere along the line, though, mankind became the dominant species on our planet. I know it. The cougar knew it (thank God), as did the bear I ran into a few years back, and the wolf, a couple of years before then.

I think they get it. Mostly, anyway.

Totally agree. The idea espoused by some that animals have rights comparable to those of humans is preposterous. But my point that animals could have rights, at least in principle, was in the context of determining the source of those rights, not a context of whether humans are obligated to recognize or protect those rights.

 

[mugaliens]

Totally agree. The idea espoused by some that animals have rights comparable to those of humans is preposterous. But my point that animals could have rights, at least in principle, was in the context of determining the source of those rights, not a context of whether humans are obligated to recognize or protect those rights.

Yet while we may be the dominant species of animal on our planet, should not other animals have rights? If so, to what extent?

I didn't thump that cougar during my encounter with him, although I could have. As it was, it was an interesting encounter! Sort of a mutual understanding. Of what, I'm not quite sure! Still, he (she?) didn't attack, and we just sort of interacted.

Mutual respect? Perhaps the cougar and I were both sensing a mutual wariness. Perhaps the cougar was sensing more than I could. Their sense of smell is much better than ours. I'm sure they can smell fear (which I had in abundance), but can they also smell the fact that had it attacked me I'd have done some rather unspeakable things to in while defending myself? I was certainly thinking about it, just as I'm sure it was sizing me up, as well.

I think most animals can sense much more than most of us humans. We may have brains, but they have to rely on their instincts. We may not have teeth or claws, but even small women are not exactly informidable, and some have defeated mountain lions with their bare hands.

Back to being harmonius, whether between us humans or with our animal relatives, I think we'd all be much better off...

But wait? What about us meat-eaters? Cattle, horses and sheep are not. Dogs, wolves, and we humans, however, are.

Well, most of us. I enjoy a good steak from time to time...

Interestingly enough, we humans have one of the most diverse appetites on the planet, a factor I believe is just as responsible for our still being here as our brains.

So how do I reconcile this with being harmonius?

Hmm...

 

[nismaratwork]

OK, you acknowledged the possibility that animals could have rights, which I agree with. Would you agree that an elephant, for example, had the same rights 2 million years ago that an elephant has today? And if so, what was the source of those rights?

I don't believe in rights... I believe that an elephant has no rights! They don't NEED to have rights for us not to kill them, and eat them, just like we don't need anything except the CAPACITY to defend ourselves from an elephant if that's what comes down to it.

 

[nismaratwork]

This summer I ran into a cougar, near the creek running by our apartment complex. Scary? Heck yes!

Somewhere along the line, though, mankind became the dominant species on our planet. I know it. The cougar knew it (thank God), as did the bear I ran into a few years back, and the wolf, a couple of years before then.

I think they get it. Mostly, anyway.

I've never run into a wild elephant, though. I don't think I'd care to, either, and firmly believe I'd be toast! African crocodiles are similarly not on my list of "friendly species."

Here in the U.S., we've largely domesticated our wildlife, if not simply pushed them into the great white north.

Still, I've kayaked with killer whales, swam with dolphins, barracudas, and sharks (never a great white, though! Thankfully)

Honestly, seals scare me more than sharks. They are so dang smart! They could have easily taken me apart six ways to Sunday. But they didn't. They simply swam alongside me as I kayaked (a different trip than the killer whale trip) in So. California.

Why is that? Why is it that most of our interaction with other animals tends to involve mutual respect?

Getting back to https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3068147&postcount=1", I'm not really sure I get it. Russ Waters, post #2, seemed to be scratching his head, as well.

Meanwhile "the rights to be harmonious" is a very nebulous statement, so if others here have piggybacked on whatever they thought it meant and ran off with a tangent, more power to them! Robert A. Heinlein was a staunch supporter of "bull sessions," whereby college students would sit around debating whatever came to mind, so in that spirt, let's carry on. :)

I'd like to be harmonious myself, but quite frankly, I cannot. It's not in my nature to relinquish my beliefs, particularly when so many of them came at such a dear price.

If anything, this may be what separates us from the other animals on our planet.

Amen.

 

[mheslep]

Yet while we may be the dominant species of animal on our planet, should not other animals have rights?

Before rights come responsibilities. Animals can not take responsibility, thus neither can they have rights. People have responsibilities and rights; with dominion over the natural world also comes the responsibility to conserve it.

 

[nismaratwork]

Before rights come responsibilities. Animals can not take responsibility, thus neither can they have rights. People have responsibilities and rights; with the right to dominion over the natural world also comes the responsibility to conserve it.

We have dominion over the natural world? I'm sorry, but until I see proof that we can live in an artificial biosphere, the only dominion we have is our nearly viral replication and exploitation.

We're constantly at the mercy of microscopic organisms, we're host to more, and eventually they eat us. I think "dominion" is getting needlessly biblical and grand.

 

[FlexGunship]

We have dominion over the natural world? I'm sorry, but until I see proof that we can live in an artificial biosphere, the only dominion we have is our nearly viral replication and exploitation.

I don't see why artificiality is a requisite for domination.

 

[nismaratwork]

I don't see why artificiality is a requisite for domination.

He didn't say domination, he said dominion which is VERY different. The former is actually a subset of the latter in which there is legal or 'other' authority.

Beyond that, how can you claim to dominate over what you're subject to, even to the point of pandemic and death? How do you dominate a system you don't understand, especially when the majority of the planet is water...

 

[FlexGunship]

He didn't say domination, he said dominion which is VERY different. The former is actually a subset of the latter in which there is legal or 'other' authority.

Beyond that, how can you claim to dominate over what you're subject to, even to the point of pandemic and death? How do you dominate a system you don't understand, especially when the majority of the planet is water...

I believe "dominion" and "domination" share some sort of common linguistic ancestor. Regardless, this discussion seems to fall apart if we nitpick semantics. So I'll simply retract my statement.

Meanwhile "the rights to be harmonious" is a very nebulous statement, so if others here have piggybacked on whatever they thought it meant and ran off with a tangent, more power to them! Robert A. Heinlein was a staunch supporter of "bull sessions," whereby college students would sit around debating whatever came to mind, so in that spirt, let's carry on. :)

BTW, I totally have a man-crush on Heinlein (which, if you've read his books could've put me in physical jeopardy, were he still alive). I think he's just about one of the best thinkers our species has ever produced. Not an actual genius of some sort (though, very intelligent), his manner of discourse and conduct were of the highest degree. His books are a reminder of how a roughly average mind can produce amazingly above-average thoughts if you're just willing to throw your prejudices away and open your mind. Stranger in a Strange Land is my favorite book with The Moon is a Harsh Mistress in a very close second. I even named the dog I never had "Anson." My audio engineering PC is called "Mycroft" and my laptop is named "Dora."

Heinlein could win both sides of an argument.

 

[nismaratwork]

I believe "dominion" and "domination" share some sort of common linguistic ancestor. Regardless, this discussion seems to fall apart if we nitpick semantics. So I'll simply retract my statement.

Domination is simple, Dominion means domination with higher authority, legal, divine, kingly, imperial... whatever.

BTW, I totally have a man-crush on Heinlein (which, if you've read his books could've put me in physical jeopardy, were he still alive). I think he's just about one of the best thinkers our species has ever produced. Not an actual genius of some sort (though, very intelligent), his manner of discourse and conduct were of the highest degree. His books are a reminder of how a roughly average mind can produce amazingly above-average thoughts if you're just willing to throw your prejudices away and open your mind. Stranger in a Strange Land is my favorite book with The Moon is a Harsh Mistress in a very close second. I even named the dog I never had "Anson." My audio engineering PC is called "Mycroft" and my laptop is named "Dora."

Heinlein could win both sides of an argument.

I love Heinlein... I have every book, every book on audio. He's my favorite author next to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. Did you know, Mycroft is the name of Sherlock Holmes's brother...?

 

[FlexGunship]

I love Heinlein... I have every book, every book on audio. He's my favorite author next to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. Did you know, Mycroft is the name of Sherlock Holmes's brother...?

Of course! How could I be so dense? Mike even says that Sherlock is his brother in Moon.

 

[nismaratwork]

Of course! How could I be so dense? Mike even says that Sherlock is his brother in Moon.

It's not dense... I've been reading like a machine (and re-read almost obsessively) since I was nearly a toddler, and they're my favorite authors...

...Before the net, it was just a very clever and relatively obscure reference; only now is it an obvious thing.

 

[Al68]

I don't believe in rights...

LOL. Then why argue so much about where they come from? That's like an atheist arguing about God's gender.

I love Heinlein... I have every book...

Well, there's something else we agree on.

 

[nismaratwork]

LOL. Then why argue so much about where they come from? That's like an atheist arguing about God's gender.

You do realize that engaging in a discussion about why I argue is the equivalent of looking into one mirror opposing another.

Beyond that the content of what people commonly call rights, in this very religious country, is essentially what I'm talking about except that I believe they're a wise fiction. In a debate about rights, it's kind of an important distinction to make; I didn't expect this to become a tug of war about what we choose to call the principles we agree (Flex and I) or disagree (you and I) on.