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

[nismaratwork]

If you're referring to a natural right, such as the right to self defense, yes: it's the result of scientific research that defending oneself is possible naturally, in the complete absence of any rule constructed for that purpose. That power exists naturally, either as a result of Darwinism, cosmic luck, or "endowed by God", whichever one prefers.

That's an ability, not a right; a right implies fundamental moral permission, not just the capacity. example: You could kill me, but do you have the right? That kind of thing...

 

[nismaratwork]

This feels dangerously like semantics.

Question: can a set of universal human rights exist?
Premise: human rights exist; they appear to be different (hence the question)
Proposed solution: if a universal set of human rights exist, then they must be a property of being human (i.e. not a property of culture)
Elaboration: for the first time in history, our species has the technology to explore the list of possible human rights
Supposition: rights could not possibly be based on actions or external sources since an action can fail to happen and a source could become invalid (could leave, be found not to exist, etc.)

Contrary proposed premise: They do not exist, but that's no reason we shouldn't strive to uphold them. It's the act of trying to believe others have rights that allows for progress, and that in turn is tempered by the conservative view.

Your proposed solution also contains a fatal assumption: If they exist, they're a property of being human. I would say there is NO universal human experience that isn't biological (eating, sleeping, sex if we're lucky, masturbation if we're not...), and that people are above all, shaped by their environment and the necessities which result. The 'modern day vendetta' pathology is a matter of, again, the uneven progress of civilation towards our own imagined ideals.

Elaboration: Do we? Do we really? I would argue that before such a thing can be said with confidence we have to better understand and define (biologically) just what is, 'love and affection', or a suicidal impulse vs. a desire to end a terminal disease, love, hate, consciousness. I would say we've just begun to move beyond the glorified phrenology of tracking blood-flow in an fMRI to the integration of that data with much more. Still, the brain requires vast study from the single neuron, to regions, and CC-spanning networks.

IF we have the technology to determine what really is a good life for people (beyond the broad strokes like no torture), then we're going to have to accept the diversity of billions of those lives.


One other problem... the big one... why do you believe rights exist? I believe there are a range of conditions which produce a range of results, but if there is no GOOD outcome, there can be no good journey to it. We're all going to die, and our planet is going to be blasted by our sun in a few billion years. WHERE do the rights come from, if not an external source (which we both agreed to reject, and I personally don't believe in)?

How can there be intrinsic human rights, and not simply social constructs? Maybe that's the semantic issue you're talking about, but really without killing the meaning of an intrinsic right, we probably should use another term... hence my MEP proposal.

 

[FlexGunship]

That's an ability, not a right; a right implies fundamental moral permission, not just the capacity. example: You could kill me, but do you have the right? That kind of thing...

Yes, but we know that defense against sexual assault causes a different chemical reaction than premeditated (or even accidental) homicide.

How do you feel when you hear of a would-be rape victim who kills her assailant? How do you feel when you hear of an innocent woman murdered?

No one would argue that you feel the same way! We now have tools for differentiating these two reactions on a physical level. We can use science to discover these things! We no longer need to wonder why it's okay to kill a bad guy but wrong to kill a good guy. It's not a mystery. We can have answers.

The right to defend oneself is implicit in the person. It doesn't come from an outside source. You don't need to be granted that right.

 

[FlexGunship]

Contrary proposed premise: They do not exist, but that's no reason we shouldn't strive to uphold them. It's the act of trying to believe others have rights that allows for progress, and that in turn is tempered by the conservative view.

I meant that it was a necessary premise of the thread.

 

[Al68]

That's an ability, not a right; a right implies fundamental moral permission, not just the capacity. example: You could kill me, but do you have the right? That kind of thing...

Natural rights are natural abilities. Whether or not a natural ability is recognized as a right, its source (power to act) is natural, not a construction of humans, or the result of anyone's "permission".

And of course that doesn't obligate us to recognize all natural abilities as rights, it just means that natural abilities, rights or not, exist naturally, not as the result of human construction.

That's what is meant by "endowed by our creator", even if one believes that creator is evolution.

 

[nismaratwork]

Yes, but we know that defense against sexual assault causes a different chemical reaction than premeditated (or even accidental) homicide.

How do you feel when you hear of a would-be rape victim who kills her assailant? How do you feel when you hear of an innocent woman murdered?

Thrilled for the first, saddened by the second, and I agree with your assessment to this point.

No one would argue that you feel the same way! We now have tools for differentiating these two reactions on a physical level. We can use science to discover these things! We no longer need to wonder why it's okay to kill a bad guy but wrong to kill a good guy. It's not a mystery. We can have answers.

... I'm not so convinced that answers will be so easy to come by. I concede that when (or if) such answers are found, that would be a profound basis for a moral system. Oddly enough, your, "how do you feel" scenario is also one I accept as a basis for a moral system. We've evolved the ability to feel the way you describe as a pro-social characteristic, and we'd be silly to ignore that. In fact, there is plenty of evidence that essential 'moral reactions' are universal among healthy people. Even a person who WANTS to rape a women out of lust (not actual rapist profile) feels guilt, and shame at the thought. It takes socialization to defeat that basic compass, so I see it as another means to find a human baseline.

The right to defend oneself is implicit in the person. It doesn't come from an outside source. You don't need to be granted that right.

How so? I agree that people who are attacked should, assuming it's the wisest course, defend themselves. I don't agree that this is an intrinsic right, just something a large number of us CAN do. As we see in the case of all kinds of child abuse and neglect, there is no ability for the child to defend his or herself, and predation is therefore high. Sexual abuse, murder, neglect, and just plain old *****y parenting... there's no right about it, just when or if a kid can exert enough influence on their environment to change matters.

Are you saying that human rights are fundamental in the way that the weight of the proton is?... that seems unlike you.

 

[nismaratwork]

Natural rights are natural abilities. Whether or not a natural ability is recognized as a right, its source (power to act) is natural, not a construction of humans, or the result of anyone's "permission".

And of course that doesn't obligate us to recognize all natural abilities as rights, it just means that natural abilities, rights or not, exist naturally, not as the result of human construction.

That's what is meant by "endowed by our creator", even if one believes that creator is evolution.

You're saying that what is, is, because it is (whatever that is), and that forms the basis for a right. "Der Will zur Macht" isn't doing it for me when it comes to the concept of an intrinsic right.

 

[nismaratwork]

I meant that it was a necessary premise of the thread.

... I disagree. I'm not sure where to go from here. I suspect that we agree on what most people call human rights, but we can't see eye to eye regarding their premise or objective existence.


Let me ask this: How would a being completely alien to humanity and life on Earth define our rights? In the spirit of Relativity, these scientific and immutable concepts should be amendable (if not easy) to exploration and a common conclusion regardless of who asks the question. I think you'd rightly dismiss what I've just asked, much as you would if I asked how you think a psychopath would define our rights.

Why is that, and doesn't it really mean that your argument boils down to: Those rights are intrinsic, which promote those goals you feel are fundamental to human success as organisms?

 

[Al68]

You're saying that what is, is, because it is (whatever that is), and that forms the basis for a right. "Der Will zur Macht" isn't doing it for me when it comes to the concept of an intrinsic right.

I said no such thing. I was referring to the source of the right, not its justification, nor any implication of an obligation of society to recognize or protect it.

My "right to blink" is a natural right. I didn't obtain it from other humans. I may or may not be entitled to government's protection of my right to blink, but that's a different concept. The latter, not the former, is a human construct.

 

[nismaratwork]

I said no such thing. I was referring to the source of the right, not its justification, nor any implication of an obligation of society to recognize or protect it.

My "right to blink" is a natural right. I didn't obtain it from other humans. I may or may not be entitled to government's protection of my right to blink, but that's a different concept. The latter, not the former, is a human construct.

Again, you have the ability to blink, not the right. We're running in circles here. You can't argue that you have the right to blink because you CAN blink. So... if I disconnect the nerves which allow you to control your eyelids, do you lose the right because you lost the ability? If an ability is denied due to a congenital condition, did that person never have it, because they never could do it?!

Your argument amounts to: "The bible is true because it says it's true." I think we all know what fallacy that is.

 

[FlexGunship]

... I disagree. I'm not sure where to go from here. I suspect that we agree on what most people call human rights, but we can't see eye to eye regarding their premise or objective existence.

Okay, let's start from scratch. How would you define a "right", Nismar? I've done a fairly poor job in my attempts; it's a tricky subject.

I feel the term "right" should carry the full weight of respect and dignity for the individual.

 

[nismaratwork]

Okay, let's start from scratch. How would you define a "right", Nismar? I've done a fairly poor job in my attempts; it's a tricky subject.

I feel the term "right" should carry the full weight of respect and dignity for the individual.

I just go by the definition, and common usage, but personally I think they're a useful social construction. How can I define something which, I'm arguing, is a constantly mutable thing and utterly situational?

 

[FlexGunship]

I just go by the definition, and common usage, but personally I think they're a useful social construction. How can I define something which, I'm arguing, is a constantly mutable thing and utterly situational?

Hmm, well that trick didn't work.

Surely there must be some quality that should be granted to all humans, which we could consider as immutable and non-situational. I mean, unfortunately, you've gone and made a claim: "there exist no rights which are not constantly mutable and utterly situational."

How about the "right to resist sexual assault"?

 

[nismaratwork]

Hmm, well that trick didn't work.

Surely there must be some quality that should be granted to all humans, which we could consider as immutable and non-situational. I mean, unfortunately, you've gone and made a claim: "there exist no rights which are not constantly mutable and utterly situational."

How about the "right to resist sexual assault"?

I agree that there SHOULD, but I don't believe that there IS. Given that, I believe in what I've jokingly described as a bottom-up series of MEPs.


Let me ask you... why must there be some quality of humans, granted by whom, and then overseen by...?

I would call what you've described the creation of what you call 'Rules', and there we agree 100%... we need them, and the sexual assault example is perfect. In fact, the distinction in many legal systems between 'Battery' and 'Assault' is a reflection of further refinement of those rules.

If this is what you mean by a right: something we use the scientific method to explore with the expectation that a final, "right" answer may be real, but elusive to human... then I agree. I think however, that you're killing the word right, but yeah this is PF, not Semantics Forum so I can deal with it.

 

[Al68]

Again, you have the ability to blink, not the right. We're running in circles here. You can't argue that you have the right to blink because you CAN blink.

I have made no such argument. We are running in circles because you keep saying I have made such an argument, when I did not.

Perhaps it would help to point out what natural right means, by definition:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/natural+right"
 
–noun
any right that exists by virtue of natural law.

That's its definition, not an argument on my part. There is no reason to argue about the source of something when its source is stipulated by its definition. It's like arguing about what the source of solar radiation is.

 

[nismaratwork]

I have made no such argument. We are running in circles because you keep saying I have made such an argument, when I did not.

Perhaps it would help to point out what natural right means, by definition:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/natural+right"
 
–noun
any right that exists by virtue of natural law.

That's its definition, not an argument on my part. There is no reason to argue about the source of something when its source is stipulated by its definition. It's like arguing about what the source of solar radiation is.

And natural law is?... I'm not arguing with the dictionary, so my question is the same as any: if they exist outside of a dictionary and your mind... why? This definition seems to reinforce the very concept that the word "right" implies an external reference point... we have none.

edit: Upon reflection, all saying, "natural right" does is shift the onus from "divine right" to some agency of evolution. There is no natural law that isn't an invention of humans either AFAIK. Intrinsic right is the term most bandied about here, and that just further obscures the point because after all... what's intrinsic about them?

I'm not seeing anything approaching a rational approach here, just adding a noun in front of "right". I can do the same... with "law". Divine Law, Natural Law, and now we accept... the laws we invent to make society work.

 

[nismaratwork]

If you're referring to a natural right, such as the right to self defense, yes: it's the result of scientific research that defending oneself is possible naturally, in the complete absence of any rule constructed for that purpose. That power exists naturally, either as a result of Darwinism, cosmic luck, or "endowed by God", whichever one prefers.

THIS... is your view. You need something, even if you call it luck... something "bigger" and more diffuse than us, to ENDOW us with rights.

No you say? Back to this? You've already pointed out that you're not insisting on a creator?
I know, and I believe you! You are insisting on SOME origin however, and the origins you point to are all concepts of humans... luck... darwinism... religion. In essence, you, and yes Flex, seem to have FAITH that humans have certain rights. Not faith in anything beyond that right, but faith nonetheless.

One more thing, you point out that natural abilities are rights, but not all of them are. Where does that selection process take place? I'd also love to know why we have the right to live, but not an ant. Why do we have the right to live, but not the mites living on us... or lice... or a bacterial infection? Which life takes precedence... and remember that we're all a little biased here?


DaveC would say sapience makes the difference; a point I can only assail to an extent, and only where there is a genuine question as to the level of, nature of, and degree of intelligence possessed by an animal. With one word, "Sapience", he avoids people asking him if ants and rocks have rights. He didn't claim to believe that led to rights that were or were not of human creation. My memory is that of an appeal to process less than content.

Anyway, what principle which in some way fits with the discussion of using our 'modern' knowledge and scientific acumen as a species, to explore objectively: what is a right? (see Flex's posts for details).

 

[Al68]

And natural law is?

Laws of nature.

edit: Upon reflection, all saying, "natural right" does is shift the onus from "divine right" to some agency of evolution.

That's not a shift, neither refers to any human construct, both refer to natural laws.

There is no natural law that isn't an invention of humans either AFAIK.

Natural law existed long before humans. We weren't the first blinkers. :uhh:

Do you realize that you just claimed, on physicsforum, to be unaware of any natural law that isn't an invention of humans? Can I assume that was a brainfart?

Intrinsic right is the term most bandied about here, and that just further obscures the point because after all... what's intrinsic about them?

The fact that they exist naturally instead of by virtue of human construct.

I'm not seeing anything approaching a rational approach here, just adding a noun in front of "right".

It's not just adding a noun in front of right, it's adding an adjective. And it's analogous to adding the adjective "physical" in front of the word "laws". It changes the meaning.

 

[nismaratwork]

Laws of nature.That's not a shift, neither refers to any human construct, both refer to natural laws.Natural law existed long before humans. We weren't the first blinkers. :uhh:

Do you realize that you just claimed, on physicsforum, to be unaware of any natural law that isn't an invention of humans? Can I assume that was a brainfart?The fact that they exist naturally instead of by virtue of human construct.It's not just adding a noun in front of right, it's adding an adjective. And it's analogous to adding the adjective "physical" in front of the word "laws". It changes the meaning.

Are you claiming that even the CONCEPT of a law existed before humans, and that we can somehow discuss that anywhere but the philosophy forum? We weren't the first blinkers, but again, AFAIK, we're the only ones to THINK about the activity this way. Physical constants, the ABILITY to blink, these things exist without need for human invention (I believe), but they're not RIGHTS.

That last word is important, because we're not talking about natural law, but RIGHTS. I'm sorry to have spoiled your attempt, not only to move the goalposts, but to change the game entirely.

 

[Al68]

Are you claiming that even the CONCEPT of a law existed before humans, and that we can somehow discuss that anywhere but the philosophy forum?

Humans discover, not create, natural laws. There's a big difference. The discovery of natural rights is generally called The Enlightenment.

We weren't the first blinkers, but again, AFAIK, we're the only ones to THINK about the activity this way. Physical constants, the ABILITY to blink, these things exist without need for human invention (I believe), but they're not RIGHTS.

Natural rights, unlike social entitlements, are abilities by definition, but I repeat myself. You still seem to have the concept of natural right confused with the (related) concept of entitlement.

That last word is important, because we're not talking about natural law, but RIGHTS.

I was talking about natural rights, a product of natural law.

I'm sorry to have spoiled your attempt, not only to move the goalposts, but to change the game entirely.

You haven't spoiled anything, the goalposts are in the same place they have been since The Enlightenment. You are merely ignoring them in favor of different goalposts.

THIS... is your view. You need something, even if you call it luck... something "bigger" and more diffuse than us, to ENDOW us with rights.

Some do. I don't. I think natural law can exist without the common concept of a deity. Many atheists believe the laws of gravity exist.

No you say? Back to this? You've already pointed out that you're not insisting on a creator?
I know, and I believe you! You are insisting on SOME origin however, and the origins you point to are all concepts of humans... luck... darwinism... religion.

I'm insisting merely that natural laws (and natural rights) exist, not why they exist. Gravity exists regardless of why.

One more thing, you point out that natural abilities are rights, but not all of them are. Where does that selection process take place?

Libertarians, in general, select which natural rights to recognize and protect based on whether their exercise infringes on the natural rights of others. But that subject is far too involved to get into prior to a good understanding of the concept of natural rights. I would suggest checking out the many resources online about natural law, natural rights, and The Enlightenment.

 

[nismaratwork]

Humans discover, not create, natural laws. There's a big difference. The discovery of natural rights is generally called The Enlightenment.Natural rights, unlike social entitlements, are abilities by definition, but I repeat myself. You still seem to have the concept of natural right confused with the (related) concept of entitlement.I was talking about natural rights, a product of natural law.You haven't spoiled anything, the goalposts are in the same place they have been since The Enlightenment. You are merely ignoring them in favor of different goalposts.Some do. I don't. I think natural law can exist without the common concept of a deity. Many atheists believe the laws of gravity exist.I'm insisting merely that natural laws (and natural rights) exist, not why they exist. Gravity exists regardless of why.Libertarians, in general, select which natural rights to recognize and protect based on whether their exercise infringes on the natural rights of others. But that subject is far too involved to get into prior to a good understanding of the concept of natural rights. I would suggest checking out the many resources online about natural law, natural rights, and The Enlightenment.

Okay, so, "Humans discover, not create, natural laws..." which if you mean physical constants then sure, but I don't think that's what you mean.

The rest is just a mess, with your bit about gravity being, again, "is the moon there when I can't see it," with different dressing. Are you saying that the universe has the RIGHT to gravity, because all I see is that there IS gravity. I don't see a creator for it, or a cause... it just is. Looking for a "Why", instantly takes you out of even the pretense of science, into the realm of philosophy.

I shouldn't worry though... gravity is open to exploration through science, much as Flex proposes for human rights. So, you have something to support the notion that without humans, human rights would exist, right? I also assume you have a way to turn the Enlightenment into something, NOT of human creation... or as the opening line here puts it so well...

The Age of Enlightenment (or simply the Enlightenment) is the era in Western philosophy, intellectual, scientific and cultural life, centered upon the 18th century, in which reason was advocated as the primary source for legitimacy and authority. It is also known as the Age of Reason.[1] The enlightenment was a movement of science and reason.

Reason... the bedfellow and brother of RATIONALITY. So, you take the explosion of both as the means of exploring our world, but you choose to build in 'god by any other name', because it wasn't an evolution of culture (recovery more accurately) but a process of DISCOVERY. Well, that process of REdiscovery is usually considered to be that of transcribing texts, and from there reason and rationality could help to FORMULATE principles of how to live and act.

In other words, everything except for your injection of the notion of discovery of an eternal truth, your argument is against your own purported point.

 

[Al68]

Okay, so, "Humans discover, not create, natural laws..." which if you mean physical constants then sure, but I don't think that's what you mean.

I mean all natural laws. Not a single natural law was ever created by a human.

Are you saying that the universe has the RIGHT to gravity, because all I see is that there IS gravity.

No, I said that the laws of gravity are natural laws.

I don't see a creator for it, or a cause... it just is.

Ditto for all natural laws. You can't infer a claim of a deity from a claim of the existence of gravity, so why would you infer such a claim from other natural laws? Regardless, I didn't make such a claim.

Looking for a "Why", instantly takes you out of even the pretense of science, into the realm of philosophy.

I made no attempt to argue about why natural laws exist. Whether they were created by a deity or not is philosophy. Whether they exist and what they are is science.

So, you have something to support the notion that without humans, human rights would exist, right?

Nope. Because I said no such thing. I said natural rights (by definition) aren't created by humans. Recognized and/or protected by humans, yes. But that's analogous to Newton's role regarding the laws of motion. He didn't create them.

I also assume you have a way to turn the Enlightenment into something, NOT of human creation... or as the opening line here puts it so well...

The Enlightenment was a human endeavor. So was the discovery of natural laws, like those discovered by Newton, and like those of biology that are the source of my right (ability) to blink.

Another way that natural rights are easily distinguished from human constructed entitlements is that a natural right is always a right to do something, not a right to have or receive something from others. Human constructed entitlements are for material goods or services to be provided by others. Very different concepts.

Often those are related in a way that causes great confusion, such as the case of an entitlement to government's protection of a natural right. The natural right is due to natural law. The entitlement to government's protection of it is constructed by humans. The modern habit of using the word "right" to refer to an entitlement to government's protection instead of the (natural) right being protected doesn't change the fact that those are two very different concepts.

 

[nismaratwork]

I mean all natural laws. Not a single natural law was ever created by a human.No, I said that the laws of gravity are natural laws.Ditto for all natural laws. You can't infer a claim of a deity from a claim of the existence of gravity, so why would you infer such a claim from other natural laws? Regardless, I didn't make such a claim.I made no attempt to argue about why natural laws exist. Whether they were created by a deity or not is philosophy. Whether they exist and what they are is science.Nope. Because I said no such thing. I said natural rights (by definition) aren't created by humans. Recognized and/or protected by humans, yes. But that's analogous to Newton's role regarding the laws of motion. He didn't create them.The Enlightenment was a human endeavor. So was the discovery of natural laws, like those discovered by Newton, and like those of biology that are the source of my right (ability) to blink.

Another way that natural rights are easily distinguished from human constructed entitlements is that a natural right is always a right to do something, not a right to have or receive something from others. Human constructed entitlements are for material goods or services to be provided by others. Very different concepts.

Often those are related in a way that causes great confusion, such as the case of an entitlement to government's protection of a natural right. The natural right is due to natural law. The entitlement to government's protection of it is constructed by humans. The modern habit of using the word "right" to refer to an entitlement to government's protection instead of the (natural) right being protected doesn't change the fact that those are two very different concepts.

Well... that was a mess of copy-pasta, and a rhetorical dodge of each and every question. I don't believe there's a meaningful discourse to be had between us on this subject, as either you're being completely disingenuous, or we truly disagree on virtually every point of this subject.

 

[Al68]

Well... that was a mess of copy-pasta, and a rhetorical dodge of each and every question.

What question did I dodge? You asked two questions in that post, and my answers were "no" and "nope". Pointing out that I never said what you mistakenly inferred from my posts is not a dodge.

I don't believe there's a meaningful discourse to be had between us on this subject, as either you're being completely disingenuous, or we truly disagree on virtually every point of this subject.

I'm sure we truly disagree, but I haven't made any claims that haven't been common to natural rights theory since The Enlightenment.

Might I suggest the following link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights"

Not that it will change your views, but it might help to better understand those views you disagree with.

 

[FlexGunship]

• Life: everyone is entitled to live once they are created.
• Liberty: everyone is entitled to do anything they want to so long as it doesn't conflict with the first right.
• Estate: everyone is entitled to own all they create or gain through gift or trade so long as it doesn't conflict with the first two rights.

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 is a perversion of terms to say that a charter gives rights. It operates by a contrary effect — that of taking rights away. Rights are inherently in all the inhabitants; but charters, by annulling those rights, in the majority, leave the right, by exclusion, in the hands of a few.

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

 

[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. :tongue:

 

[Al68]

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

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.