Subject:
|
Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 18 Jun 2004 14:40:07 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2493 times
|
| |
|
|
"Christopher Weeks" <clweeks@eclipse.net> wrote in message
news:HzICys.15Iv@lugnet.com...
> So are rights really inherent? Yes. And no. Our system must treat them • as if
> they are so, in order to function properly. But are they really, really? • The
> simple fact that not all cultures through time and space recognize the • same
> rights seems like a pretty simple clue that they are not.
I've definitely had some trouble with the origin of rights. They feel
inherent, yet it also seems generally accepted that under certain conditions
you can lose your rights. Also, if they are inherent, then do animals have
them also? Since we continuously see an erosion of fundamental differences
between humans and animals, it feels like inherent rights would apply to
animals also. So then if there is an inherent right to life, how do we
resolve the fox eating the chicken?
But thinking of inherent rights immediately brings me to the Unitarian
Universalist Principles. The first principle uses the word inherent, but not
the word rights. Is it in full:
We believe in the inherent worth and dignity of every person.
When I really think about that I say wow! It doesn't say you can never kill.
It doesn't say you can never punish people or hold them responsible. It
simply says everyone is worthy, or at least deserving of worth. From this
simple principle, I feel like I can derive the next 5 UU Principles, and
everything that we talk about as inherent rights. But not as absolutes. As
things we should do because the other guy is worthy of something. An in
fact, because he is worthy, it is only respectful of him to demand
responsibility and accountability. Interestingly, I also derive a
libertarian stance from this statement. If I am to accord you worth and
dignity and respect, who am I to tell you what causes you must (or even
should) support?
Back to animals. The seventh principle says in full:
We believe in respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which
we are a part.
Wow! The way I read this is sort of a "Oh, by the way, all of the above
applies not just to people, but everything." If it seems a bit like an
afterthought, I'll grant that it was. It was added after the original set of
principles were established.
Frank
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
| I've written here before that I think it would be more valuable to reframe the entire notion of rights as responsibilities. I think the absolutism of rights is easy to get tripped up on. (At least for me.) (...) One common stance is that an entity (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
| (...) The problem here is the conflation of legal notion with absolute reality. Rights are the legal/political expression of an aesthetic that nearly everyone (involved in the discussion) supports. While I wrote before that I was siding with John, (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
218 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
