Subject:
|
Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 18 Jun 2004 16:37:18 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2557 times
|
| |
|
|
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.)
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz wrote:
> 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?
One common stance is that an entity must be able to understand the rights it
bears. Other things that look like rights-based adjudication should be thought
of as special rights for others. Under this paradigm, a mental incompetent can
not have rights, and yet we don't have the 'right' to hassle him unduly because
we have all agreed that we have the right to live in a world where those weaker
than ourselves are granted a protected status. Animal 'rights' fall under that
same category. I'm haven't digested it enough to have adopted or internallized
it, but it's a sound stance.
> 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?
Right. It would be bad (as defined by my personal aesthetic) to eliminate all
predators. I'd certainly allow the chicken to self-defend and even to bring
agents more capable (farmers, etc) in for assistance. The fox give up his right
to life (at least temporarily) while in the act of trying to take the chicken's
life. But really, that's all kind of silly. This is handled pretty nicely by
some combination of the two stances above: that rights for the incompetent are
just our option, and that we have responsibilites to others, not really rights
per se.
> 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.
Yeah, responsibility.
> 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?
Yeah, interesting. Having partially rejected libertarian philosophy, it seems
like I should have something to say.
Chris
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
| "Christopher Weeks" <clweeks@eclipse.net> wrote in message news:HzICys.15Iv@lugnet.com... (...) as if (...) The (...) same (...) I've definitely had some trouble with the origin of rights. They feel inherent, yet it also seems generally accepted (...) (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
|
|
|
|
