Are post-modernism and relativism both threats to liberty and equality?

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Thus it is natural that the society without rights will give way to the society with rights. Therefore rights are natural.

All societies, even the most tyrannical have rights. The question is, are they the right rights? The right of a man to kill the daughter who dishonored him is, indeed, a right. The right to own slaves is a right. Your rights/no rights binary is a red herring.

The question is not whether rights are natural, but whether specific rights (life, liberty, property, for example) are natural. I contend they are not; we have created these rights, just as previous societies created primogeniture and indentured servitude. Do I believe our rights are right? Yes, absolutely. Do I believe they are natural? No, they are man-made.

This becomes clearer if we take a look at the right most likely to be called "natural" -- the right to life, per Mr. Fun's example -- and actually look at it closely. If this right were natural, surely there would be some broad agreement on its nature. But is there? American conservatives think it extends to the unborn, but not to convicted criminals. Mainstream Western Europe thinks just the opposite. No one but the hard left talks about the 100,000+ civilian deaths in Iraq as a deprivation of rights, though perhaps they should. The fact is, we don't believe in a right to life, separate from a very human discussion of where, when, and to whom such a right obtains. To say that it's a natural right, but that man gets to decide when that right exists, is a flat contradiction. And since the man-made part of the process is so easily observable, while the natural part of the process requires a mystic leap of faith, requires us to weild Occam's Razor and declare rights man-made.

[MrFun]

Rufus, just because people have too often failed to live up to the principle of the right to life does not mean that it is not natural.

Why would global consensus be a necessary qualification in order for something to be natural?

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by MrFun
Rufus, just because people have too often failed to live up to the principle of the right to life does not mean that it is not natural.

Why would global consensus be a necessary qualification in order for something to be natural?

It's not about living up to the principle; it's about the fact that the "principle" is a moving target, which is the very thing that makes it human.

My position is pretty clear on this. Tell me yours: what is the right to life? Who has it, and when? Is there ever a time when we have a right to end someone else's life? If so, how does that square with your natural, universal right?

Beyond that, tell me how you know -- not why you believe, but how you know -- such a right is natural.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


It's not about living up to the principle; it's about the fact that the "principle" is a moving target, which is the very thing that makes it human.

My position is pretty clear on this. Tell me yours: what is the right to life? Who has it, and when? Is there ever a time when we have a right to end someone else's life? If so, how does that square with your natural, universal right?

Beyond that, tell me how you know -- not why you believe, but how you know -- such a right is natural.

I guess I'm still trying to figure it out for myself. Which is why I created this thread -- hoping that discussion could help me form my own philosopical opinion.

I will respond at greater length later tonight.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


It's not about living up to the principle; it's about the fact that the "principle" is a moving target, which is the very thing that makes it human.

My position is pretty clear on this. Tell me yours: what is the right to life? Who has it, and when? Is there ever a time when we have a right to end someone else's life? If so, how does that square with your natural, universal right?

Beyond that, tell me how you know -- not why you believe, but how you know -- such a right is natural.

If it's a moving target may I suggest a machine gun?

Back during the Iraq war I remember seeing a video of this plane with a cannon mounted in it trying to nail this one Iraqi soldier. The plane had a video camera which it used to follow the guy and direct the shots. It seemed to work pretty well. He dodged and darted around, but he couldn't avoid the inevitable. Maybe you need one of those planes.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


It's not about living up to the principle; it's about the fact that the "principle" is a moving target, which is the very thing that makes it human.

My position is pretty clear on this. Tell me yours: what is the right to life? Who has it, and when? Is there ever a time when we have a right to end someone else's life? If so, how does that square with your natural, universal right?

Beyond that, tell me how you know -- not why you believe, but how you know -- such a right is natural.

Humans are the only creatures on Earth to have the capability to reason. This is what makes us distinct from all other creatures on our planet.

We can take life from plants and animals because none of the plant and animal species have the capability to reason. Because none of them have the capability to reason, they cannot argue with us as to why we should not control them, exploit them, and kill them.

Thus, a horse is different from a human. Because a horse cannot rationalize why their subordination to humans is unjustified, humans have used them as a means for transportation for most of our history.

In my opinion, plants and animals are subordinate to humans because they lack reasoning and rationalization capabilities. This allows us to exploit them for our own purposes.


So when do I believe a human has the right to life? And which individual humans in varying circumstances have the right to life whereas others do not?

First, let's take abortion for an example. A fetus is incapable of reasoning and rationalization. Yet, because the fetus can develop into a human with the capability of reasoning and rationalization, humans have developed different opinions on whether abortion is ever justifiable. And we decide according to each of our own opinion under what circumstances is abortion justifiable.

I believe that because of the fetus's potential development, that abortion needs to be restricted to: endangerment of pregnant woman's life, rape, or if the doctor reveals that the fetus will have such severe abnormalties as to significantly diminish the quality of its life once it is born.

The second example is capital punishment. I already do not believe that capital punishment is a justifiable form of punishment, so I don't think I have any need to elaborate on this issue.

The third example is humans who suffer from mental disabilities such as down syndrome. If humans cannot exploit and control other humans because we normally have the capabilities to reason and rationalize, what prevents us from treating mentally disabled as chattel, or even as undiserables set apart for extermination?

The answer is that in this case, we can still treat such persons with dignity and integrity because their mental disability does not take away the fact that they are still humans.


So how do these examples of my opinion square with the concept of the univeral, natural right to life? It's universal because no matter where a human lives, he/she has the right to life -- from an executive of metropolitan city in Italy to an pygmy in western part of Africa.

It's natural because it's based on the simple, unchangeable fact that humans have the capability to reason and rationalize. A human can rationalize why another human ought not to exploit or control him/her. A horse does not have that capability.

The only exception from this consistency that I allow for, are humans with mental disabilities. So I guess I have to ask you then -- does an important exception necessarily disqualify "right to life" from being natural then?

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by MrFun


Humans are the only creatures on Earth to have the capability to reason. This is what makes us distinct from all other creatures on our planet.

We can take life from plants and animals because none of the plant and animal species have the capability to reason. Because none of them have the capability to reason, they cannot argue with us as to why we should not control them, exploit them, and kill them.

By this logic, we can kill babies. If we can't because they may someday be able to reason, then we can still kill the severly mentally retarded. Is that where reason takes you? You say it isn't, but read on...

Thus, a horse is different from a human. Because a horse cannot rationalize why their subordination to humans is unjustified, humans have used them as a means for transportation for most of our history.

Chimps are more like humans than horses. Chimps can, in fact, reason in a rudimentary fashion. Can we kill chimps? Do chimps have a right to life?

So when do I believe a human has the right to life? And which individual humans in varying circumstances have the right to life whereas others do not?

First, let's take abortion for an example. A fetus is incapable of reasoning and rationalization. Yet, because the fetus can develop into a human with the capability of reasoning and rationalization, humans have developed different opinions on whether abortion is ever justifiable. And we decide according to each of our own opinion under what circumstances is abortion justifiable.

If each of us gets to decide based on our own opinions/beliefs, then the right isn't natural -- it's a human construct.

I believe that because of the fetus's potential development, that abortion needs to be restricted to: endangerment of pregnant woman's life, rape, or if the doctor reveals that the fetus will have such severe abnormalties as to significantly diminish the quality of its life once it is born.

Why does rape mitigate anything? A life is a life. Why does the life inside of a woman whose birth control failed have a right to exist, but the life inside of a woman who was raped does not? If there is a natural right to life, there is no way Reason could lead you to this conclusion. If, on the other hand, the right to life was a human construct, you'd be free to construct it this way -- as you have.

The third example is humans who suffer from mental disabilities such as down syndrome. If humans cannot exploit and control other humans because we normally have the capabilities to reason and rationalize, what prevents us from treating mentally disabled as chattel, or even as undiserables set apart for extermination?

The answer is that in this case, we can still treat such persons with dignity and integrity because their mental disability does not take away the fact that they are still humans.

Yes it does. You just said that what makes us human is our ability to reason. Therefore, any being that cannot reason is, by definition, not human. And we get to kill them. You said so.

You see my point. It's all well and good to declare that a Right to Life is natural, not man-made. But such a right, like all rights, is meaningless in the abstract and must be concretized. The problem is, the minute you concretize it, you realize that it is a profoundly human construct.

And, again, there's nothing wrong with that; it does not diminish in the least the importance of such a right.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So how do these examples of my opinion square with the concept of the univeral, natural right to life? It's universal because no matter where a human lives, he/she has the right to life -- from an executive of metropolitan city in Italy to an pygmy in western part of Africa.

It's natural because it's based on the simple, unchangeable fact that humans have the capability to reason and rationalize. A human can rationalize why another human ought not to exploit or control him/her. A horse does not have that capability.

But how is it universal (except in your own, personal, reasoning) when people disagree on whether the capability to reason and rationalize are the criteria? After all, the conservative who thinks abortion violates the right to life in all circumstances because someone is a human when the egg is fertilzed does not share the same belief as you.

Someone who is a Buddhist probably would not take 'reason' as a justification for a right to life, but would take sentience, meaning that animals have a right to life as well, and thus our eating them is violating their 'natural' rights.

IIRC, Eastern religions and cultures did not recognize a right to life until Western values were imposed upon them, indicating a 'right to life' being a cultural conquest rather than a natural right.

If everyone doesn't agree, how can it be a universal natural right?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
That doesn't mean preventing others from doing it unnatural.

So, caged animals are natural?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
This becomes clearer if we take a look at the right most likely to be called "natural" -- the right to life, per Mr. Fun's example -- and actually look at it closely. If this right were natural, surely there would be some broad agreement on its nature. But is there? American conservatives think it extends to the unborn, but not to convicted criminals. Mainstream Western Europe thinks just the opposite. No one but the hard left talks about the 100,000+ civilian deaths in Iraq as a deprivation of rights, though perhaps they should. The fact is, we don't believe in a right to life, separate from a very human discussion of where, when, and to whom such a right obtains. To say that it's a natural right, but that man gets to decide when that right exists, is a flat contradiction. And since the man-made part of the process is so easily observable, while the natural part of the process requires a mystic leap of faith, requires us to weild Occam's Razor and declare rights man-made.

There would be zero reason for the left to object to Iraq without appeal to the 'right to life' at the most basic level.

Iraq is only wrong because of the death and misery it causes to Iraqis. It is wrong because war is wrong. Period. Why? Because people die.

OTOH, Iraq is only right because of the death and misery that countless other Iraqis will avoid. It is right because war can be right. Why? Because fewer people will die.

People from both sides can approach the same problem from the same basis, but come to different conclusions, but they all proceed from the basis that loss of life is morally negative.

[cinch]

Originally posted by MrFun
Unless a person has some kind of psychological disorder, or suffers from some kind of neurological/chemical imbalance, does any person deliberately seeks out to do something or to attain something that would make hiim/her miserable?

No -- we only live about our lives in ways that we believe will make us happy and improve the quality of our lives.

Read Nietzsche.

[cinch]

Originally posted by Odin


I have a view of human rights that is part utillitarian, part social contractarian.

Good to see you've kept up to speed with the roaring 1820s.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by notyoueither


So, caged animals are natural?

No, for usual values of "natural", but dead ones are.

I've never seen anything to suggest that screwing up other people's lives isn't part of the normal human behavioral reportoire. Have you`?

[BeBMan]

I agree to most of the things Rufus said about natural rights. I don't think they are natural. Kant goes a step forward and ties moral principles to reason, which is an important thing because it makes a non-religious foundation of certain things possible. From what I gathered from various threads here, this too seems to be debatable to many (although I'd like to hear what exactly the criticism is about).

Another thing is if one should draw relativist conclusions if you think certain rights are not natural per se. I wouldn't do it.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

If everyone doesn't agree, how can it be a universal natural right?

Good question, but OTOH if ten people offer you ten different solutions for a certain problem - does the pure existance of those differences mean that every solution is as good as the other?