jpbrooks

But might it be the case that in "discarding" "animal rights", we are actually excluding a whole "class" of "rights" that already exist merely because they pertain to the treatment of nonhumans?

In other words, is there any reason why the definition of "rights" couldn't (be expanded to) include the "rights" of nonhuman animals?

And isn't our "freedom" to will what we want different from that of nonhuman animals only by degree?

[ April 13, 2002: Message edited by: jpbrooks ]</p>

Alonzo Fyfe

The violation of a right is not the same as eliminating (or taking away) a right. If A takes B's property, B still has a right to that property, even though the property is no longer in his possession.

To say otherwise is a misuse of language.

Be that as it may, there concept of "rights" was an invention of the 1600s. It is not a Christian concept, and if you read the original philosophical arguments its authors make no irreducible reference to God -- indeed, many of the originators and developers of rights theory were hard-core atheists (e.g., David Hume, Thomas Paine).

That rights were granted by God was a part of a marketing campaign to make this concept of rights more palitable to a predominantly Christian world.

Where do they come from? Well, it makes sense for us as a community to mutually agree upon certain rules -- that we will not do certain things to one another and that we, as a society, will gang up and inflict great harm on those who do not agree to go along with the rules.

The best, most logical set of rules define these rights. A rule that we will no kill under circumstances A, B, and C is defined as a right to life that is violated by anybody who does A, B, and C.

Reason, logic dictate the best rules. Not God.

(Personally, I think that rights-theory has two significant flaws.

(1) It pays too much attention to action and not enough to the causes of action, thus the rules become they become exceptionally complicated. Like theories of the solar system that had to introduce epicycles upon epicycles to approximate the actual motion of planets, rights-theory requires too many exceptions and exceptions to exceptions.

(2) Rights theory invites people to think of rights as intrinsic properties sensed through the sentiments. Though the proper procedure is to use logic to determine the most rational rules for us to agree upon, many people perceive rights through emotions instead, and determine that a right exists where the contemplation of an action gives them a "funny feeling" that somebody has been wronged. These "funny feelings" are no more than the assessor's sentiments and prejudices, and the widespread use of this method of measuring rights effectively causes too many people to think that their prejudices have the force of moral commandment.

Jayhawker Soule

Society.

Ruy Lopez

Agree with Reasonable doubt and much of Alfonso Fyfe. Rights should be as old as homo sapiens. Once man becomes plural as in two people, the idea of respect and individuality emerges or else they'll kill each other. It's a matter of survival, security and finally peaceful co-existence. Notice how husband and wife immediately settle who does what in the house. That's how rights are born. Then expand to society.

Adrian Selby

"The violation of a right is not the same as eliminating (or taking away) a right. If A takes B's property, B still has a right to that property, even though the property is no longer in his possession."

If I was born a slave, and I die a slave, and in the society to which I was born a slave, slaves were decreed to never have the right to property, exactly how does it make more sense to say I had a right to property denied all my life, as opposed to I never had a right to property? Only this seems to be a consequence of the above line of thinking. If not, then it seems that the right to property must first be granted before it can be violated, and if rights are granted, then there are no rights we have unless we are granted them.

Adrian

jpbrooks

Sorry. Post deleted.

[ April 14, 2002: Message edited by: jpbrooks ]</p>

jpbrooks

But could it be the case that some "rights" are not granted?
If it is assumed that all "rights" are granted, then doesn't this lead to an infinite regress? I.e., who (or what) "decrees" that certain human individuals or groups have the "right" to grant "rights" (and so on)?

Jayhawker Soule

Respectfully, the assertion the "[r]ights should be as old as homo sapiens" suggests that you do not agree with me. What were the 'rights' of neolithic man? Rights are the expressions of a social contract.

Bill

In the II Book-of-the-Month, <a href="http://www.secweb.org/bookstore/bookdetail.asp?BookID=814" target="_blank">Shouting Fire: Civil Liberties in a Turbulent Age</a> by Alan M. Dershowitz, Dershowitz advances his personal theory that the "rights" we proclaim for ourselves are derived from the "wrongs" we've had to face in the past.

For me, all morals are a product of evolutionary forces. Consequently, if you wish to search for the foundations of moral authority, you need to look at the not-yet-really-invented "science" of memetics. Hopefully, atheistic efforts to justify an objective foundation for secular morality will end up putting some meat on the bones of memetic theory.

== Bill

Ender

Heavy teleological overtones pepper thy question- as well as an implicit assumption of causality- as is every uncritical theist's wont.

The proper answer in a philosophical manner is to define your own terms- especially "rights," "God," and "natural law."

In order to ask questions concerning purpose, one assumes there is a purpose to be had- that everything has intrinsic or inherent purpose or meaning and is readily available.

After recognizing this assumption, one may charge forthwith and rashly answer the question with imperious bluster:

If rights came from God, (the omnimax kind) then there would be a consistent set of immutable rights present from the very beginning of human existence. But "rights" are neither immutable nor eternal. There isn't even a consistent set of rights to be found today!

If rights came from "natural law" whatever you mean by this generic term, then it would only hearken to human nature- i.e. evolution.

Rights do come from a source- a desire to dominate. An individual decides his way of life is the correct way and should apply to other individuals. The individual believes in his way of life to a degree that if others adhered to a similar way of life, they would produce a mutually beneficial society. This line of thinking operates under an egalitarian framework. Whether this way of life is correct is open to interpretation and may not apply to individuals of different ken.

I'm sure, Fromtheright, that you have a set of convictions that predetermined this inane and opprobrious question, a question designed to evoke response. Whether you found a response that echoes your presuppositions is the true question at hand!

~WiGGiN~