Ender

Adrian:
Tsk tsk tsk you have decided not to bother define your terms, what you meant by "right to life"... nor did you even bother at answering my other questions.

Since the phrase "right to life" was left undefined, I assumed you meant to refer to human beings. There are possible scenarios where the commandment "right to life" is an injustice: that of the rights of a zygote and that of a full grown adult, that of an unproductive member of society and a representative of the whole.

Why take that "right to life" as a necessity? That statement alone must be analyzed beforehand, inspect why must it be instituted, and what are the true motives in promoting such a concept and what kind of society will that produce, what kind of profit will profit and who will lose, etcetera, etcetera.
This would be a moot point if there were evidence that contradicted the claim that human beings are not alike- physically, mentally, or socially. You and I and all of us already have a value system that evaluates the abilities or differences in human beings. You may gravitate towards a characteristic and I, another. This is the awesome responsibility we all overlook everyday in our lives, that we judge who is worthy of our time and who isn't, everything comes from our sentiments and moral prejudices. In fact, pooling our various prejudices will be germane only to the lowest common denominator- the herd.
Depends on whatever utopian society one upholds.
A proud Hegelian determinist! Then none of us reap credit or merit for any achievements. A society not predicated on reward and punishment will continue to suffer the fate of communism.
You watch too much television or movies. The future depicted in Gatacca is not necessarily one that must go hand-in-hand with biotechnology.
Your basis is a flunky, an emaciated strawman of your own invention. It's not necessarily so that the future of biotechnology will consists of a merged state and science. Feyerabend argued against this potential conglomerate, one that could prove to be as dystopian as the medieval age ever was.
The true injustice would be to neglect such a potential weapon in reshaping mankind, not that of the dangers to an 18th century dream of egalitarian society. You man hang onto your wishes of such, but the promises of technology, according to the selfish impulses and drives of mankind will far outstrip the presence of such petulant ideologies. History has shown ideologies will adapt, not vice versa.
The French anthropologist Levi-Strauss long ago exposed western culture as a pretender to the peak of human achievement.
I think you're hell bent on defending this 'vacuous concept of right to life' at all costs and in doing so, you're willing to characterize certain liberal concepts of equality in order to reject the prevalent facts of life- that people are not equal in every sense of the word- and thereby reduce my initial offerings on "rights" to a caricature of a privileged class. If your hope is to protect a certain kind of person, you will gear your entire dream of society towards that person.
This is why mankind has instituted technology, to seize the controls of life from blind nature. In doing so they will project some evaluation of intelligence and health, in servitude to their desire to dominate, and enrich their lives.
~WiGGiN~

[ April 20, 2002: Message edited by: Ender ]</p>

pug846

Ender, has a certain late 19th century writer influenced your political thinking at all?

I don’t think there is anything inherently un(classically) liberal about a lot of what you are saying. I agree with a lot of it and still consider myself liberal.

I think the best post in this whole thread has been the second one! I think that pretty much sums it up.

[ April 20, 2002: Message edited by: pug846 ]</p>

Ender

Pug- The fundamental characteristic of a liberal is a zealous belief in equality.

~WiGGiN~

Adrian Selby

First of all, as I made clear in a previous post, I plucked the right to life out of the air as an example of a commonly held right. I am not and did not mount a defence of the right to life as you seem to think I'm trying to do.

I have merely been trying to ascertain what is involved in suggesting that there is injustice in the concept of equal rights, and asking why the differences between human beings can form the basis for allowing differences in rights.

I am particularly interested in what are held to be basic rights, and wonder whether your comments about the injustice of equal rights would apply to these.

I therefore don't take the right to life as a necessity as you suggest, there are other basic rights I would adhere to though if pressed.

Incidentally, you can drop the 'Tsk tsk tsk' bit of your comments, I am not your student or child, you are not my teacher or parent. A simple outline of the flaws in my position will suffice, and thinly veiled arrogance is as unnecessary as it is unwarranted.

"Adrian: Perhaps what I don't understand is that if we are to base rights upon the differences that humans have, how do we define the values of those differences for the purposes of ascribing rights?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


This would be a moot point if there were evidence that contradicted the claim that human beings are not alike- physically, mentally, or socially. You and I and all of us already have a value system that evaluates the abilities or differences in human beings. You may gravitate towards a characteristic and I, another. This is the awesome responsibility we all overlook everyday in our lives, that we judge who is worthy of our time and who isn't, everything comes from our sentiments and moral prejudices. "

You don't really answer the question. While we do tend to group with people and not others according to sentiments and moral prejudices, can this be made to work as a society wide set of rules governing the ascription of rights all individuals can or can't have.

Consider the right to an education. It's a right I've plucked out of the air again, and I take it to mean 'Everyone regardless of creed, colour or gender has a right to an education.'

Now, you say that this kind of right, which, as defined, is a right that applies equally, might not be just. I wanted to know, and should have expressed myself far more clearly, why equal rights aren't just, but I'm interested in exploring why this right might not be just, because I agree, my comments were far too vague. Tsk tsk indeed!

So, is it possible to outline a coherent society wide system that can categorise who gets a right to education and who doesn't on the basis of some facet of their being? This isn't to say that such a system is worse or better than another, I'm suggesting that at best it's arbitrary, at worst, it lacks utility. But I wonder what the grounds might be for deciding that not everyone gets a chance at an education. My problems stem from wondering what kinds of thing we can, society wide, discriminate people on with regard to rights, what general things about humans are differentiable clearly enough to be able to develop a system that isn't based around equality but around inequality.

"Adrian: How might we assess strength and intelligence for the purposes of including or excluding individuals from certain rights?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Depends on whatever utopian society one upholds. "

Please elaborate, I don't follow you.

"Adrian: I would argue that the fact that people are born stronger or more intelligent than other people, is no basis for deducing rights, if anything because these facets of any one of us are predetermined by our parent's genes etc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A proud Hegelian determinist! Then none of us reap credit or merit for any achievements. A society not predicated on reward and punishment will continue to suffer the fate of communism. "

How can one reap credit for one's achievements on the basis of genetic inheritance? Surely the person with deficiencies in strength and intelligence, who, with application overcomes them is more worthy of credit than one genetically engineered to be more intelligent and strong. Where you get the reward and punishment bit I really don't know. Ditto communism. Can you clarify how my saying that intelligence is not a basis for determining rights makes me a communist who doesn't believe in reward and punishment?

"Adrian: This basis doesn't seem any stronger than any other basis for determining how rights should be ascribed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Your basis is a flunky, an emaciated strawman of your own invention. It's not necessarily so that the future of biotechnology will consists of a merged state and science. Feyerabend argued against this potential conglomerate, one that could prove to be as dystopian as the medieval age ever was."

I take Feyerabend was right, if my 'Gattaca-esque' vision is wrong. Or is it possible? Either way its not important, and neither is Feyerarbend arguing something somewhere, given there's no mention of how conclusively he argued his point such that my mere 'TV' strength vision is somehow inherently weaker.

The basis of rights I was referring to was one based around genetic engineering. With regard to your point on this, you said "biotechnology will weed out the deficiencies of nature" and it led me to wonder how this fact could inform a system of rights, unless said system involved discriminating these rights as privileges on the basis, or partly on the basis of biotechnology. I questioned how a rights system on such a basis was any less arbitrary than one that took humans to be equal to start with, for the purposes of deducing, on a basic level at least, what any given human in a society is allowed to do, or allowed access to, or allowed to say etc.

You went on to say (given a right is a priviledge) that the priviledge of a person is determined by the nature of his being.

Could you be any more vague? What is the nature of your being, are you referring to merely strength and intelligence, or emotional qualities, wisdom, temperament, or some complex conflation of all of these? You see, I would come to a position of the equal freedom of speech and equal access to education as two such equal rights I quite like on the basis that, well, regardless of what my biology is engineered to or born with, the things I do with my life, and the person I become can be so various and complex that when it comes to determining whether or not some people can or can't have a right to education, it seems impossible to deny anyone on any single ground. If for example the grounds related to utility in the use of resources, we might argue that a person might not be an efficient contributor to society, perhaps because of their attitude or some criminal tendencies, so they shouldn't get an education. But there seems to be an easy counter to that, which is to try to overcome that tendency through education, allowing that person to overcome their own propensity to certain things dictated by genes.

I'm not so much attempting here to make a watertight case for the opposition as to question how good a case can be made for the view that some human's nature of being should determine his rights. I would be interested to see a draft of a law that tried to outline what kinds of 'nature of being' could be granted rights to certain things, and how we would, in a court of law define these should someone question their efficacy.

"The true injustice would be to neglect such a potential weapon in reshaping mankind, not that of the dangers to an 18th century dream of egalitarian society. You man hang onto your wishes of such, but the promises of technology, according to the selfish impulses and drives of mankind will far outstrip the presence of such petulant ideologies. History has shown ideologies will adapt, not vice versa. "

Are you suggesting that the idea of free speech is a temporary one, a mere foible of the fancy of an 18th century dreamer? To be overcome when the tools of biogenetics gets its full flow?

Perhaps our 'selfish instincts' are the very things that can be genetically modified, perhaps the role of civilisation and its temperance of these base instincts will ensure, via things such as the freedom of education and freedom of speech, that such instincts never determine rights. I see no more potency in your vision of the future than mine, though I confess to not mapping out a lengthy vision of my own.

"I think you're hell bent on defending this 'vacuous concept of right to life' at all costs and in doing so, you're willing to characterize certain liberal concepts of equality in order to reject the prevalent facts of life- that people are not equal in every sense of the word- and thereby reduce my initial offerings on "rights" to a caricature of a privileged class. If your hope is to protect a certain kind of person, you will gear your entire dream of society towards that person."

As I said earlier, I'm not defending the concept of a right to life. If however you complain that my points regarding the problems of adults rather than zygotes having their rights changed because they are no longer as strong, intelligent, whatever as they were is a caricature, I'd suggest that you point out in what way. I can agree with you that the foetus and zygote are very different from adults. But given I've decided to talk about other aspects of 'equal rights' because the right to life was one plucked from the ether, then I'm interested in questions where someone in a class allowed to have the certain rights, through an accident are no longer allowed certain rights. I could conceive of more detailed examples but I fear I'd be putting arguments in your mouth and making up examples which distort what you really mean.

People aren't equal in every sense of the word. But I'd hate to be an adult who lives a good life and is loving etc. not be allowed access to the best medical treatment in an emergency because Einstein needed it and he's far more intelligent/useful to society. Well, the basis for defining his usefulness is where I have a problem. Perhaps because rights are decided by and given by society to participating individuals, then while an individual contributes to society, or is willing to contribute to society they should have access to all that the society has to offer them, or, that society has to show why they might not have access to such things as free speech, education, healthcare, whatever. Ultimately then we're arguing about what kind of society we'd like to live in. Which of course won't get us very far.

Adrian

[ April 21, 2002: Message edited by: Adrian Selby ]</p>

Ender

Granted, it's all hypothetical posturing.

If all men were identical in every phase, there would be no "question of rights." Ergo, inequality exists- and by extension, so do "rights."

Only those of a certain ken will hold "basic rights" to be inalienable.

So what are they? That is if you don't mind painting yourself into a corner.

Here's the full statement our hypersensitive secular webber did not bother to include: "Tsk tsk tsk you have decided not to bother define your terms, what you meant by "right to life"... nor did you even bother at answering my other questions."

Why should you expect the same if you will not reciprocate?

Until and unless you define "right to life" as a worked out concept, a full exposition, this discussion will never officially get off the ground- philosophically.

~WiGGiN~

Ender

Yo Adrian:

I'd like to answer your other questions or comments, but first things first.

~WiGGiN~

Adrian Selby

"Until and unless you define "right to life" as a worked out concept, a full exposition, this discussion will never officially get off the ground- philosophically."

I believe I said I plucked the right to life out of the air, finding a right that people held to be equally applicable to all. Not all people, just a lot of people. I'll characterise it as "Every human being has a right to life."

"Until and unless you define "right to life" as a worked out concept, a full exposition, this discussion will never officially get off the ground- philosophically."

Well seeing as how the right to life isn't the issue, I'm not sure of the point of this, as it does not in any way reflect my line of questioning. You didn't notice ("care to paint yourself into a corner") that I offered the right to education and the right to free speech as rights I'm more interested in from the point of view of exploring the non-egalitarian basis for ascribing such rights.

"Why should you expect the same if you will not reciprocate? "

I believe I've explained why the right to life specifically isn't important, and I have chosen to be more careful in outlining the specifics of my point, though really, you did seem to jump on the mention of the right to life as though I were mounting some defence of it, when the text of my posts should have made apparent the fact that I was using it to get at another issue. Given my single sentence characterisation above, I felt that this would be all that was required to alert you to a commonly held basic right, sufficient for you to address the substantive points I was making with reference to it.

If I was wrong, then of course, pull me up about it, but why the emote to suggest distaste or dissatisfaction, well, I'm not sure, that seemed pointless. Perhaps I was in a bad mood

Adrian

Ted Hoffman

JPBrooks, thanks for your response
Mentally retarded people and kids cannot meaningfully participate in law-making because they lack the capacity to even comprehend what law making is. To involve them in the process would either make them sicker(by subjecting them to stress) or make the process a charade.
You don't get to tell your six month old kid why he should not "soil" his diapers or ask them for permission before you change their diapers: you just change them. Because you know why it needs to be done and the importance of hygiene.
If you consider that opression (doing something for someone elses good - because they lack the capacity to do it themselves), then we have very different conceptions about what constitutes opression. We have a saying here : "a doctor does not ask a patient which drug he (the patient) would like".
"Impose" would only work if the lawmakers themselves remained above the law they make. But that is not the case. Or if the laws only served the interests of the more competent members of the society. But that is generally not the case.
In most societies today, those who participate in
the political processes are elected. Representation is applied to streamline the lawmaking process.
Totalitarian regimes involve forcing the majority to serve the interests of the minority (the rulers of the regimes) - and in the process, violate the rights of the majority. Normally however, when the majority "call the shots", the regimes are not considered totalitarian. What they do is considered the "norm" or the will of the people.

The society - refers to the majority.
In most cases.
And I think what serves the majority should take precedence over what serves the minority, although to be fair, the interests of the minority have to be given equal importance - because the minority are humans too.
Murdering would only be wrong if its wanton. But if the survival of an individual depends on it, then it cannot be considered immoral.
I disagree. Society developed pornography. We cannot say that pornography existed before societies developed. I would use the same argument on human rights.
When the hunter-gatherer man dwelt on earth, human-rights did not exist because HR is an artifact of civilization. A primitive person has no capacity to know he is "human" he only identifies himself as another animal on the planet and focuses on how to survive. Killing the "wife" of a stone age man would create either fear in him or agression - purely primal survival instincts. He would not dwell on the "rightness" or "wrongness" of the act or the injustice.
Later, as the society developed, things that make us feel fear, pain, agression etc were outlawed as survival for the fittest is diminished.
I will repeat. Rights are not some observable natural phenomena. They are concepts. Concepts begin to exist when they are conceived. They were only conceived when the society emerged. Now that most people are enlightened, they are recognised universally. It doesnt prove they have always been there.
You misunderstood me. Its not up to an individual to identify his rights. The society (a collection of individuals) decide on what their rights will be and they confer those rights to every individual member. Irrespective of their mental or physical capabilities.
The society via the laws. Each individual, when exploited, can invoke specific laws to curb that exploitation. That is, if the exploitation is illegal in some way. Or if it can be argued to be against the law.
Fight back with everything that is available if the UN does not intervene. In the absence of an arbitrating neutral body (presumably like the UN), its a plain "clash" (Of civilizations?) and people simply have to fight for their survival. Similar societies could become allies of either sides and it would make some interesting war of some sort.
Not to worry, in this life, there is no permanent situation. philosophy, math, computer languages? sounds very interesting. Good combination. Are your pursuits academic or personal?
If there were no civilization (enlightenement and renaissance) there would be no rationalizations or personal evaluations of behaviour. People would operate based on selfish (and usually fleeting) interests NOT common good, or social obligations or sense of justice.
When its up to the individual, then they dont really exist. Might would reign supreme. Not right. Everyone would come up with a ose-sided, self-serving code of ethics and morality that would help them live with themselves. The societal setup is meant to protect or support the weaker members. In its absence its plain raw, survival for the fittest. Brute force. There would only be peace when the strongest members have had their fill of whatever they wanted (sex, food, shelter etc).
No problem sir.
Ender
Really? How so?
I do not believe the universe operates chaotically. Life is not chaotic. The other parts of the universe, planets etc are not chaotic because they operate under known laws gravity and other physical forces, etc. I would consider nature chaotic if a planet could rush anytime from outer space and smash the earth to pieces. Of if water stopped flowing downstream. Earthquakes screw up peoples lives, but they are caused by forces that can be explained. Genetic aberrations (mutations) also take place for very good(good as in plausible) reasons. If humans had the capacity to give birth to snakes for instance, I would consider our universe chaotic.
This concept of the universe being chaotic, arises(and correct me if I am wrong) from mans lack of ability to predict every outcome (birth, weather, catastrophes) etc. But that is a very self-centered (anthropocentric) way of looking at the universe. An astronomer can tell you with great certainty that pluto will not rush to mars and knock it to oblivion. Because he knows there are laws. Without those laws, he would not be so certain. Even when a close friend dies suddenly, there is some reason. A natural reason. Because we too, are subject to the laws of nature, even though we can bend them.

Why do you believe that the universe is chaotic? Where is the evidence for this?

Your assertion that instincts do not exist is interesting. I have experienced certain instincts, but I believe they are instincts on a priori basis. You need to explain why you do not believe instincts exist. We have what we call maternal instinct - what is it instead, if its not an instinct?
And the herd is good isnt it? Without a herd, there is chaos. Chaos impedes sharing of thoughts, resources, understanding, ideas etc. In short, chaos undermines advancement. So this common denominator must be held above individual differences.

No it does not. Using this reasoning, a fundy would rather people all use the bible and freedom of religion be banished. This would be his utopian society.
I would say it depends on how those rights improve the standard of life of the individuals in the society. The more parochial(serving the interests of a few as opposed to(or at the expense of) the majority) the rights, the weaker and less intelligent I would consider them.
I would call this a slippery slope argument. Because it doesn't necessarily follow that a society that upholds the rights of the weaker members of the society is not predicated on reward and punishment.
Biotechnology requires a lot of resources (money). It would place the future in the hands of those who have the technology - the developed countries and the elites. I dont remember Adrian mentioning his love for TVs.
A mischaracterization. I wonder why you find labeling necessary.
There are questions of rights because Human beings have the same needs but not the same capabilities. If the means to meet those needs are not equal (lack of level playing ground due to genetics and background) this creates "injustice".(Maybe this is why you are saying nature is blind?). Now, creation of rights is an attempt to level the playing ground. To the disadvantaged, a right is a priveledge. Injustice does not however arise from the claim to equal rights. Injustice arises from the loss of individual rights.

Ender

There is a terrific essay on Darwin's word-choices in infidels.org libraries. I seem unable to locate it and would appreciate any help.

The universe is far stranger than we are at our most imaginative. The underlying phenomenon of quantum mechanics confirmed that age old Heraclitus belief – the universe is at an eternal changing state- the flux. The "laws" you mention are mere regularities that we have observed to hold- by no means are they "necessarily rational." They are contingencies. The word "laws" implies that something obeys, or that something commands. This is another aesthetic anthropomorphism, and science is full of poor metaphors such as these (what Walter Stace called "metaphysical monsters") Laws are actually a symbol of repetition, that which recurs in experience. Most of our knowledge of reality stems from a rational picture, one that we have created over time, yet it is neither final nor is it fixed. Man's experience of nature isn't immaculate, but a matter of perspective, conditioned by his senses and his mind. Knowledge from no standpoint is incoherent as saying "seeing from no particular vantage point." The idea of an all-encompassing or omniscient perspective is as meaningful as the idea of seeing an object from every possible point of view simultaneously.

Since that is a possible predicament, and one that would not be germane to life- won't that strike you as an irrational form of existence? Billions of years of evolution gone to complete waste in a planetary collision? Blind luck factors inasmuch as necessity does.

That is not an entirely irrational statement. It may be false, according to our experience, but not a contradictory statement. The statement "the sun will not rise tomorrow" is no less a truth than its contrary is a lie.

Good! Then we can trust these "explanations" to predict earthquakes in the future. Right?

Our limited experience of regularities is that- limited. Even if a human being gave birth to a wriggling maggot, we would research all possible natural causes or infer new ones in order to explain it. If humans had the capacity to create a hybrid of humanity and snakes, one that gave births to snakes- would you call that irrational? A potential result of evolution, if the dinosaurs weren't killed off, paints a picture of reptilian humanoids.

The more we learn of nature, the less purpose we find. Man used to attach severely anthropomorphic explanations to irregular changes in his environment. With the rise of science and technology instead of primitive gods, man explains the "regularities" of existence as laws or necessities.

Will the same astronomer promise that no life-threatening asteroid or comet will ever cannonball into the ocean in the future? That there is such a possibility is reasonable. The dinosaurs are evidence of that. But that it might wipe out man isn't.
Not everything is a scientific question. The word order is actually an aesthetic projection of man's valuation of life. If man values order above chaos, then one marginalizes the other. What is true for mankind isn't necessarily what is objective truth- I believe that man's mind isn't entirely as passive as the empiricists would have us believe- it is actually active and renders external data into intelligible experience. Whether the universe is chaotic or ordered is actually a phenomenological one- what stems from immediate experience. Why were you born at this certain moment in man's history? Why not in the far distant past or in the unknown future? When you realize the futility of science in this line of thinking, life becomes an existential matter of question- not of an ad hoc, rational one.
I think I stated that there is no instinct in the universe- as a possible denial of teleological eyes that reads far too much into anything.
The herd is the great masses- the rabble- the potential consumers in America. The herd is good only for the herd- not for the striking individual whose difference from the herd is precisely his genius. Einstein said once that with every step a genius takes he is met with ten thousand mediocre minds. Chaos actually allows creativity, a chance to remake something old into something new. Chaos, chance, luck, anything divergent from the tedium of existence is viewed with conservative eyes for the longest time. Over time these new idols become accepted and institutionalized. Then the origin is forgotten and they become self-evident, clichés themselves.

You just drew up a picture of your own utopia. Leveling off everyone to the lowest common denominator isn't my idea of a progressive society. Erecting the majority as the prime authority of government is actually a democratic ideal, not an American one. James Madison's Federalist 10 is germane to this topic- where he outlines the dangers of a dominant faction preoccupied with its own interests encroaching upon the individual liberties of the minority.

This is irrelevant, since I was poking fun at Adrian's denial of responsibility in a genetically engineered world. If he thought that a designer baby should not get credit for whatever his altered genetic structure allowed, then why would a person, by the luck of draw of good genetic material (parents) deserve merit?
Actually the development of biotechnology will require resources, but it's possible the practical uses of biotechnology may not be too expensive. The commercial uses of biotechnology may in turn be driven by the hungry masses. Weren't there similar pundits about the automobile until Henry Ford came along with his assembly line? Nanotechnology is one possible avenue of cheap fuel.
I wonder why you did not bother state what you thought was the actual fundamental characteristic of a liberal instead. According to the political scientist Janda, in "Freedom, order, or equality?", liberals value equality over order, while the conservatives value order above equality. Liberals are against any form of government intercession in determining of social norms while the conservatives adhere to the original purpose of gov’t: maintain the order but liberals are in favor for gov’t involvement in promoting equality- whereas the conservatives do not give it much significance. Janda said, “liberals value freedom more than order but not more than equality” while conservatives “value freedom more than equality but would restrict freedom to preserve social order.” Liberals opposes laws that restrict or ban “individual liberties” (porno, violent games, drugs) but support government action in the economic sphere (affirmative action & welfare). OTOH, conservatives oppose economic interference (welfare or public housing) but are in favor for government promotion of moral values (ban porn).
What needs? Everyone defines "needs" differently- the religious man seeks to preserve his religion; the family man, his family; the democrat idealist, the great herd; the elitist, the privileged ones; and the scientists- his research. Consequently there is no universal need nor is there a universal value you seem to paint with a broad brush. Such Kantian, collectivist thinking always threatens the true minority- the authenticity of the individual.
You're worried about the worst off while neglecting the best off. Your ideal of government is one that includes everyone, and lowers the living standard.

~WiGGiN~
(((I Luv UBB)))

[ April 23, 2002: Message edited by: Ender ]</p>

Adrian Selby

"If he thought that a designer baby should not get credit for whatever his altered genetic structure allowed, then why would a person, by the luck of draw of good genetic material (parents) deserve merit"

I don't think either deserve merit more than each other.

"I would argue that the fact that people are born stronger or more intelligent than other people, is no basis for deducing rights, if anything because these facets of any one of us are predetermined by our parent's genes etc."--Adrian

"How can one reap credit for one's achievements on the basis of genetic inheritance?"--Adrian

This latter question is asking just how one reaps credit, not that one does reap credit, but how, given that people with different and lesser genetic inheritances can also reap credit for achievements.

I think you misunderstood me.

"What needs? Everyone defines "needs" differently- the religious man seeks to preserve his religion; the family man, his family; the democrat idealist, the great herd; the elitist, the privileged ones; and the scientists- his research. Consequently there is no universal need nor is there a universal value you seem to paint with a broad brush. Such Kantian, collectivist thinking always threatens the true minority- the authenticity of the individual.
You're worried about the worst off while neglecting the best off. Your ideal of government is one that includes everyone, and lowers the living standard. "

What needs? the need for shelter, the need to eat, the need to be free to pursue one's ambitions, I don't know, there seem to be plenty that apply to all the people you describe, while it is flawed to think that a family man has a greater need with regard to his family than that man, who might be a scientist, has to his research. Are there not hierarchies of needs and don't these differ according to individuals? Your separation of family man from scientist to theist seems arbitrary, and unrealistic.

I would argue that the need to eat is a universal need. This need may be identified in a society as to provide the means to hungry members of society to ensure they eat. Seems universal to me. I'm just saying its possible for a society to determine what are universal needs with regard to itself.

Your comment on Kantian collectivist thinking seems a bit polarised. Isn't there a middle ground when deciding that equal rights are important, one of which might be freedom to pursue one's goals? I can believe in equal rights as they apply to what might be termed basic rights, but this doesn't preclude a system based on merit or achievement, it perhaps tempers that system.

I'm also interested in this comment on lower living standards. Are you suggesting that its right people should live in mansions and others in trailer parks? Is it a person's merit that decides where they live, so we could comfortably deduce that if they're in a trailer park they lack sufficient merit in some area or they wouldn't be there?

Only I'd say that the average standard of living is higher in a society that has a strong government interference in things like social housing and a welfare state, than if we let these things slide. There are many European countries with a high standard of living, like Germany, that have a stronger welfare state than even the UK, which also has a high standard of living, if we're honest, yet has free healthcare at the point of need, free education and a welfare state that guarantees housing and payments to secure food and heating to all its citizens.

Are you suggesting that the lower standard of living of more socially responsible societies is lower on average or just lower in the sense that some people can't have as many cars and houses as the very rich in less 'collectivist' state?