Jayhawker Soule

Good grief!

[ April 17, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]</p>

Blake

Don't condescend to me.

The analogy was false before, & the addition of "in hell" makes it even less apt.

The only standards I'm aware of governing the Philosophy forum are the general forum rules & policies, as well as the short tag line, "This forum is for philosophical discussions only. Fluff, humor, or religious proselytizing will be deleted or moved to some other forum." It doesn't say that the initiator of a discussion has to participate in it. Even if he did want to "take a poll" (which he hasn't done), he'd be entitled. On the other hand, you've been rude and insulting.

Flair "for" Middle English. Your sarcasm is off the mark; I didn't write anything in Middle English, I just looked up an etymology.

For the last time, he didn't imply that things either come from God or are bestowed by natural law. You're perfectly justified in assuming that he *thinks* so, but he did not say that it is so. You're reading that into his statement. Not to mention, even (especially) the most celebrated philosophers mistakenly entertain presuppositions in their philosophical discussions all the time. I'm not completely surprised that you aren't aware of this.

You misunderstand me. I'm interested in your acknowledging that you've uncharitably misinterpreted fromtheright's OP, that the standards for discussion you're alluding to are not the actual standards in force, and in your moderating your tone.

Blake

snatchbalance

When a sufficiently negative particle gets close enough to a sufficiently postive particle, they are attracted to each other.

When protozoa encounter nutrients necessary for metabolism, they are incorporated into the cell.

Anerobes can live off the byproducts of aerobes, but niether can invade each other's domain.

(I got the above chain of thought from a post by Irrellus, on a different thread)

Each species, and each individual within a species, occupies a niche, and must defend that niche in one way or another.

A chimpanzee will hoot and scream if another takes the fruit it retrieved from a tree.

It seems that there is a distinction between this/that, mine/yours, +/-, etc. at every level of reality. Once humans evolved the abilty to conceptualise and symbolise these differences "talk" about "rights" became inevitable.

The formation of cooperative, stable societies has been one of the most sucessful human survival techniques. "rights", in the form of variuos memes, that have survival benefits for the group in question, will, ideally, be passed on to future generations. Unfortunately, I think, the advantages and disadvantages memes, like genes, are not always obvious.

As an example, the memetic "right" to unrestrained private real estate ownership may lead to wide scale environmental degredation(it may not). But, there will be defenders of this "right", as long as some individual advantage is to be realised. Hence, for this, among other reasons, there may be wide scale environmental degradation as a result of human activity(there may not).

Snatchbalance

[ April 17, 2002: Message edited by: snatchbalance ]<a href="http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/MEMSTRUC.html" target="_blank">memestructure</a>

[ April 17, 2002: Message edited by: snatchbalance ]</p>

Ender

Fromtheright if you're still sticking around, have i got a gem for you

If people are unalike- that they are talented in different areas of expertise, that they do not have a uniform skill or ability, that there are no identical (in every sense) human beings- then the preservation of society is to produce higher and better human beings. The purpose of life is to create the highest specimens. In the future, biotechnology will weed out the deficiencies of nature; seize the mantle of God from blind chance and re-craft man.

The inequality of rights is the stipulation for the existence of rights in the first place- that not everyone has an equal status in society necessitates the concept of rights. A right is a privilege. The privilege of a person is determined by the nature of his being. This may sound offensive to liberal ears, that not all men are equal. This stems from a misunderstanding- that equality, in this sense, is not necessarily limited to equal opportunity. Some are physically more proficient, others are more prone to intellectual tasks, and the rest are craftsmen- skilled at one or two things. Injustice does not stem from "unequal rights," it comes from the claim to "equal rights." Aristotle did say that the greatest injustice is making unequal things equal.

What? Have i offended our democratic ears, especially those who believe that each individual is identical or a generic cog in the machine of socialism/democracy? To be a public utility, a cog, a function is a natural vocation and the happiness to be average, normal.

~WiGGiN~

((edited for spelling)))

[ April 17, 2002: Message edited by: Ender ]</p>

Adrian Selby

So Ender, would you say that the right to life, as an example of a right, is unjust because it is upheld to be universal for everyone?

I guess I'm not sure how one can decide the issue of rights, to be equal or not equal on the basis of intellect or strength. I wonder what it is about these vagaries across various humans that could form some kind of cohesive pattern of unequal rights.

Adrian

fromtheright

Ender, Thank you very much. My asking the question where rights come from was not meant to rule out that there are no rights. Bill the Cat was exactly right and re-stated my position, which was that I am not interested in, and would certainly be inadequate in, debating the question but am simply curious of the various viewpoints of IIDB posters on the subject. I am delighted that there has been some debate over the question.

And no, my republican ears are not offended.

BTW, I really don't give a damn what IntenSity thinks of the question but neither do I mind his/her re-phrasing of the question and appreciate his answer to it. I appreciate Bill the Cat's defending my right to state the question as I did, as well as the validity and framing of the question, though I remain amazed that some got so wrapped around an axle over the question itself. Sure, there are various definitions of rights, natural law, and even God, and whether any of those things exist, so posters were certainly welcome to, and some did, answer on their own or a stated understanding of the terms. I also don't care what IntenSity does or doesn't sanction.

Ted Hoffman

originally fromtheright:
It seems you dont care about many things. For whatever its worth, I have made my point.

Ender

Could you be any more vague? What do you mean by "right to life?" I could conceive of cases where a lifeform stomps out another's and encroaches upon its "right to life." But i assume you are talking about human beings alone- and suddenly i smell an abortion debate in the offing.

Would you argue that a zygote (sp) has an equal right to life its mother has?

This sentence is awkward. Please rephrase it- i take it you were stating your confusion on how the issue of rights could be predicated upon the qualities of individuals? Feel free to rectify confusion on my part.

Ah check Plato's Republic for a model of utopia based on the division of people into three categories.

~WiGGiN~

Ted Hoffman

Ender
First, I do not believe life has any purpose, except perhaps, to propagate itself. Each species adopts the best mechanism for self sustenance under its natural environment.
What you have called life in the above paragraph is natural selection under survival for the fittest.
Having said that, I do not believe we operate under blind chance, biotechnology will involve us sitting at the wheel not of a truck that is out of control, but a truck that controls our direction using the natural selection mechanism.

I agree with the rest of the post, about a right being a priveledge and the idea that not all men are equal.

[ April 18, 2002: Message edited by: IntenSity ]</p>

snatchbalance

Ender

I hope you don't actually believe this. There are way too many environmental unknowns, and they are are always changing, for any type of "ideal" man to be crafted by man. It seems pointless to even talk about genes, without at the same time talking about the environment in which they will be expressed.

If "nature of his being" includes simply being accepted as member of the group, as in constitutional type governments.

Snatchbalance