Quote:
|
Originally Posted by long winded fool
You are ignoring my argument and hearing what you want to hear. I answered this clearly multiple times. Tell me what is wrong with this statement:
If all humans have certain equal and inalienable rights,
and some humans do not have any rights,
Then either premise 1 or premise 2 is false.
|
Premise 1 is false. It is not the case that all humans have certain equal and inalienable rights.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by long winded fool
Now tell me what is wrong with this statement:
If some humans do not have any rights,
And some humans have inalienable rights,
Then the privileged elite have authority to dictate what criteria inferior humans must meet before they gain the right to exist.
|
No humans have inalienable rights. From a false premise it is logically valid (but pointless) to draw any conclusion at all. It is logically correct to say 'If I have green skin then pigs can fly' and equally logically correct to say 'If I have green skins then pigs cannot fly'.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by long winded fool
We have laws claiming that society believes one thing, and laws contradicting this by showing that modern society does not believe in equal human rights.
|
False. We have no laws stating equal inalienable human rights. But even if there were, it would be irrelevant to a discussion of abortion, because the legal meaning of 'human rights' does not include fetuses.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by long winded fool
If we disregard relative moralities and the notion that Leroy is entitled to act on his position based on his subjective feelings about dark-skinned humans, and we go strictly by the rationality of laws and their effect on society, then the errors in Leroy's position are this and this alone:
In a society of humans, cooperation is key to survival. In order to establish society, one must first establish cooperation. In order to establish complete cooperation, all humans in said society must be standing on equal ground. They must hold the same rights as everyone else. By no criteria, save to respect the same rights of other humans, can any human's right to exist and pursue his life as he sees fit be revoked.
|
It is true to say that no human society can exist without cooperation. But it is false to say that no human society can exist without complete cooperation. I am not sure that the expression 'complete cooperation' has a clear meaning, but if it does it refers to something that has never existed in any human society and may never do so. There is no requirement for all humans in a society to 'stand on equal ground' for the society to exist and survive. In any case, as I have pointed out before, the requirements of human society are irrelevant to the point actually at issue, since fetuses are not members of any human society. Fetuses do not engage in social interaction.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by long winded fool
Leroy's position does not fit with this. Therefore Leroy's position is detrimental to society. This is not just my subjective opinion. It is rationally induced fact. You cannot base a society on competition and an "every man for himself" mentality. This does not allow the growth of society. Establishing laws, such as legalizing the homicide of African homo sapiens, is detrimental to any given society, not because Africans are required for the survival of society, and not because Africans feel pain or experience love, but solely because equal and inalienable human rights (cooperation) is required for the survival of society. Obviously this doesn't mean that the legal killing of Africans results in immediate social collapse. It means that the legal destruction of Africans is a law that conflicts with the very foundation of society, and is therefore detrimental.
Am I cold heartedly avoiding the issue because I am not addressing the fact that Africans look like me and have feelings and feel pain and fall in love? Not at all. These are not issues at all, because "a society of humans" does not equate to "a society of humans J-D or long-winded fool feels are valuable." In fact, the opinion of any human in any society is irrelevant. How you feel about Africans and pregnant teenagers is irrelevant. And that is a good thing, because if it were relevant, then how Leroy feels about Africans, and how I feel about fetuses would also be equally relevant, right?
|
No evaluative judgement of anything can be arrived at without valuing things. That's tautological. One can also make evaluative judgements of the bases on which evaluative judgements are arrived at. On this issue, mine are based on empirical data, and the empirical data in the case of abortion are different from the empirical data in the cases you have put forward as spurious analogies. You appear to prefer to dismiss empirical data in favour of ungrounded speculation. I can't stop you from doing this. I am only pointing out that that
is what you're doing.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by long winded fool
And that is because you have defined some humans as worhty of existence and some as not. Obviously the concept of 'inalienable rights' should be a thorn in your side, just like it is a thorn in Leroy's side.
|
I don't think the concept 'worthy of existence' has any meaning. I'm not sure what you mean by saying the concept of 'inalienable rights' should be a 'thorn in my side'--I am not disturbed about rejecting it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by long winded fool
Why don't you restate it?  |
OK. Here's what I said in post #356 on page 15 of this thread.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by J-D
I am perfectly at ease with the notion that we should apply the same attitudes in evaluating the ideas of 'not putting people in gaol for murder' and 'not putting people in gaol for having abortions'. Let's look at these two.
What are the costs of 'not putting people in gaol for murder'? Well, it's plausible (although I'm not sure this is the case) that one result is a higher murder rate. If so, this will involve more suffering of murder victims, and also more suffering for their loved ones and friends, and perhaps to some extent for society at large when it hears about murders.
What are the costs of 'not putting people in gaol for having abortions'? Well, it's plausible (although I'm not sure this is the case) that one result is a higher rate of abortions. This may involve more suffering fetuses, and I am prepared to acknowledge this possibility, but in general (and varying significantly with the stage of development) fetuses don't have the same capacity to suffer that born people do. However, in general loved ones and friends and society at large don't suffer in the same way as with murders. In fact, in many instances many people are relieved.
But we have to look at the other side of the balance sheet, too.
What are the costs of 'putting people in gaol for murder'? Assuming that people prefer not to go to gaol, there's their suffering, and that of their friends and loved ones. On the other hand, quite a lot of people, including loved ones and friends of victims, feel better when murderers go to gaol.
What are the costs of 'putting people in gaol for having abortions'? Again, there's the suffering of the people who go to gaol and their friends and loved ones. There's also the increased costs, time, risks, and shame for the people who go ahead and have abortions anyway, including in some instances substantially increased risks of death or serious and permanent injury. There's also the increased physical, emotional, social, and financial burdens placed on people who go through with pregnancies they might otherwise have terminated.
The two balance sheets look different enough to me.
|
Now, if you want to make a valid analogy between my position on abortion and a hypothetical position on some other issue, you need to tabulate the facts as I have done here. I contend that your attempts so far to assert analogies are all spurious.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by long winded fool
What does this have to do with the topic of abortion?
|
I'm not sure that it does. But you're the one who introduced into the discussion the concept of 'inalienable rights'.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by long winded fool
Animals are not members of society. Many animals are resources that are utilized by society, whether it be for consumption, entertainment, or what have you. As such, their "rights" are not for their sake, they are for our sake. Animals cannot be tortured simply because it makes most humans uncomfortable. It is "cruel," which means that it makes humans uncomfortable in a specific way. Animals, incidentally, do have a kind of a right to exist because of their valuable nature as a resource. You cannot arbitrarily kill any resource animal. But that is beside the point. "Animal rights" are really "human rights." Namely, the human right to enjoy the company, and the meat, of animals.
|
Firstly, what is your basis for excluding animals from membership of society? Secondly, your assertions about the nature of 'animal rights' are just that, assertions. Many animal rights advocates take a different view. What are your grounds for rejecting their views in favour of yours?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by long winded fool
A country which practices capital punishment for means of revenge against humans that some humans have decided deserve death is indeed a country where human rights are fundamentally meaningless. A country that practices capital punishment in order to protect the right to life of other humans, (with lethal force in this case) can still have inalienable human rights. The legal killing of another human is, in very limited circumstances, not necessarily in contradiction with a stable society. In order to protect the inalienable right to life, all means, including lethal, must be available. It is when these means are used in order to protect rights other than the right to life that the rights become meaningless.
|
No country that practices capital punishment protects the right to life of other humans by doing so. So is it your view that in countries that practice capital punishment, including the USA, there are no meaningful human rights? I wouldn't accept that.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by long winded fool
Indeed. Without the right to liberty, most other rights become meaningless. One right which does not though, is the right to life. Not having the right to liberty means that one cannot have the right to privacy, ownership of property, etc. It does not mean, however, that one cannot have the right to life. This is why, though the right to liberty is an important right and considered equal and inalienable, it is not the one foundational right upon which all others are based. The right to exist is the primary right. Violating this right for reasons other than protecting the same right of another human is, and should always be in any stable society, a crime.
|
What do you mean by now saying that the right to liberty is considered equal and inalienable? Since all countries legally imprison people, none of them recognise an equal and inalienable right to liberty. Is it therefore your view that there are no meaningful human rights anywhere? Do you think there should be no legal imprisonment?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by long winded fool
Of course!  |
Yay, I've got a friend! Should I rush out and buy one of those 'I'm with stupid' T-shirts, only saying 'I'm with the long-winded fool'?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by long winded fool
The problem is you are looking for hostorical data for a specific notion that, for all intents and purposes cannot exist due to the complexity of social interaction, and because of this, you assume that the notion must be false. Do you want me to point out a society that is now extinct in which abortion was legal? That shouldn't sway anyone. But then, how in the world can this type of thing be proven without a time machine and telepathic of the thoughts of every member of said society?
I can no more "empirically" prove that abortion is detrimental to society than you can prove slavery is. You can only point out that equal human rights effect social cooperation better than "might makes right."
|
I'd like to see any evidence that you have considered any empirical data about the survival, stability, decline, and collapse of actual human societies and cultures. I think I've asked you this before, but I'll ask it again: do you acknowledge that empirical sociology and anthropology are possible?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by long winded fool
Let me ask you this: Are you willing to dispute the notion that the torture of Jews, legal rape, and cannibalism are also detrimental to society? If not, and if we assume that individually relative moral codes regarding our own personal opinions regarding which humans are "good humans" are irrelevant, and if we adopt an unbiased and objective viewpoint focused on the stability of society, all you can do is use the same argument against these things that I am using against abortion.
|
No. I refer you again to the part of this post, above, where I quoted from my earlier remarks in post #356.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by long winded fool
So what? Even if human rights are not internationally enforcable, does this render them any less desirable? I don't see how the application of the UDHR affects my argument. I use it as a reference, yes, but I do not reference it in order to make a claim that all humans do have rights. I reference it to support my assertion of the wisdom of the notion of universal and equal human rights with the beliefs of the United Nations.
|
Sorry, are you suggesting that because the United Nations says something it's wise?!?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by long winded fool
You are wrong. There would definitely be a permanently unalterable law. That law would be the foundation of that society and the backbone that carried it through the ages. The law of cooperation. Of the recognized human equality that must exist in a stable society of humans. A stable society of any creature must be founded upon the notion that all creatures which are a part of said society must always have the inalienable right to exist. More laws are required to stabilize a society, of course, but these laws need not necessarily be permanently unalerable, nor should they be in many cases.
You are right to say that the ability to adapt is crucial to keeping a society healthy. You are wrong to assume that this means that no law should be permanent and unalterable. When dealing with a society of humans, for a society to be perfectly stable, the fundamental law of its existence can never be revoked. It must recognize itself as being entitled to exist, and the only way to do this is to ever seek laws that strengthen it and do away with laws that weaken it. The easiest and quickest way to weaken a society is to kill its members. A society of humans that does not recognize some humans as having the right to exist is a society with a self-defeating law, and is therefore a society that is less than perfectly stable and healthy.
|
I am wrong? No, you are wrong. It is impossible to make a law unalterable and irrational to try.
Cooperation is not dependent on equality. I discussed this above. And do you really mean 'any creature'? Ant societies are at least as stable as human ones, and they are definitely not founded on the notion that all ants must always have the inalienable right to exist, still less on the notion that all ants are equal.
Much more importantly, as I mentioned before, fetuses are not part of human society.
05-15-2005, 12:59 PM
Sure, it took a little longer than usual, but it was inevitable...
