Dune

-Therefore, since children have no might, they have no rights.

Right?-

Outside of a protected social construct (protected by those who have the power/might to enforce the social construct)
No.
Simply by being born (assume outside of social construct) does not grant anything to any creature.
Once you involve society- it becomes another issue.

yguy

So if we as a society decide children have no more right to life than dogs, they don't.

Right?

Totalitarianist

Your reasoning is quite circular. We have rights because they are a good thing?

Dune

exactly so.

yguy

From this it follows that Hitler's only deficiency was lack of sufficient military power to achieve his aims, rather than consideration for his fellow man or anything of that sort, does it not?

Keith Russell

yguy: or, that line of reasoning could be interpreted that Hitler's only problem was that there were too many people who weren't Nazis.

It's still silly...

K

mhc

Originally posted by mhc
A right can only be borne by a moral agent. A right is a claim, and such a claim presupposes participation in an ethical system.We have rights because ethically, they are a good thing. The kind of animals WE are means that there are better and worse conditions under which we flourish. Rights reflect an acknowledgement of the better conditions.
So, in regard to PETA, I think the question becomes: Are any other animals moral agents?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From Totalitarianist:

Your reasoning is quite circular. We have rights because they are a good thing?

--------------------------

Please point out the circularity you refer to. I don't see it.
Better yet, add your own thoughts to the discussion.
Humans flourish and do well under some conditions more than others, wouldn't you agree?
I think rights are an acknowledgement of, and attempt to secure for all, those conditions. They are a product of just consideration, whether at the interpersonal or state level.

yguy

Of course, it's a silly conslusion which follows logically from the idiotic premise that morality is determined by effective societal consensus, which amounts to saying that might makes right.

Now, perhaps you would care to address the question I asked earlier:

yguy: How exactly does to conclusion follow from the premise? Murderers and pedophiles seem to have all those capabililities, but I would suggest that their right to life is debatable, to say the least.

Keith: A person has to first have rights, before their rights may (by their own violation of another's rights) be seen as forfeit.

y:If this is supposed to address my question, I fail to see how.

K: yguy, you said that their 'right to life' is debatable.

Do you agree they had such a right, before they committed any crime?

y: Yes.

Your move.

acronos

I think it is misleading to think of rights as given by society, God, or anything. I think rights stem from both cultural and innate influences.

Guilt, anger, the need for approval, and revenge are examples of things that evolved to facilitate smoother human interaction. These evolved in our genes and are therefore innate. However, laws and moral codes also evolved in culture to facilitate human interaction, and these are somewhat based on the above genetics but not totally. Rights evolved in culture based on human nature and genetics to facilitate smooth human interaction. Basically, the better humans work together the better their ability to create tools that increase their survival rate, the better their ability to make war and defend themselves, nad ultimately the stronger their selective advantage is. A significant amount of what makes us human is explained by the advantage of working together – love, hate, altruism, concepts such as freedom, the rule of law, religion, etc, and rights. I don’t really think rights are given by anybody or anything. I just think they exist because they increase the survivability of societies that have them.

Dune

That is a good way to put it...
Socieity developed out of a need to protect humanity from its surroundings and thereby increase the ability of our species to survive.
However, it still does not guarantee any rights to anyone. Right and wrong is dictated by those in that society who are in control.
By the strongest or most cunning.

-Of course, it's a silly conslusion which follows logically from the idiotic premise that morality is determined by effective societal consensus, which amounts to saying that might makes right. -


So in your estimation, where does morality derive from if not from the people who form a society?
Are you saying that there is a universal code of right and wrong that supercedes humanity?