Adrian Selby

Hi Ender,

You said:Injustice does not stem from "unequal rights," it comes from the claim to "equal rights."

So I asked how, if we took the right to life as a right that is held as being equal for everyone, that right is unjust?

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

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. Of course, if you don't have a problem with genetic engineering in order to secure the best rights for one's offspring, and I guess this would favour those who are currently rich, then it would be acceptable. This basis doesn't seem any stronger than any other basis for determining how rights should be ascribed. For me the injustice here would be the vagaries of one's genetic structure plus one's parents ability to secure genetic engineering for their children to ensure the children are 'worthy' of participating in a society with as many rights as possible.

There is no abortion debate in the offing, I plucked a right out of the air that is commonly held to apertain to everyone, in most western cultures. It strikes me as curious that someone might not have a right to life if they didn't fit some standard of strength or intelligence. While of course its easier to terminate babies on these grounds, I wonder what happens when perfectly healthy and intelligent adults have accidents that render them disabled, either mentally or physically. I suppose they lose the rights they previously had because of a mere accident? Well, you can see at least the line of inquiry I'm pursuing.

Adrian

jpbrooks

Sorry. I only have time to make brief responses.

Thanks.

So if "societies" generally avoid operating on the principle of "might makes right", what other principle gives those "societies" the "right" to create laws that govern the lives of people who are not (or cannot be) a part of the legislative process of the "societies"?

<a href="http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/g2602/0003/2602000365/p1/article.jhtml" target="_blank">Maslow</a>'s "hierarchy" of needs provides a general description of the way human needs are ordered, according to their degree of importance, from the basic (survival) needs all the way up to that of <a href="http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/g2699/0003/2699000305/p1/article.jhtml" target="_blank">self actualization</a>. But every individual has a different personality, which means that for some people, the order of needs in Maslow's "hierarchy" may be slightly different. Thus, laws that are based on Maslow's general "hierarchy" may not reflect an individual's specific situation. In this case, the laws would be imposed on the individual, which, again, raises questions about where (if not by "might") "society" gets the "right" to impose laws on people in the "social contract" view.

Yes. Laws are created on the basis of pre-existing rights.

True. So if "society" can have individual "rights" that come into existence when it comes into existence (and are "inalienable"), why can't human individuals have such "rights"?

But "society" doesn't exempt people from the rule of law when they are incapable, for one reason or another, of claiming or identifying their "rights". So, even in this view, "rights" are apparently held to be independent from the capacity of an individual to identify them.

The idea that "primitive" or mentally incompetent people who cannot identify their rights, therefore have no rights at all, doesn't seem inconsistent with the view that "might makes right(s)".

I would say, without civilization, no rights would be acknowledged. Only "rights" that arise as a result of the formation of the "society" would not exist.

(I'll return later.)

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

Ted Hoffman

Adrian asked: Ender previously said:
First off, the phrase I have emboldened (Enders), contradicts the idea that a right is a priveledge.
Because it means that the priveledge one enjoys is dependent upon the nature of his being, while the idea that a right is a priveledge would require that someone enjoys those rights irrespective of the natures of their beings.

Back to Adrian, the right to life is not unjust but it may create injustice by endangering other members of the society who would otherwise (according to natural selection) be the ones deserving to live. I will sidestep the abortion example.

Imagine 10 people with some disease like Ebola. They are haemorrhaging from all orifices. In the absence of quarantine(which would involve deserting them so that they die in isolation and curb the spread of the disease), they are taken to hospital (of course everyone knows they will die shortly) and are taken care of by doctors wearing protective gear. Relatives can see them under supervision etc.
Ten doctors end up catching it plus four relatives. Of course its fatal. Three months later the disease is eradicated 100 victims in its wake.
Did the people who previously didn't have the disease die for a practical reason?
When a horse is badly injured, it is shot. When cows have been diagnosed with Mad Cow disease, they are killed in large numbers. When that is done, diseases are nipped in the bud.
Human emotions of course complicate matters, but people have always been capable of acting against their emotions when circumstances demand it. But laws, in the name of the so-called human rights have sometimes acted to make more people die in the process of protecting the rights of a few.
The human instinct is to avoid sick people. Its a survival mechanism. Civilization has helped us overcome the instinct. Sick people have the right to live and doctors have to ensure someone lives to their last breath irrespective of how infectious and fatal the disease is. Just an example. Whether its worth it is another matter.
jpbrooks:
I don't know of societies who impose their laws on people who are not and cannot be part of the legislative process (are you talking about North Korea?). Please give an example.
The society is made up of people belonging or living in a locality its not some disembodied or foreign entity. The society is the people unless you are talking about tyrannical governments.
The general rule is "Common Good" not "might is right".
Maslows hierarchy is General. No law can be specific to every individuals needs. There are people who want to have sex with children and there are people who like having sex with animals (sorry about the perverted examples). Doubtlessly, there are unique cases and in such cases one may consider the law as imposed on such individuals, but the guiding principle is "common Good".
Its a case of the majority "opressing" the minority. Common Good. The majority can be wrong of course (ask homosexuals - most people suffer from homophobia), but there is strength in numbers. And thats where might comes in. Might may be bad, but its survival for the fittest sneaking in against all our "good" intentions. People want conformity its what they are comfortable with. That may change as human beings progress.
Might sometimes gets to say what is right. Even when its wrong. But thats not always the case.
Because they become irrelevant. Those rights protect us from each other - in a societal setup. No society, no need for rights.
From this perspective, rights are imposed on people. Thats why I said civilization provides us with the capacity to identify or recognise what we can claim as individual rights. But if looked at from a situation whereby an individual is mentally ill, then their rights have to be protected by the law from violation by other members of the society. In such cases, even though an individual cannot recognise his rights, its not imposed on him/ her. It's a security we enjoy from living in an "organised" society.
Its not a might-makes-right case UNLESS, the "primitive" people are being exploited, like western tourists going to kenya to take pictures of naked maasai or turkana women and girls (a violation of their privacy). OR if foreign ideas/ rights imposed on them like forcing the maasai to stop female circumcision, or forcing them to go to school while not providing them with alternative means of survival other than nomadic pastoralism. But within the maasai society, among themselves (without lecherous tourists or imperious crusaders), its simply their way of life not to go to school of to perform female circumcision (now known as female genital mutilation, thanks to women-rights activists).

Its comparable to watching an antelope being chased and killed brutally by a cheetah and later eaten, then deciding that cheetahs ought to be provided with a more "humane" or less brutal way of acquiring food and giving them antelope meat or something after killing the antelopes painlessly.

Its plain arrogant interference to impose ones ideas of how people should live (rights in this case). And it smacks of imperialism and ethnocentricity when looked at in the scenario of one society deciding how another society should live.
I believe societies evolve, and different societies are at different levels of civilization. Those ahead should not force down their ideas of human rights upon those behind because doing so can actually end up in destroying the social fabric that holds those societies together and most of the times such efforts end up as cases of trying to fit square pegs in round holes.

Damn, I have typed a lot.
Sorry to ramble.
I assert that there can be no civilization without "societies". I would therefore think this point is moot.

[ April 19, 2002: Message edited by: IntenSity ]</p>

snatchbalance

Intensity

Call me judgemental, but some things are are just plain wrong. The forced(coreced,compelled, use whatever word you want) removal of a woman's clitoris is insane. If such extreme practices are needed to hold thier social fabric together, well maybe it's time for it to be ripped apart.

Cultural relativism at it's worst.

Snatchbalance

[ April 19, 2002: Message edited by: snatchbalance ]</p>

Ted Hoffman

You see?

snatchbalance

Yes, I do see. Some things are just plain wrong.

How would you defend the practice of forced clitectomy? Oh, its OK because that is part of thier religion?

To call such judgement "arrogant interference", is just a judgement on your part. I call it recognizeing a barbarity when I see one.

Snatchbalance

[ April 19, 2002: Message edited by: snatchbalance ]

[ April 19, 2002: Message edited by: snatchbalance ]

[ April 19, 2002: Message edited by: snatchbalance ]</p>

Adrian Selby

What next, cutting off men's foreskin?

Adrian

snatchbalance

yes, more craziness. Probably not quite as debilitating though.

[ April 19, 2002: Message edited by: snatchbalance ]</p>

Ted Hoffman

snatchbalance, its time to snatch your control back. You are losing it.
I am not promoting or defending female circumcision. Female circumcision is "practiced" not forced - except of course in some cases(usually involving external interference by some high-browed ethnocentric individuals). Its a painful and unwarranted practice but some people simply practice it.
Tithing is not forced either, kneeling before invisible entities , male circumcision, scarring of the skin, removal of tooth, ear piercing, neck lengthening etc.
Some people practice them, some do not.
Whether barbaric or not is purely a matter of opinion and cultural background.
All I know is that all those practices I have mentioned above (whether done for God, or man, or culture or beauty) are unnecessary, abhorrent and irrational.
But in my experience, doing irrational things is part and parcel of humanity.

There was a community in west africa that believed that a mans' sperms are in his head. The sperm was believed to be in short supply and that its what makes a man strong and virile. Men with "oversexed" women were allowed to divorce them as "witches" and the rights of passage for men were treated with a lot of importance. Women were treated with a lot of suspicion and the men-folk bonded mightily. A woman was honoured whenever a man had sex with her. The older men needed to pass the strength and virility to the (heads of)younger men.
The young men (in a kind of graduation ceremony) would kneel down and suck the old men till they came(This could be done annually - it was a rite of passage into manhood). And the old men, after passing on the strength, would collapse in ecstatic exhaustion after passing on this vital fluid (of course acting like people who have lost significant bodily strength). The young men would swallow all the fluid greedily, keen on not letting any spill to the ground.

Now tell me what you think of this that after snatching back your balance.

[Edited to add crutches to assist snatchbalance snatch back his balance]

[ April 19, 2002: Message edited by: IntenSity ]</p>

Blake

Whether it's forced or not, or viewed as barbaric or not, are also a matter of perspective: i.e., are *you* the person whose genitalia are being sliced up, or are you the person doing the holding down and/or slicing?

Blake