4 edits
Originally posted by DeepThoughtAdditional premise: that all other rights Y must be accompanied by the presence of P(x) & L(x). In other words, all other rights Y cannot take place without first P(x) & L(x) as a condition.
Your conclusion does not follow from your premise.
The problem with your argument is stark when it's expressed in symbolic logic:
Suppose x is a person is written as P(x) and y is a right R(y), x has y is written H(x, y). Person x has right y is then P(x) & R(y) & H(x, y). That the person x is alive is written as L(x). The claim that one right i ...[text shortened]... r premise. I do not agree that your conclusion follows from your premise, it is a non-sequitur.
EDIT: Ignore that. You've already got that as a premise. Hang on.
EDIT 2: I see what you are saying. I need to clarify:
1) For all x and y: if and only if x is a person; and x is alive;
then y is a right, and x has that right.
2) For all x and y: if x is a right and y is a right; and x is the right to life; and x is not y;
then x is more important than y.
The two statements are not connected. One is not a logical consequence of the other. That is what you meant, correct?
Maybe this....
3) Status = ['alive', 'dead']
x = Right to Life
y = all other rights.
x > y.
If P(x), status[0]
If P(y), status.
A crude attempt to express the condition that preservation of x means the preservation of y, whereas the preservation of y does not necessarily mean preservation of x. No idea if I've even expressed this correctly via symbolic logic.
EDIT 3: Even that's not right...
EDIT 4: I need some time to mull over the correct way to express the interdependency of rights x and y where x is the right to life and y is all other rights, along with the status of being alive v. dead.
I'm not even sure I ever claimed that the two statements were logical consequences of each other. One statement is a statement of preference. The other is a statement of a condition. You can't really connect the two. Treating them independent is what I originally had in mind anyways irrc.
Possession of Human Rights is conditional upon 1) being Human, and 2) being alive. The Right to Life is a Human Right. Therefore, Humans possess the Right to Life if they are alive.
As Human Rights are conditional upon being alive, and the Right to Life secures the status of being alive against moral incursion, the Right to Life preserves all other rights by preserving the status of being alive against moral incursion.
Perhaps that's the 3rd axiom you were seeking?
If X is present, and X is the Right to Life, then Y is present. If X is not Present, Y is not present. If Y is not present, X may still be present.
The ideal behind sentence two is: if you don't have the right to life, all other rights may be lawfully and morally taken away from you at any time via death at the hands of others. You de facto have no other rights.
2 edits
Originally posted by blaze8492Note that I've changed the premise above so I now have:
Additional premise: that all other rights Y must be accompanied by the presence of P(x) & L(x). In other words, all other rights Y cannot take place without first P(x) & L(x) as a condition.
EDIT: Ignore that. You've already got that as a premise. Hang on.
and
EDIT: After thinking about your last sentence a bit, perhaps the best way I can ...[text shortened]...
How one would turn that into an Axiom, I'm not sure. But that's the motivation for my belief.
∀x ∀y (P(x) & L(x) <-> R(y) & H(x, y))
You've added more edits and we agree about the statement. I'll just make the point that this formulation either means that animals do not have rights or that animals are people, so it is problematic from that point of view.
I think my expression for the conclusion is unproblematic:
∀x ∀y (R(x) & R(y) & L(x) & (x ≠ y)) -> (x > y)
We've got two categories, people and rights. Your claim connects the state of being of people with the ranking of rights.
Regarding the edit to your last post:
The problem with your first paragraph is that that one cannot or does not exercise a right does not entail that one does not have it. Consider the right to defend one's property, a homeowner who surrenders to a robber may have exercised that right but that does not mean that they do not have it. So similarly just because the dead or for that matter the not-alive-yet are not in a position to enjoy their rights it does not follow that they do not have them.
As an aside a privilege might be earned and is a right which is earned and a human right, so I think the expression fundamental right is a better one.
Your second paragraph suffers from two difficulties, the first is that it's not entirely clear what you are talking about, the notion that the only things that can be described as rights are the universal fundamental ones or that they only apply to alive people? If the latter then you have the incongruity that you are claiming that the prevention of systematic violations of rights against subsets of people is protected by removing rights from the dead who are a subset of people. I think it is sufficient that one is a person, it does all the things required regarding defence against the possibility of attempts to infringe upon them. The other problem is that it is an appeal to adverse consequences, and so I'd say is relevant to the matter of how one tries to defend against violations of rights rather than a statement about what they are.
The problem with the next paragraph is that you are relying on some sort of natural rights theory and talking about dangers concerning removing rights. However in natural rights theory, rights are inalienable. This means that it is logically impossible to remove them. That they are infringed does not mean they are removed.
Look at it this way. If a murder victim loses their right to life at the point when they are murdered what is the point in prosecuting the murderer?
Originally posted by blaze8492Actually it would be almost impossible to come up with any reasonable definition of 'care' for which he would need to prove anything.
You can't prove it doesn't care without appealing to your own pre-selected conditions for what constitutes "care."
In fact you fully recognise this by your statement later on:
And whether or not it cares is irrelevant.
Clearly you do have a definition for 'care' and you would rather it not be involved as you are fully aware that even by your own definition, a zygote does not care.
What other evidence do I require to assert that it deserves human rights?
I think what you need, is an argument to assert that a human deserves human rights. Once you have that argument we can see whether that argument also applies to zygotes.
Establishing any other criteria brings subjectivity into the discussion.
Nonsense. Your argument is far more subjective than a more utilitarian argument. You have invented a rather specific set of rules for what you call 'human' and then arbitrarily asserted that anything that fits your definition must have 'human rights'.
You must subjectively determine that a x point in the life form's development, it is deserving. You have therefore inserted your opinion, and your opinion can change at any time. Human Rights are not subject to the whims of others.
Actually human rights are an abstract concept. The actual maintenance of human rights is entirely subject to the whims of others. Your definition for what human rights are and what they apply to is just as much subject to change as any other. Anyone else can equally come up with a concrete definition whose properties do not change with time. It is the changing of the definition itself which is the issue and yours is just as susceptible as anyone elses.
Originally posted by blaze8492A ZEF has no "right" to be in the "optimal environment" of somebody else's body.
Whether or not it was ever capable of independent existence is irrelevant. What you do, when you remove a zygote from the womb, is place it in a sub-optimal environment. You furthermore do not give it any help, or assistance, or allow it a proper chance for survival, unless you place it in an environment which is conducive to its development. Likewise, ...[text shortened]... for your own convenience. That is the height of arrogance and offensive to any form of liberty.
A germ is about as biologically complex as a zygote; a tapeworm far more so. Your distinctions are arbitrary and nonsensical as is your attempt to put a priority on Natural Rights. There is no such hierarchy in Natural Rights theory; every right is equally inalienable. Your indifference to the rights of the woman is noted.
2 edits
Originally posted by KazetNagorraHow did euthanasia get brought up? I am talking about how it is ok to take a life if the person does not care. As long as they are in a state of unconsciousness, people do not care.
I'm saying that euthanasia should be performed in an orderly manner to prevent abuse.
Originally posted by twhiteheadActually, I don't have a definition. Any definition of "care" you can devise is irrelevant here. The word itself is irrelevant. Caring about whether or not one has rights does not bestow them upon you. You do not have to be aware of your right to not quarter troops in your home in order for you to have that right.
Actually it would be almost impossible to come up with any reasonable definition of 'care' for which he would need to prove anything.
In fact you fully recognise this by your statement later on:And whether or not it cares is irrelevant.
Clearly you do have a definition for 'care' and you would rather it not be involved as you are full ...[text shortened]... ng of the definition itself which is the issue and yours is just as susceptible as anyone elses.
I must be dealing with a bunch of slave owners here. Do you keep your slaves uneducated so you can morally claim that the practice is correct since they aren't aware of their rights? How many did you buy this past year, and did you get a tax write-off for any of them as property?
"I think what you need, is an argument to assert that a human deserves human rights. Once you have that argument we can see whether that argument also applies to zygotes."
WOW. Now, I must justify that a human deserves rights? Your subjective evaluation must be met in order for anyone to have human rights? You're sick man. Logic of the Nazis re-incarnate. You need some serious help.
"Your argument is far more subjective than a more utilitarian argument. You have invented a rather specific set of rules for what you call 'human' and then arbitrarily asserted that anything that fits your definition must have 'human rights'."
Empirically false. Human rights being inalienable does not set any conditions on the rights themselves and possession of them. You, on the other hand, are devising a set of rules which you may adjust at will, at any time, depending on your personal opinion. That is the definition of subjectivity. You have the subjective argument in this discussion, not me. It's far from arbitrary to assert that a Human being that exists has human rights. In fact, it's the closest you can come to objective.
"The actual maintenance of human rights is entirely subject to the whims of others. Your definition for what human rights are and what they apply to is just as much subject to change as any other. Anyone else can equally come up with a concrete definition whose properties do not change with time. It is the changing of the definition itself which is the issue and yours is just as susceptible as anyone elses."
Whether or not the Rights are maintained is irrelevant. The possession of rights is inalienable. Just because you don't respect them or say I don't have them doesn't remove those rights from me as a human being.
Originally posted by checkbaiterAll you who support and defend goat cheese will one day face the Judge.
All you who support and defend abortion or killing babies will one day face the Judge.
You can compromise and argue all day long about consciousness, when is it a person, etc., but deep or maybe not so deep inside you know it is wrong and you will be held accountable.
You can compromise and argue all day long about fermentation, whether it's OK with honey and walnuts, etc., but deep or maybe not so deep inside you know it is wrong and you will be held accountable.
Originally posted by SuzianneEmpirically false. Do your unfertilized eggs randomly spit out babies for you? Do your skin cells grow into full fledged humans at random on your arm?
No, it's already objectively true.
The zygote is scientifically a completely separate organism from the mother. You cannot prove, with science, that it is equivalent to any other cell in your body.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtThe reason why I initially shied away from making the condition simply being a human is that you can then argue that as skin cells are human cells, therefore skin cells deserve human rights.
Note that I've changed the premise above so I now have:
∀x ∀y (P(x) & L(x) <-> R(y) & H(x, y))
You've added more edits and we agree about the statement. I'll just make the point that this formulation either means that animals do not have rights or that animals are people, so it is problematic from that point of view.
I think my expression for t ...[text shortened]... right to life at the point when they are murdered what is the point in prosecuting the murderer?
However, making the distinction between a human and a human cell, zygotes being Human and skin cells being simple cells, is scientifically possible. Zygotes, after all, are entirely different from any other cell in the body. There's a reason other cells must have genetic material inserted into them to change them into stem cells in order for them to be used in Clones.
Furthermore, unlike with skin cells, we have several thousand years and currently 7 billion examples of what a zygote, when allowed the proper environment (as all other beings in existence require), grows into throughout it's development. A skin cell, through its development, never grows into a fully grown human.
Changing the condition, then is the right thing to do, as you suggested. As to the last sentence in your comment, a better example to prove the point (and ultimately the reason I adjusted the premise), is that under my original conditions, someone who dies on the operating table and then is brought back, would lose their rights and then achieve them again, and in the moment they lost their rights, there would be no incentive to resuscitate them.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI've already stated them: simply being a member of the human species is enough. That condition does not allow for anyone to subjectively determine, at any point in time, that you or I do not deserve our rights. It preserves our rights indefinitely. Preservation of Human Rights is paramount to me.
Yes.
I think people should have certain rights, and I have some reasons for believing this. What are yours? Once you've established why, you can investigate whether or not these reasons apply to zygotes.