Originally posted by AThousandYoungWhat 'Right to Life' did a Roman Gladiator have?
A natural right is a negative right against all other people that all people have simply by virtue of being people. The right to not be murdered (AKA the right to life) is one.
Rights can be violated, but that does not take the right away. It's kind of like saying nations can grant people part of the Ten Commandments. It doesn't make sense. The rule applies whether the right (or Commandment) is respected or not.
What 'Right to Life' did Aztec POWs have?
What 'Right to Life' do convicted murderes get in some states/countries?
Rights have to be granted. Its meaningless for you to say humans have this and that right. Who says? You? Rights have to be given by society through government.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI agree with wolfgang59 that rights are granted by others and not some inherent property of a human being.
A natural right is a negative right against all other people that all people have simply by virtue of being people. The right to not be murdered (AKA the right to life) is one.
Rights can be violated, but that does not take the right away. It's kind of like saying nations can grant people part of the Ten Commandments. It doesn't make sense. The rule applies whether the right (or Commandment) is respected or not.
Even when we talk of other countries not respecting 'human rights' what we really mean is that we (as a nation or group of nations not including said country) grant all humans certain rights and expect other humans to respect those rights. Whether we can enforce that respect is a whole other story.
Originally posted by wolfgang59since animals must suffer to provide my leg of lamb, filet mignon, veal parmesgan---I'd have to say "yes" to that question. You have evry right to ab stain from these practice them, but "the right to live in a world without them?" I don't see it.
Perhaps this is not a question of granting dolphins rights but more about extending human rights?
Do I have the right to live in a world which respects life?
Do I have the right to live in a world in which animal suffering at the hands of man is not tolerated?
2 edits
Originally posted by wolfgang59Roman Gladiators and Aztec POWs had the same Right to Life as anyone else. The murderer gave his up when he denied Life to another. In the first two cases, the Right to Life was violated.
What 'Right to Life' did a Roman Gladiator have?
What 'Right to Life' did Aztec POWs have?
What 'Right to Life' do convicted murderes get in some states/countries?
Rights have to be granted. Its meaningless for you to say humans have this and that right. Who says? You? Rights have to be given by society through government.
Didn't I already address this? Natural Rights is a moral framework like the Ten Commandments. If you're a Christian/Muslim/Jew, murdering is wrong, even when Aztecs do it to POWs. You don't "grant" them that Commandment. It's just the way it is in your subjective moral framework.
Same thing with Natural Rights. If you accept the Natural Rights framework, you don't "grant" rights - it's just the way it is in your moral framework. In this case, it's the official legal moral framework of the USA and to a lesser extent the international community!
Raping and torturing babies is still immoral even if nobody stops it from happening. That's because babies have Rights to Life and their Own Body.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI am not a Christian/Muslim/Jew and as you say
Roman Gladiators and Aztec POWs had the same Right to Life as anyone else. The murderer gave his up when he denied Life to another. In the first two cases, the Right to Life was violated.
Didn't I already address this? Natural Rights is a moral framework like the Ten Commandments. If you're a Christian/Muslim/Jew, murdering is wrong, even when A ...[text shortened]... ps it from happening. That's because babies have Rights to Life and their Own Body.
'It's just the way it is in your subjective moral framework.
Given that it is subjective how can we talk about natural rights? Its contradictory.
Besides which the thread is about granting rights!
Originally posted by PinkFloydFair enough. (I'm a meat-eater also)
since animals must suffer to provide my leg of lamb, filet mignon, veal parmesgan---I'd have to say "yes" to that question. You have evry right to ab stain from these practice them, but "the right to live in a world without them?" I don't see it.
How would you stand on the fox-hunting issue which divided the public in UK?
How do you stand on China caging bears and milking them for their bile?
What do you think of European veal crates?
Bull fighting?
1 edit
Originally posted by wolfgang59No, the fact that Natural Rights are subjective is not contradictory. By bringing up the concept of rights, the OP assumes we are using the Natural Rights moral framework. In this framework Rights cannot be granted; they simply exist.
I am not a Christian/Muslim/Jew and as you say
'It's just the way it is in your subjective moral framework.
Given that it is [b]subjective how can we talk about natural rights? Its contradictory.
Besides which the thread is about granting rights![/b]
Here's an equivalent sort of question as the OP:
"Should we call the killing of blacks murder or not? If not, then we can avoid the Commandment 'Thou Shalt Not Murder'.
The speaker cannot decide that this Commandment applies or does not apply to whoever the killer wants it to. The Commandment is absolute - in the subjective opinions of Jews, Christians and Muslims.
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIf I ask you for concrete (scientific) evidence that 'natural rights' exist, what evidence would you provide? It's quite obvious to me that you adhere strongly to a certain theory but there's no reason for anyone else to believe in it. Saying that 'they simply exist' isn't going to convince anyone, you know.
No, the fact that Natural Rights are subjective is not contradictory. By bringing up the concept of rights, the OP assumes we are using the Natural Rights moral framework. In this framework Rights cannot be granted; they simply exist.
That aside: in a natural rights framework: how would you go about establishing what rights dolphins have, by virtue of their dolphin nature? How do those rights relate with human rights and how to proceed in case of conflict?
(I'm reminded of Kipling's concept of 'The Law of the Jungle'😉.
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageYou still don't get it. How can I provide scientific evidence that murder is wrong?!
If I ask you for concrete (scientific) evidence that 'natural rights' exist, what evidence would you provide? It's quite obvious to me that you adhere strongly to a certain theory but there's no reason for anyone else to believe in it. Saying that 'they simply exist' isn't going to convince anyone, you know.
That aside: in a natural rights framewo ...[text shortened]... case of conflict?
(I'm reminded of Kipling's concept of 'The Law of the Jungle'😉.
The reason for everyone else to discuss topics in these terms is because that's what international law is based on!
Either dolphins are people with the same rights humans have or they are not. How do you determine this? I have no simple answer for you. I can only say that I am working with the logic of international law.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWhat do you mean by "the logic of international law"? Most public and private international law agreements do not deal at all with so-called natural rights, but with trade, jurisdictions, etc.
You still don't get it. How can I provide scientific evidence that murder is wrong?!
The reason for everyone else to discuss topics in these terms is because that's what international law is based on!
Either dolphins are people with the same rights humans have or they are not. How do you determine this? I have no simple answer for you. I can only say that I am working with the logic of international law.
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThen you accept that natural rights is an article of faith, not a matter of fact: those aspects of natural law theory that govern human relations do so because they were legislated into existence. From 'is' to 'ought' you're on Hume's fork; the only remaining option is to wave your hands in the air. (Wiki 'non cognitivism' for discussion around the admissibility of statements like 'murder is wrong'😉.
You still don't get it. How can I provide scientific evidence that murder is wrong?!
The reason for everyone else to discuss topics in these terms is because that's what international law is based on!
Either dolphins are people with the same rights humans have or they are not. How do you determine this? I have no simple answer for you. I can only say that I am working with the logic of international law.
International law predates natural rights theory by millenia, incidentally.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungMurder isn't 'naturally wrong'. It is wrong under certain moral frameworks (probably most moral frameworks).
You still don't get it. How can I provide scientific evidence that murder is wrong?!
I am not sure that murder has any part in international law - I rather doubt it.
My favorite moral question these days is "If you decide that allowing the unnecessary killing animals is morally wrong, then is the moral course of action to eliminate carnivores (or help them become vegetarian) and if not, is it purely due to extenuating circumstances (eg eliminating a species is more wrong) or is it not morally wrong to allow a carnivore to kill.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungBrilliant you can read Sonhouse's mind.
No, the fact that Natural Rights are subjective is not contradictory. By bringing up the concept of rights, the OP assumes we are using the Natural Rights moral framework. In this framework Rights cannot be granted; they simply exist.
Here's an equivalent sort of question as the OP:
[i]"Should we call the killing of blacks murder or not? If no ...[text shortened]... . The Commandment is absolute - in the subjective opinions of Jews, Christians and Muslims.
Sonhouse can you confirm/deny the existance of ATY's telepathy?
Originally posted by twhiteheadAgreed.
Murder isn't 'naturally wrong'. It is wrong under certain moral frameworks (probably most moral frameworks).
I am not sure that murder has any part in international law - I rather doubt it.
We (civilisation/society) have determined (most) murder is wrong, but Ancient civilisations would have had a very different take on this.
e.g. Viking law
e.g. Spartan custom
Even today we have dilemma over civilian casualties in war, death penalties, euthanasia.
There is no 'natural' law. Ridiculous assumption!