08 Feb 10
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI would be willing to bet that the OP does not subscribe to the natural rights "theory."
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.
08 Feb 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageNatural Rights are not scientific facts. I am a non-cognitivist. You still seem to think I'm stuck on some sort of philosophical dilemma.
Then 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 adm rong'😉.
International law predates natural rights theory by millenia, incidentally.
I'll tell you a secret. I'm really a utilitarian. You really want to discuss this with John Locke; or perhaps you think we should stop referring to human rights violations in international dialogue. I still think you are fighting an opponent that doesn't exist, and that you do not understand where I am coming from.
Is it possible that it's a scientific fact that I believe murder is wrong? Is it possible that it is a scientific fact that I will always think murder is wrong no matter the justification offered because I subjectively feel that murder violates peoples right to life? If so, why are you persistantly chalenging me? I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish here.
While international law has existed longer than the current Western conception of rights, currently, natural rights are the base of international law. That's why we accuse foreign nations of "human rights violations".
This isn't Debates or Spirituality, so I'm not sure why this post about rights is in this forum at all.
08 Feb 10
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI think the post has been raised in the Science Forum for a reason. You fail to see that reason and are creating arguments that I reason the OP did not want.
Natural Rights are not scientific facts. I am a non-cognitivist. You still seem to think I'm stuck on some sort of philosophical dilemma.
I'll tell you a secret. I'm really a utilitarian. You really want to discuss this with John Locke; or perhaps you think we should stop referring to human rights violations in international dialogue. I still ...[text shortened]... or Spirituality, so I'm not sure why this post about rights is in this forum at all.
This is NOT sprituality; we are trying to discuss a scientific reason for granting dolphins rights. You continually evade the question and actually accuse the OP of not making sense by saying the question is invalid! How arrogant!
08 Feb 10
Originally posted by AThousandYoungYou obviously do not like this thread.
I agree with the first paragraph for the most part, but not the second.
The best way to rephrase the question in my opinion is:
"Are dolphins People and do they therefore possess Inalienable Rights?"
'The best way to rephrase the question in my opinion is:
"Are dolphins People and do they therefore possess Inalienable Rights?"
I will start a new thread for you.
09 Feb 10
Originally posted by wolfgang59What scientific process does one use to decide whether to "grant" something rights? Rights are a non scientific concept, so I'm really curious to hear what you have to say.
I think the post has been raised in the Science Forum for a reason. You fail to see that reason and are creating arguments that I reason the OP did not want.
This is NOT sprituality; we are trying to discuss a scientific reason for granting dolphins rights. You continually evade the question and actually accuse the OP of not making sense by saying the question is invalid! How arrogant!
09 Feb 10
2 edits
Originally posted by wolfgang59This thread is simply nonsensical. You guys are welcome to argue about whether or not to actively protect dolphins from murder and imprisonment, which is what you seem to think this thread is about.
You obviously do not like this thread.
'The best way to rephrase the question in my opinion is:
"Are dolphins People and do they therefore possess Inalienable Rights?"
I will start a new thread for you.
That's not "granting rights" though.
09 Feb 10
2 edits
From the article:
...professor of ethics and business at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles, Thomas White, who said the new research adds weight to his ideas that dolphins should be regarded as "non-human persons" with the right to be treated as individuals.
That is accurate. Nothing about granting rights.
This is also from the article - from a summary that the journalist writing the article wrote. The journalist is unlikely to be an ethics expert.
One scientist said they should therefore be treated as "non-human persons" and granted rights as individuals.
This shows that the journalist misunderstood the ethicist, leading to sonhouse making the same misunderstanding in the title.
Coincidentally I am a graduate student at LMU. Would you like me to ask Mr. White myself?
09 Feb 10
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThe definition of "rights" is quite ambiguous. You seem to be asserting by fiat that yours is the correct one. If there is some justification for this, I'd like to see it.
This thread is simply nonsensical. You guys are welcome to argue about whether or not to actively protect dolphins from murder and imprisonment, which is what you seem to think this thread is about.
That's not "granting rights" though.
09 Feb 10
Originally posted by amolv06The only ambiguity in definitions here is between those who are familiar with the concept of "human-style" rights and those who are ignorant of what this means.
The definition of "rights" is quite ambiguous. You seem to be asserting by fiat that yours is the correct one. If there is some justification for this, I'd like to see it.
The claim of human rights is therefore that they are universal, in that they are possessed by all by virtue of the fact that they are human, and independent in that their existence as moral standards of justification and criticism is independent whether or not they are recognized by a particular national or international legal system or government.[3]
The general idea of human rights has widespread acceptance, and it has been argued that the doctrine of human rights has become the dominant moral doctrine for regulating and evaluating the moral status of the contemporary geo-political order
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights
09 Feb 10
Originally posted by wolfgang59Unfamiliar with the fox-hunting debate but at first blush, I'm for hunting for sport (even though it's not a hobby of mine)
Fair enough. (I'm a meat-eater also)
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?
Bile from Chinese bears? If it has or may have some medicinal purpose or is being used in lab tests on drugs to cure cancer or something, I'm all for it. Otherwise, I'd say let tyhe animals retain their bodily fluids
Veal crates in Europe? I must confess again to the ugly American syndrome--or more precisely, the prosaic lifestyle I lead. If it doesn't happen within a 30 mile radius of my home, I know little about it. If one might imply that animals are kept in vile crates without adequate sanitation and packed together in painful lots, of course I'd be opposed to such indiscriminate sadism.
Bull fighting goes along with fox-hunting, soccer, and that weird sport they play in Iran with the head of an goat that somewhat resmbles polo. They ain't my cup of tea, but the world is a big place and one man's sport is another man's Ipecac.
09 Feb 10
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThis is getting to be a purely semantic argument at this point. From that Wikipedia page, it is unclear whether or not human rights are granted. From the page you linked:
The only ambiguity in definitions here is between those who are familiar with the concept of "human-style" rights and those who are ignorant of what this means.
The claim of human rights is therefore that they are universal, in that they are possessed by all by virtue of the fact that they are human, and independent in that their existence as mo ...[text shortened]... tatus of the contemporary geo-political order
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights
The doctrine of human rights aims to identify the necessary positive and negative prerequisites for a "universal" minimal standard of justice, tolerance and human dignity that can be considered the public moral norms owed by and to individuals by the mere virtue of their humanity.
I could take this to mean that society at large endows you with "human rights."
Furthermore, it appears to me that the OP, and the article he linked to were not talking about the doctrine of human rights, but rather "rights" in general. According to Wikipedia,
Rights are variously construed as legal, social, or moral freedoms to act or refrain from acting, or entitlements to be acted upon or not acted upon. While the concept is fundamental to civilized societies, there is considerable disagreement about what is meant precisely by the term rights.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIf you're a non cognitivist, you'll see the problem with a statement like 'murder is wrong'.
Natural Rights are not scientific facts. I am a non-cognitivist. You still seem to think I'm stuck on some sort of philosophical dilemma.
Why make claims that natural rights have some sort of independent existence when they clearly don't? You produce the red herring and then propose that I should discuss it with John Locke ... Natural rights theory is simply wrong -- human rights are a contested field that are upheld or denied by force of law, and it is precisely for that reason that we can say rights can be granted -- the right to vote, for example, was granted to Swiss women in the 1970s. Prior to that, they did not have that right, even though women could vote in other parts of the world.
Scientific findings on dolphin intelligence open the door to philosophical discussion -- informed by science -- on whether the rights heretofore enjoyed by human beings (hence 'human-style rights'😉 ought to be extended, in some fashion, to dolphins by human beings -- because human beings have the power to do so. It's a very interesting topic; I find it bizarre that you should frame this as an issue of international law as a means of killing off debate.
I hope you don't think a philosophical discussion is out of place in a science forum; I'll set Popper's ghost on you if you do.
09 Feb 10
Originally posted by Bosse de NageGreat post.
If you're a non cognitivist, you'll see the problem with a statement like 'murder is wrong'.
Why make claims that natural rights have some sort of independent existence when they clearly don't? You produce the red herring and then propose that I should discuss it with John Locke ... Natural rights theory is simply wrong -- human rights are a contes ...[text shortened]... cussion is out of place in a science forum; I'll set Popper's ghost on you if you do.
It has always puzzled me that natural rights supporters are strong supporters of including them in bodies of law. If they truly believe such rights are inalienable and naturally endowed, then what's the point of having them encoded? Of course, the answer is that they are meaningless unless embodied in a body of law.