|
|
Due to spam and off-topic content, these forums are being phased out and replaced with new great books forums. Please join us!
Posted by Q on August 13, 19100 at 02:54:44:
In Reply to: Rights posted by Anne Rind on August 07, 19100 at 23:46:34:
AR: Now you can share with us the proper meaning of the concept of "rights". What are the fundamental principles which underly the concept and offer it objective validity?
Hopefully I'll get to that.
AR: What is it about human nature which grants a person "rights"?
I don't think terms like "human nature" can just be tossed around. I am not sure what human nature is. I'm going to ume that humans want to be free rather than slaves. If I'm wrong here, then why bother.
AR:What is it about animal nature that grants a living being "rights"?
My answer relates to the first question. Rights are based on interests. I've already elaborated on this view in a previous post on the animal rights issue.
AR:In what way do the abstract principles support the specific rights which you claim?
There's the equal consideration of interests principle. This, too, was touched upon. Basically, the equal consideration of interests principle claims your interests do not count for more than mine, unless cirstances permit. So, for example, take the case of the two earthquake victims (originally found in Peter Singer's _practical ethics_). Person A has a crushed leg. Person B has a gash wound on her thigh. A medic arrives on the scene and evaluates the damage. Unfortunately, she only has two shots of morphine. She reasons that if the morphine were to be distributed equally (one shot to B, and one to A), all of B's pain would go away, but person A would still hurt a great deal. If, on the other hand, she were to take their interests into consideration (the pain of A versus the pain of B), then she ought adminster both shots of morphine to the victim with the crushed leg (she reasons this will significantly decrease his pain), and let person B continue with his relatively minor wounds.
The equal consideration of interests principle applies to animals. Does my interest in a delicious dinner outweigh the cow's interest in her one and only life? And so on.
AR:Now is your chance to prove the foolishness of all of the posters who have referred to you as stunted, concrete-bound, anti-conceptual.
Um... you were the only one I remember saying such things.
:Prove it by demonstrating the legitimacy of the abstract principles which give rise to the specific claims of your political philosophy.
My political philosophy is based on freedom (anarchism). The above principle is the means by which I would regulate conflict (which directly relates to rights (specifically, animal rights)).
Rights in general, is different. First we'd have to make the distinction between "positive" and "negative". I reject the idea that humans are only entitled to rights of non-interference (negative rights). But I think "positive" rights (or, freedom to) is not capabable of dealing with the issue alone, either.
I'm pressed for time now, so I'll go into detail later. (Triadic conception, definitions, and my own view.)
"Any definition of liberty is humbug that does not mean this: liberty to do what one wants." -- Caudwell
Q