|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Rights of Nature? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Catholic Scientist writes:
Anything that's edible automatically loses some rights.
ringo writes:
But chicken is delicious! Two-legged species get the most rights.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2951 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
It doesn't mean the rights can't be infringed on. But it does points to there being something there that you feel has been infringed on.
- Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
It doesn't mean the rights can't be infringed on. But it does points to there being something there that you feel has been infringed on. Yeah, my shit. Not my rights. Not even my right to my shit. Its take or be taken.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tempe 12ft Chicken Member (Idle past 336 days) Posts: 438 From: Tempe, Az. Joined: |
Oni writes: Isn't it better to say that we recognize that nature too has inherent rights to live unimpeded and so we create laws to see to it that this fundamental principle (my words) is protected? See, I see this as simply a semantics argument. Sure, we could word it this way. Likewise, we can also say that until we think of something, we do not assign a right based on it. We have a right to property in the United States, but even that can be taken away, with the idea of eminent domain.
Oni writes: Is it arbitrary like you guys are suggesting, that we create rights then assign other things these rights? It is the loopholes in "Rights" and how we apply them with such different pressures that makes me think that they are far more arbitrary than simply discovered rights. If it was inherent and we recognized it, then there should be no issue with it remaining that way unimpeded at all times. However, we see that our "Rights" can be adjusted based upon the needs of the many.
Oni writes: Or is it that I'm smoking too much pot? *puff *puff That can never be done! The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity. - Richard Dawkins Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. - Issac Asimov If you removed all the arteries, veins, & capillaries from a person’s body, and tied them end-to-endthe person will die. - Neil Degrasse Tyson What would Buddha do? Nothing! What does the Buddhist terrorist do? Goes into the middle of the street, takes the gas, *pfft*, Self-Barbecue. The Christian and the Muslim on either side are yelling, "What the Fuck are you doing?" The Buddhist says, "Making you deal with your shit. - Robin Williams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
Tempe 12ft Chicken writes: However, we see that our "Rights" can be adjusted based upon the needs of the many. Or even the desires of the few or era, or geographic location, or current conditions or ...Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8513 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
But it does points to there being something there that you feel has been infringed on. Before humans came along with our penchant to create pointy sticks, chariot wheels and rights, was there something there for Dino? If so who was around to feel any kind of infringement? How were those rights defined and defended? Rights didn't exist until we came along to make them and everyone's definition and appointment of rights differs around the world and throughout history. Isn't this about as subjective and arbitrary as things get (by my subjective and arbitrary definition of "subjective and arbitrary" that is)? Edited by AZPaul3, : the usual culprits.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2951 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Its take or be taken. But to me it makes more sense to say, fight back or have your rights infringed upon. I feel we all have a right to exist and survive once we exist. It's up to the individual, and in many cases a group of individuals with a shared goal, to make sure those rights not infringed upon. Does that make sense or does it sound like some hippy nonsense? - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Does that make sense or does it sound like some hippy nonsense? It makes sense in that I'm understanding you, but I already called woo.
I feel we all have a right to exist and survive once we exist. It's up to the individual, and in many cases a group of individuals with a shared goal, to make sure those rights not infringed upon. But you can have the same effect without introducing the superfluous idea of some innate "right".
But to me it makes more sense to say, fight back or have your rights infringed upon. Why does that make more sense? The part about rights is just some fluffy nonsense that you're adding to abide your feelings. Tell Occam to bring his razor.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2951 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
I don't recognize that nature has inherent rights to live unimpeded. The lion impedes on the zebra and the zebra impedes on the grass. I think it's just a matter of semantics but I feel I can better express that by saying, the lion tries to infringe of the zebra's right to live unimpeded, and the zebra defends it's right. As humans we are conscious of this and create laws to protect those rights. Whenever a new "right" emerges I believe it comes from the point of view that the individual recognizes that A) this is in fact his own right, and B) that those rights are being infringed upon.
First we recognize that the right exists then we create the law to protect it or fight to get it ourselves.
We recognize rights when it's convenient. How was it convenient to recognize black people had the right to be treated as equal individuals? More so, wasn't the matter on civil rights that we recognized the fact that the rights of black people were being infringed on? - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Do trees have the right to not get hit by lightning.
Do forest fires have the right to burn homes. Do dermatophytes have the right to grow on humans. Do floods have the right to kill people. Do weeds have the right to grow in yards. There are no innate rights.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Yes I understand that you don't like the term "rights" because you think it implies something innate etc. But I'm not talking about anything innate.
I'm asking if you object to the notion that society can decide to accord moral worth/consideration to things which are non-human and then make laws on that basis. Do you object to bestowing moral consideration through the legal mechanism of assigning non-human entities protection from things like torture, destruction etc...? These assigned legal protections are commonly referred to as "rights" but we can call them something else if that makes you happy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8513 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
You mean like listing a house, building or church in the National Historical Registry? It cannot be altered, not even painted, without the approval of some committee.
I wouldn't say the house has a "right" to preservation and protection. I would say the owners have lost a right. The right to tear it down. But we capricious humans are liable to personify any thing or concept, so, yes, "society can decide to accord moral worth/consideration to things which are non-human and then make laws on that basis." We do it all the time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
AZ writes: We do it all the time. We do indeed. Apes. Trees. "Nature" (according to the OP). Whether we agree or disagree with any specific case is irrelevant to the idea that we can and do confer moral consideration to non-human things and that we often express this legally in terms of "rights". Whether jar likes that term or not really doesn't change this...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8513 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Whether jar likes that term or not really doesn't change this... Then why engage in a protracted symantical quibble? What is to be gained by this?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
What do you mean exactly when you use the term "quibble"....?
As for why - Well why not? When jar says things like this:
quote: When quite blatantly there are examples of legal rights pertaining to these things already in place - I'm going to ask whether those who say such things are disputing that these rights exist or whether they are objecting to their existence or whatever else it is they mean.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024