Rights of Nature?

That can be said for rights like property rights, or the right to drink at a water fountain - but those are not inherent rights. I'd agree those are arbitrary and can be taken away.But you couldn't for example take away the inherent right to exist unimpeded, you can only try to. In some cases you'd successfully control it, but it doesn't mean the inherent right goes away.For example, you couldn't take away the inherent danger of standing on the side of a cliff, you can only control it. Put up signs, don't let people near cliffs, destroy all cliffs. But that doesn't mean the inherent danger of standing on a cliff goes away.- Oni

The difference between innate and inherent is whether or not the bearer is alive.I think this stems from the difference between is and ought. You could say that there's a right in that something ought to happen, but that right doesn't actually exist, per se.The woo comes in when you start describing the existence of some property that is independent of our simple labeling of it as a thing. Sure, it was specifically applied to the question of impedence.I may feel that the weeds ought to not impede on my garden, and say my garden has a right to be without weeds, but there is no property of my garden to be weed-free independent of me just not wanting there to be weeds in it. In that case, I either take the weeds out of my garden or they take over. There's nothing added by bringing the case of rights into it.And if you get all hippy-dippy on me and start talking about my garden having the right to exist without weeds, then I'm gonna call woo. Maybe your just saying that I ought to be able to have a garden without weeds (which is true), but it sounds like you're saying my garden has some inherent property independent of us applying a label (which is false). I don't think its a quality of the thing, I think its our own desires.My garden doesn't possess a weed-free quality, I just don't want there to be weeds in it. Call that a right if you want, but I'm gonna tell you its woo.

If you say to George, "I'll meet you at noon," and he doesn't show up until three, you tend to conclude that he came at his own convenience instead of the prescribed time. If people "deserve" certain rights but they aren't granted untill a century later, that suggests that the convenience of the granters had higher priority than the "need" of the grantees.How would the delay be explained except by convenience/inconvenience? I think not. You can't speak up until you have the right to speak up. First, some white people decided that black people "should" have rights - but nothing was actually done about it until it became convenient for a significant number of white people.

But, is there an inherent right to exist? I am pretty sure that most sperm and egg cells do not go forth to produce a life form, then you have the amount of pregnancies that end before completion. Add in the fact that no one thing is guaranteed to exist for even more than one second and I cannot see how this Right to Exist is inherent. I would say that because a bulk of the "equipment" used in reproduction is waste, there is an inherent right to not exist, since after all most things won't.Also, none of us exist unimpeded...we are impeded by sexual urges, hunger, desires and greed, thirst, and many more items that our brains and bodies demand of us. Our own mind impedes us at times.Also, there is no inherent danger in standing on a cliff, unless one is not careful (Then you get acted upon quickly by gravity). There is an inherent danger in falling, but the cliff has nothing to do with that, it is gravity and the lack of a cliff being there anymore.Edited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : No reason given.

Its not the falling, its the sudden stop at the bottom.

But I haven't done that, Naytcha Boy. Danger isn't a property of cliffs but there is an inherent danger in standing on the edge of one.The danger is independent of the cliff and not a property of the cliff.Rights can exist in the same way danger exists when standing on the edge of a cliff. Ah, ok. In the case of property and rights to property, sure. But then again I wouldn't say rights to property are inherent. That is not at all what I meant and what you're describing is woo, Naytcha Boy.- Oni

An inherent right to exist? No. But I have not suggested that. But none of that takes away the inherent right to live unimpeded. The fact that many of us may not exist unimpeded doesn't mean the inherent right to do so goes away. That IS the inherent danger: that one might lose footing and fall, causing death or worse.So I think it's fine to say there is an inherent danger to standing on the edge of a cliff. But fine, we can also say there is an inherent danger in not being careful while standig on the edge of a cliff. My point is made the same in that it is not innate. The cliff and the height of it has everything to do with it. Newton dude; acceleration and all that stuff. Not the same fall when falling from the sidewalk of a normal city street.Woo!- Oni

I don't think there is any inherent right to being a living thing. You may be a living thing but that has nothing to do with rights, it is simply a description of what you happen to be.Nut even if that were true, nature is not a living thing.

That was my fault, you did say inherent right to exist unimpeded. However, as I have stated, none of us is able to exercise this right as we are all impeded, whether by natural disasters, monetary concerns, troubled minds (i.e. - depression, schizophrenia, etc.), Natural requirements (Food, water, shelter), and many other things. But, that bolded part is the point. It is not many of us that live impeded, but all of us just by the process of living. Every living thing is impeded. Are plants impeded when there is a natural drought? Are small mammals impeded when a new predator they did not evolve to escape moves into the area? The point is, what good is an inherent right, if it applies to something that is not even possible. You can say we have this, but that no animal can hope to achieve it...or we can deal with what we can achieve, finding ways to lessen our impact on nature through our arbitrarily created "Rights", while still attempting to use nature to create the tools we must use as tool using animals. (lots of the word use in that sentence. Lol) But the danger is not the cliff edge. Put me in a spacesuit on a planet with very little gravity and the fall would be completely different, yet it is still a cliff. It may be arguing from a position of the unlikely, but it means that the cliff edge itself has no inherent danger without the presence of gravity. I could agree that there is an inherent danger to gravity, but the cliff edge without it is just a beautiful place to look out from. Agreed that this is the case. However, reduce the mass, such as the situation above, and you reduce the risk. And since mass is determined by the gravitational pull on an object, reduce the gravity, reduce the risk. Again, this is why I state the real danger in the cliff is gravity's existence.Also, as far as your other point about inherent right to exist unimpeded, I really would like to know what the point is of an unattainable right, unless you can point me to some examples of someone living completed unimpeded. After all, even Siddartha, The Buddha, had to eat one rice grain a day according to the legends, so his hunger still found a way to impede him from his desire of giving up everything during his time as an aesthetic.

Hmmm. I think I NOW know what you're saying. Allow me to explain this to Oni using Ringo's previously clear example to me."When it's dangerous near a cliff edge, it is dangerous. When it's not dangerous near a cliff edge, it is not dangerous."There, done and done.

You know, Mean Gene, when I re-read your posts in this thread I see you doing exactly that:

quote:

---

I get what you're saying but I feel it's more like we're discovering that these rights actually exist.

​

...

​

Maybe, but I think there's something there.

​

...

​

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.

---

. That's just confusing me... I'd say that cliffs are dangerous. And you're saying the danger is inherent in standing. I'm having trouble picturing rights in this way.You better...*pant*... expound on that...*pant*...FOR ME BROTHER! WOOOOOO!

Except for the fact that that is not at all what I said, well done!What I stated was that the inherent danger is not because of the presence of the cliff, but rather the presence of gravity. I agreed there is an inherent danger to gravity, as seen by falling objects, meteorite impacts, and a human falling to his or her death. But the cliff in and of itself is impartial and unimportant to this because without the gravitational effect, there would be no way to fall and receive injury. Or, if the effect was lessened, one could fall from a much higher cliff without injury than one could on Earth. While the moon has no air resistance, you could still fall off a cliff almost 6 times as high as you could on Earth, I have jumped and landed on my feet from a ten foot roof, so technically, I could jump off a 55-60 foot cliff on the moon and stick the landing....the danger is not inherent in a cliff.But, you knew when you posted this that you were only quote mining the first portion of that entire explanation. Quote my entire thought or don't waste your time debating against arguments that were not even made.

Sorry Tempe.But, I think you, Ringo and CS are trying so hard to discredit the 'innate' or 'inherent' rights argument, that, IMO, evidence is sounding forced or ridiculous. Look where the topic has gone to:You wrote several strained paragraphs of "cliffs are dangerous . . . or not"Ringo is writing 'compelling' rebuttals such as "When it's lawful it's lawful and when it's unlawful it's unlawful."CS is writing on-and-on about a weed-free garden.

Are you ever going to get anything right?

No, I did not write several strained paragraphs describing. I attributed the cause of falling to the actual cause of falling and even was willing to concede an inherent danger from that force.Inherent - 1.Existing in something as a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute: "inherent dangers".While you can fall from cliffs, with less or no gravity the danger of cliffs is no longer present, so it is not a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute, except when in the gavitational conditions necessary to make it dangerous, such as Earth. The inherent danger is characterized in the force of gravity, not the cliff. What about a parachute, couldn't that save me from this guaranteed danger? I believe I have seen something called base jumping.I will give you that there is an inherent danger to gravity, but not to the cliff edge because it is dependent upon gravity to be dangerous.