|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Rights of Nature? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Again, already answered. In fact several times. And answer is still the same.
YOU may understand that I don't like the term "rights" because I think it implies something innate etc and that YOU are not talking about anything innate. But I don't think that is generally true.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
The OP is talking about laws.
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 if we remove that apparently problematic term are you OK with the idea - Or not?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Again, that has already been answered. My issue is with the term and concept of rights and I have a major problem with the concept of assigning rights to nature or animals or humans.
Yes, humans should have both a moral and practical concern for other things, but not because those things have any rights whatsoever. Laws are one thing and what is important is, as I have said, proscribing and prescribing human behavior. As an example consider torture. I would favor a law proscribing torture. I am not in favor of a law that says gorillas have the right not to be tortured.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 7.0 |
Tang writes:
We grant rights but they do seem at tad arbitrary.Drone writes:
For them, how would you know it is necessarily a made-up right?Tang writes: Because we made up the arbitrary rules. How else? Hi Tangle, I think I am late to the party and beating a dead horse with this post because it seems Oni and Straggler have effectively covered this already, but let me try in my own words . . . 2000 years ago, the idea of innate rights for anyone but royalty was probably seen as ridiculous. Then about 200 years ago in america, leaders proclaimed rights for 'common' individuals (but not black people, nor native americans, nor women). Fast forward 200 years, it seems there are now inalienable rights to ALL citizens (in theory). But in India, there is still a caste system that has much inequality. Maybe in 200 years Indians will see that all people have innate rights too. But right now, for Indians it seems rights SHOULD BE given arbitrarily. Does this seem fair/correct/ethical? Now, do you still feel, like the Indians, that any rights for Indian's lower-class, (like recent history's black people, native americans, and women) . . . be simply 'made up,' or be "arbitrary"? If you were one of these groups, would you feel it a kick in the head to know that any rights you have now is based on arbitrary, made-up decisions? Sooo, if we could do a little extrapolating from history, and apply it to the future, why would giving added rights to sentient animals be necessarily arbitrary? I don't think it too unimaginable that someday, like history's slow march to civilized behavior, minimal rights would be afforded to most living things. And, as a bonus, by piggybacking these new found rights to nature, we can also give extra legal tools to combat corporations that hope to poison your child.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
And, as a bonus, by piggybacking these new found rights to nature, we can also give extra legal tools to combat corporations that hope to poison your child. It's the added bullshit like "... corporations that hope to poison your child" that keep folk from ever taking you or your position seriously.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9516 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
dronester writes: Now, do you still feel, like the Indians, that any rights for Indian's lower-class, (like recent history's black people, native americans, and women) . . . be simply 'made up,' or be "arbitrary"? If you were one of these groups, would you feel it a kick in the head to know that any rights you have now is based on arbitrary, made-up decisions? Of course I'd feel pissed off about it too and all those groups did and some still do. You've confirmed your own point - people make up the rules that suit them and they change over time.
Sooo, if we could do a little extrapolating from history, and apply it to the future, why would giving added rights to sentient animals be necessarily arbitrary? We almost certainly will grant more rights to various animal groups - sentient or otherwise. That doesn't make them any less arbitrary.
I don't think it too unimaginable that someday, like history's slow march to civilized behavior, minimal rights would be afforded to most living things. Doubtful - we tend to eat a lot of them.
And, as a bonus, by piggybacking these new found rights to nature, we can also give extra legal tools to combat corporations that hope to poison your child. That's one hell of a non sequiturLife, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 7.0
|
Jar writes: I am not in favor of a law that says gorillas have the right not to be tortured. Sheesh, and they say gorillas are the ferocious beasts.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 7.0 |
Jar writes: It's the added bullshit like "... corporations that hope to poison your child" that keep folk from ever taking you or your position seriously. You don't necessarily have to visit a third world country to see just how far corporations would poison an environment for profit.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Which has absolutely nothing to do with what I quoted.
Sorry but still just more rhetoric from you.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 7.0 |
Tang writes: You've confirmed your own point - people make up the rules that suit them and they change over time. SHOULD granting rights to blacks, women, and native americans be arbitrary? If not why?
Tang writes: That's one hell of a non sequitur If you didn't read my OP, you may erroneously think it is.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Not only should it be arbitrary, it is arbitrary.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 7.0 |
Jar writes: Not only should it be arbitrary, it is arbitrary. You publicly stated that giving rights to blacks, women, and native americans SHOULD be arbitrary??? I guess I have nothing more to add. Ummm, . . . kudos Jar, . . . well done.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9516 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Dronester writes: SHOULD granting rights to blacks, women, and native americans be arbitrary? If not why? No, everyone SHOULD have he same rights. But they don't and the reason they don't is because some people don't agree with me and I can't make them. Opinions on morality depend on your own position in society and the times and the country you live in.Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 7.0 |
Tang writes: No, everyone SHOULD have he same rights. But they don't and the reason they don't is because some people don't agree with me and I can't make them. Okaaay. So what would be some of the reasons for their disagreemnet with you? Why would some people (cough, cough, Jar), believe that rights SHOULD be arbitrarily given to blacks, women, and native americans?
Tang writes: Opinions on morality depend on your own position in society and the times and the country you live in. Hmmm, are these good reasons? Edited by dronester, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tempe 12ft Chicken Member (Idle past 366 days) Posts: 438 From: Tempe, Az. Joined: |
Dronester writes: SHOULD granting rights to blacks, women, and native americans be arbitrary? If not why? Dronester, you are missing what everyone is saying completely. It's not that it SHOULD be arbitrary, but rather that it IS arbitrary. This is why the rules on who has "Rights" changes as the society around these "Rights" grows, learns and realizes the errors in some of its thinking. Also, when you think about nature, you must remember the multitude of ways that it would like (Obviously personifying nature here) to make our entire species go extinct. It is the way of things and most species have been wiped out, so it seems the right to life for us is not important to nature. We make up the rules, and they tend to follow whatever society is creating these rules. Should Blacks, Natives, and women have gotten Rights when America was founded? Yes. Was that likely to happen in the society where the Declaration of Independence was signed? No. and Thomas Jefferson even said that it was a battle for future generations to fight because those who tried in those meetings had failed. Should we create laws that protect nature? Yes, but not at detriment to our own societies. We must find balance. Oh, and jar was saying he would not suuport a law that gave gorillas the "Right" not to be tortured. This does not mean he would not support a law that says, "Humans, do not torture Gorillas." It's the term "Rights" that is at issue. We determine the rights, there is nothing innate in it. Look at it this way, if only three species were left, humans, chimps, and gorillas...would we still see the same right to life of these two other species or would or decisions have to change with a need for protein in our diet?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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024