would be up in arms in the hypothetical scenario I presented, and that you presumably would not. No need to go ad hominem.
Questions are not an attack, they are just questions. Even if you repeat them because someone refuses to clarify or back a statement up. Last time i checked human rights violations and dictatorships where very real, so very real actions have to follow, or it is just empty words.
What needs to be clarified or backed up? If slavery were again legalized in the western world, I would be up in arms.
No one ever suggested our current recognition of the natural rights of man is total and complete.
So, there is no reason to think that the right to have a firearm has any bearing onto "real" natural law,
It's an arguable point, which is why it's debated.
since our understanding of those laws is neither total nor complete, and therefore open to human error. Hence, everything we perceive as "natural law" can be in error, there follows human rights are man made. q.e.d.
No, it does not follow that because we may not know the totality of our natural rights that they're man-made. Our knowledge of the oceans is not complete, but that doesn't make them man-made or unnatural. The validity of natural rights are ultimately born out by nature and reality itself. We could decide today that all humans have a natural right to hats and ensure every human being has a hat. But a few years from now, I think we'd find that not to be valid since hats are not a necessary condition to allow a human to flourish, prosper, or pursue happiness.
You cannot say the same for another species unless you can read their minds or understand them as their own species understands and perceives each other and the world around them.
I can not say the same about them, true. However, if those laws are in deed natural, logic would dictate to assume that any and every right we assign to ourselves if also valid for them, unless we can prove it doesn´t. Otherwise you just open the door to classifying beings as non-human, not-fully human or sub-human to deny them those rights.
Why would you assume that rights natural to and among humans are valid for a particular animal. Birds have wings, wings are a natural attribute for and among birds, but just because a lion doesn't have wings doesn't make the reality that wings are natural and inherent among birds not fact.
First of all, gravity is a concept.
We have a concept about gravity, but gravity isn´t a concept.
Sure it is. By definition everything we know or believe to know about gravity is a concept, but the point is that whether or not something is a concept has no bearing on whether or not its subject is natural.
A dictator can abolish all individual rights and enslave his entire population, but that can't abolish the reality that they have an inherent right to liberty.
A farmer can abolish all individual rights and enslave his entire cattle population, but that can't abolish the reality that they have an inherent right to liberty.
If cattle do indeed have an inherent right to liberty, sure. But again, how would you know?
Perhaps otters do as well, but unless we can read their minds, we can't know what or if that's the case.
And since you would not just not violate those natural rights, even pick up arms to defend them, logic dictates to apply those rights to every living thing unless you know it doesn´t have natural rights and their nature. How can you be fighting for natural rights, but villi nilli not care if other beings have the same rights. We´ve come a full circle: you´d better be a vegan then. Well, or your philosophy is inconsistent.
Why would logic dictate that when I only care about the natural rights of humans? Indeed how would you even suggest we modify our behaviors if we can't know what
those rights are, if they even have them? Would it be logical for the entire world to spend trillions on some space defense system to protect against an alien invasion from some aggressive alien species we don't know exists or what their capabilities would be?
That could very well be, but again, we can't know what their natural rights are. That we don't know what they are, or that we may be impinging on those rights wouldn't change that they have them however.
The above still applies. Assuming that something has no rights at all until we realize that they have rights is exactly what got us into this mess.
It does not, because now you're talking about a very specific assumption, an assumption on if/what are natural rights for animals, but you're assuming that I care as deeply for animals as I do for fellow human beings. I care far less if I happen to be violating the natural rights of an animal than I do for the violation of the natural rights of a human. I'm not assuming animals have no natural rights, I'm making the decision not to care that I might be violating them, whatever they may be. Now, you may come back and say that then morally makes me no better than some dictator...but morality is a different matter, and I think most would agree that your morality/behaviors and attitudes towards your fellow human carries much greater weight and importance.
Whether a particular animal does or does not have a natural right to life cannot be known by us. What we can and do know is that humans have an inherent right to life.
See above. As long as i deny knowledge of other beings rights, i am free to violate them.
Key word being "violate," an infringement, a transgression, and that wouldn't legitimize it. And that still doesn't make those rights not exist.
Conceding that all rights are man-made concedes that they can be legitimately destroyed or abolished.
Nah, hard to turn back progress. Even bogus "natural rights" like the 2nd amendment don´t go away.
It was easy enough for the Nazis and Soviet Union.
While they were forcibly enslaved, do you think during that period African slaves had no right to liberty? They always had that right, and it was the realization that, as fellow humans, they did have that right which made and makes slavery in the modern age untenable.
Has it? How is a dictatorship providing cheap labor to investors, locking people up, sustaining their lives just enough to keep them from open revolt, prosecute and punish those that want to change the situation, and, if necessary, using force to prevent them from leaving different from slavery in any meaningful way? We only abolished private slave ownership, slavery is still alive and kicking.
I said untenable, not non-existent. And you never answered the question, during the period when Africans were slaves, do you think they had no right to liberty?
Really. For starters, the human brain has about tripled in size over the last few million years.
And that means what exactly? An elephants brain is four times as big as the average humans, a Mausmaki has 50% bigger brains in relation to body size we have.
But hat wasn´t the question now, was it? The question was "when was the first human baby born to non-human parents". Because unless you can pin down the first human, there is no real basis to distinguish between human and non-human.
The black stuff in this pictures is a fluid filled void. The french guy carrying this head around has just about 10% of the average brain size, is 53 years old and is NOT mentally handicapped. So much for brain size matters.
That's pretty cool, but doesn't change the fact that the human mind has changed and evolved over the past few million years. You're the one who seemingly questioned that it had.
Though a person may be brain damaged or deficient in some way, we have the reasoning capabilities to know that person is a human, and that as a human they have certain natural rights.
We also have the reasoning capacity to see that there is no inherently logical reason to deny rights to a cow that we assign to a human.
There's also no inherently logical reason to give them those rights either.
That depends on what metrics you use, as i pointed out before. But whatever metrics you do chose, there is no way to know if you are using the "right" metrics, if there is one. You just chose metrics that have humans come out on top, but that is only because you chose the metrics that give you that result.
If you go by number, biomass, habitats conquered, survival time of the species and many others, humans only show up far, far down the list. And even by standards you may chose to crown mankind, that situation has arisen just recently and just a blink of e geological eye ago mankind was almost extinct.
One could even argue that our domestic animals rule the world, after all their extended phenotypic effects are very efficient in getting us to feed, protect, house and nurture them.
Not denying mankind's mortality or vulnerability, but then you can't really say it's incorrect to conclude that humans currently dominate the earth if there is no way to know the "right" metrics. Either way, I don't think you can deny that there isn't, at this time, another animal or species on this planet that has the ability to influence and impact the planet as humans do. Birds are important in many respects, but they don't have the ability to nuke the entire planet or terraform islands in the sea.
Last edited by flyguy89
on Wed Jul 13, 2016 5:20 am, edited 1 time in total.