Rights and Grights

[Hotu Matua]

Dear fellows:

I have read some few articles on how children make concepts, and I am coming to the conclusion that babies are always actively building a conceptual conciousness and that the first basic concepts appear between 6 to 9 months of age.

A very important flaw in my reasoning is that, while small babies do not have the faculty for conceptual thinking, this faculty does not just arrive overnight. There is no clear threshold in which we could say "NOW the baby has arrived to his first concept". Indeed, babies start a process as soon as they are born, by means of which they form the concept of "self" versus "non-self" and quickly advance into separating objects in groups, performing the very first acts of differentiation and integration.

In conclusion, born babies do have a faculty in the making, and therefore have rights. It is not just a mere potentiality.

The difference between a potential faculty and a faculty in the making is that in the former there is no evidence of a process taking place.

Babies are feeding day after day their "operating system" (if we were to use computers as a metaphor of the mind) which is "processing" information. Even if the "screen" is still "blank", the computer is ALREADY working and soon will start "opening windows".

If I use my comparison with the faculty to run, I would say that a toddler that is giving his first steps is quickly developing the faculty to run. There is a clear process in place that will inevitably lead to the expected result. It doesnt happen overnight.

The fetuses, as far as I know, are not still building a self vs. non-self concept since they do not recognize themselves as beings different from their mother (their "environment"). Therefore, as they are not actively building a faculty of reason, they are out of the scope of rights.

Most people with neurological damage or dementia are able to form concepts at some level. Their computer is not in the OFF mode, but just working very slowly and very bad. And it is very likely that they have also a basic "self recognition" faculty. As a consquence, they have rights.

I don't know whether apes have a conceptual capacity. Information I've found is ambiguous.

Finally, I still need to gain a better understanding of the concept of stewardship. While babies may have SOME conceptual capacity, it is obvious that that level of thinking doesn't help them much in terms of survival. They depend on adults. When adult's stewardship should stop? When is it no longer moral to take decisions on behalf of our children?

I therefore abandon the model of "grights".

I thank you a lot for your patience, insight and feedback.

I will keep on sharing thoughts with you on the bioethics realm

[Rane]

The problem I have with the concept of "grights" is that I don't see how they differ from normal rights e.g. Life, liberty and the persuit of happiness. Seeing as taking any one of those rights would be to take all of those rights. A person either has rights or they do not there is no middle ground where a person can have some rights and not others. In the case of a mentally handicapped person you have no right to force unwanted treatment as long as that persons action harm only themselves. When their actions violate the rights of another person then they forfeit the rights they had and the appropriate measures can and should be taken to prevent any further harm. Babies and children have the same basic rights as adults do the difference being that the parents have an obligation by choosing to have the child to support and aid the child until it can support itself. Animals do not and cannot have rights but to needlessly torture or kill an animal is an irrational act and should therefore be seen as immoral.

a gright is a protection, granted by the State, to ensure the preservation of life in entities that are developing a faculty of reason, had a faculty of reason but lost it or are close to having it.

When you say to "ensure the preservation of life." specifically in the case of the handicapped are you advocating the state provide treatment for their handicaps? Because the lives of the handicapped are already protected in the same way that the lives of the non handicapped are.

[Hotu Matua]

A person either has rights or they do not there is no middle ground where a person can have some rights and not others..

This all-or-nothing view of rights is practical for all helathy non-criminal adults.

For prisoners, small children or mentally handicapped people, this approach does not seem to work, because they act by right in some respects but by permission in other.

Suppose a prisoner that has been given one year in jail for a theft.

He does not have the right to go shopping to Walmart, but he has still the right to do many things within the borders od the prison. He can choose to read book A vs book B, or to perform manual activity A vs B, or to eat fruit A vs B or none of them at the cafeteria. Furthermore, he has the right to live without being murdered.

Is it that he forfeited ALL his rights and then the State is giving him PERMISSION to do certain things, and is respecting his life as a concesion, or has he forfeited only certain rights and not other, or, as one of the members of this forum suggested, he has not forfeited any right, but e State is morally violating his rights at certain extent?

Same with children. They do not have the right to go to anyplace they want at any time, get a driver license, and plenty of things we as adults consider part of our freedom.

Is it that rights "appear" one by one as they develop? Why cant a 10 year old boy work and keep the product of bis work for himself, without having his parents making decisions about how to spend it? And why, overnight, is the right to keep his money suddenly "appears"?

Edited December 29, 2010 by Hotu Matua