Marc K. Posted July 18, 2006 Report Share Posted July 18, 2006 Do you think free men are happier than slaves? I've traveled. I've met real slaves, or very close to it. They aren't as miserable as you might believe. They sit in groups at night, drink whiskey, and tell stories. They laugh and play games with their children. I am flabbergasted!!!!!!!!!! I’ve been trying to think of a way to answer you civilly, this is as close as I can come. Do you honestly think that slaves are just as happy as free men? Would you like to be a slave? Was the US Civil War a mistake? Perhaps we should roll over and allow Islamo Fascists to rule the world? Did you ever actually speak to any of these slaves you met? When they were happy were they exercising their inalienable rights or were they being oppressed? Do you mean to tell me that you have witnessed a person laughing and smiling while their tongue was being cut out? Do you believe that men in the past, who never had the guaranteed rights Americans put in their constitution, never knew happiness? I sincerely hope not. Rights are inalienable. Men have always had Rights whether they knew it or not. America was the first country to explicitly guarantee that those rights would be protected by the government. Since Rights have always existed, every time a person has ever experienced joy was because they have exercised their rights. Every time a person has experienced sorrow was because they were unable to exercise their rights, either because of their inability to do so or because force was used upon them... ...This can turn into quite an esoteric discussion... ...But I won’t discuss it with you because rational discussion requires rationality and as far as I can tell you have not demonstrated such. This forum is for discussing the philosophy of Objectivism -- something most of us here value. What is your purpose in coming here? If you have a question about Objectivism, then ask it, politely. However, promoting communism, fascism or any other irrational ideology which engenders slavery is against the forum rules. If it were up to me I’d ban you now, but you should at least be restricted to the debate forum. Moderators take note. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RationalBiker Posted July 18, 2006 Report Share Posted July 18, 2006 Moderator Note: Dave27's posts may not be very timely, if they appear at all, for a while. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miseleigh Posted July 18, 2006 Report Share Posted July 18, 2006 (edited) E.g. If it were found out that, say, ants were sentient? Why wouldn't we be able to trade with ants? Even if we couldn't trade anything of value with them, we should still try to respect their rights, and they should try to respect ours. I think they'd have to understand that it will be very difficult for us to avoid stepping on them, but we could certainly give them areas that we could avoid for that purpose. Edited to avoid repetition of earlier statements Edited July 18, 2006 by miseleigh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maarten Posted July 18, 2006 Report Share Posted July 18, 2006 Ultimately, though, rights are derived from ethics, which is based on the standard of man's life. For humans I can see why respecting their rights is good for me, and why we should uphold them. But why is it good to grant rights to other rational animals if we would derive no benefit whatsoever from it? Perhaps we can let the ants build certain things for us, or transport our goods (I think those things are damn strong ). I mean, if there was absolutely no advantage to human beings to extend rights to another type of rational creature (in a certain case) then to go out of our way to respect their rights would be a sacrifice, I think, and should be avoided for that reason. This is why it's a very valid question to ask when considering this issue: What exactly is the benefit to our life that we get from granting rights to a specific type of rational creature? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lathanar Posted July 18, 2006 Report Share Posted July 18, 2006 This is why it's a very valid question to ask when considering this issue: What exactly is the benefit to our life that we get from granting rights to a specific type of rational creature? What rational creature? Ants did not evolve around being volitional using reason to survive, so you can't even begin to do the "what if they were volitonal and had rights". They would have evolved completely differently and would more than likely have a much greater potential for adding value to our lives because of that. The "ifs" are too great to sit down and say, well if aliens showed up, should we grant them rights as we know them. How do they survive? How do they reason? Are they fragile, do they have incredibly long life spans so that death is not as large an issue as it is for us? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myself Posted July 18, 2006 Report Share Posted July 18, 2006 The problem I have is semantic - specifically with the phrase "man has rights." Rights as you all know are established when men must interact with other men. Rights are then derived from man's rational faculty and his basic need to engage in self sustaining and self generating action. Men need rights protected by government in order to be free to engage in self-sustaining and self-generating action. If men need these rights established and protected by a government then how can you say that man "has rights" when he is in a country or situation where rights aren't established? It would be more appropriate instead of saying that man "has inalienable rights" that man has "inalienable metaphysical needs" that need to be protected in the form of government enforced rights. In conclusion: it makes no sense to say that man has rights while at the same time saying that man needs rights established by his government. Further confusing the issue is that fact that in order to distinguish between man's rights and those rights as they are protected by his government is the necessarily false distinction between natural rights and political rights. It would make more sense to say that "due to man's nature as a rational and volitional being, in order for him to live on Earth and when interacting with other men, rights must be established among men, safeguarding the use of his reason with one fundamental right from which all other rights can be derived and enumerated: the right to life." This would eliminate the false separation between natural and political rights and would keep same meaning of the concept. What do you think? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maarten Posted July 18, 2006 Report Share Posted July 18, 2006 (edited) What rational creature? Ants did not evolve around being volitional using reason to survive, so you can't even begin to do the "what if they were volitonal and had rights". They would have evolved completely differently and would more than likely have a much greater potential for adding value to our lives because of that. The "ifs" are too great to sit down and say, well if aliens showed up, should we grant them rights as we know them. How do they survive? How do they reason? Are they fragile, do they have incredibly long life spans so that death is not as large an issue as it is for us? The ants weren't my example. But I think it is a proper question to ask when a specific situation comes up. Obviously right now we cannot answer it yet, without making a more concrete example. I don't think it's a good idea to grant rights to beings that offer us no value whatsoever, though. I guess I disagree with miseleigh on that point, for the reasons I stated in my previous post. Edited July 18, 2006 by Maarten Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidV Posted July 18, 2006 Report Share Posted July 18, 2006 This would eliminate the false separation between natural and political rights and would keep same meaning of the concept. What do you think? I think the conventional term for the distinction is moral right versus a legal right. A "legal right" is a permission, so it's an entirely different meaning of the word right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felix Posted July 19, 2006 Report Share Posted July 19, 2006 I mean, if there was absolutely no advantage to human beings to extend rights to another type of rational creature (in a certain case) then to go out of our way to respect their rights would be a sacrifice, I think, and should be avoided for that reason. Hmm... Unless I understood something wrong, this would not be right. If a right is something every rational being possesses, then you can't just ignore that if you don't like it. Basically for the same reason you can't just kill people if it were to your benefit. This is why it's a very valid question to ask when considering this issue: What exactly is the benefit to our life that we get from granting rights to a specific type of rational creature? If you have a rational creature, that is: a creature with a conceptual faculty, there's always a ton to gain from that creature. If the conceptual faculty is the characteristic feature of man, then having other creatures with such a faculty would be of tremendous benefit to you. And they would only be able to excercise this faculty to the fullest if their rights are accepted. The example that comes to my mind is African slaves. It's just been plain wrong to just claim that they were not human and treat them like animals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maarten Posted July 19, 2006 Report Share Posted July 19, 2006 I agree with you, insofar as a rational being would offer us value. I was just saying that if for some reason it was impossible to gain anything from them, it would be wrong to go out of our way to respect their rights. I mean, killing someone is bad because it is not furthering your own life qua man. That is also because humans have a potential (or even actual) value. My statements were a reply to miseleigh, who said: Why wouldn't we be able to trade with ants? Even if we couldn't trade anything of value with them, we should still try to respect their rights, and they should try to respect ours. I think they'd have to understand that it will be very difficult for us to avoid stepping on them, but we could certainly give them areas that we could avoid for that purpose. But I suppose the situation where there is not anything to gain from them would be impossible by definition, so then the point is rather moot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrocktor Posted July 19, 2006 Report Share Posted July 19, 2006 In conclusion: it makes no sense to say that man has rights while at the same time saying that man needs rights established by his government. There are metaphysical conditions under which life according to man's nature is possible. These conditions independ from the existence of other men or other rational beings: each individual must be capable of using his mind. Absent other men or rational beings, this condition is metaphysical - does the individual posess a functioning brain? - and ethical - does the individual choose to use his mind? Add others and the issue becomes political. Due to his metaphysical nature, when placed in a group each man has a right to his life, property and freedom of choice. Whether there is an established government, whether the government or other individuals violate his rights or not is immaterial. Rights are inherent to rational beings that interact, they are principles that state how men must interact if they are to live. Establishing a government in order to protect rights is not directly given, it is a consequence of the metaphysical fact that rights exist, that they can only be violated by force, that men can choose do be evil, that force must be used against those men and that this necessary retaliatory use of force must be put under objective limitations lest it itself become initiation of force and thus evil. A proper government is the solution to that problem. mrocktor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miseleigh Posted July 19, 2006 Report Share Posted July 19, 2006 (edited) Yes, my statement "Even if we couldn't trade anything of value with them, we should still try to respect their rights, and they should try to respect ours" was somewhat off, because I think that mutual respect is a trade of values in itself. Even if mutual respect doesn't count as a trade, then we should still respect their rights. If we don't respect their rights, don't we grant them sanction to disregard ours? Edit: grammar Edited July 19, 2006 by miseleigh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maarten Posted July 19, 2006 Report Share Posted July 19, 2006 (edited) Well, I don't know if that's the case. But as the situation where there are no benefits whatsoever from trading with other rational beings is very unlikely, it's not a big deal anyway. I just think that if there was no benefit whatsoever to humans for respecting "Creature A's" rights, then we should not do so, because it would be a sacrifice to go out of our way while getting nothing in return. This last would only be an issue if they were unable to violate our rights in any meaningful manner, but if they are rational beings they probably could.. Edited July 19, 2006 by Maarten Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrocktor Posted July 20, 2006 Report Share Posted July 20, 2006 but if they are rational beings they probably could.. You are missing the central contradiction of your proposed scenario due to pragmatism (i.e. determining principles based on the consequences of applying them). The only way there could be nothing to gain from the creatures is if they produce nothing. If they produce nothing they cannot live as rational beings - and have no rights. Your scenario is impossible. mrocktor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maarten Posted July 20, 2006 Report Share Posted July 20, 2006 (edited) I was just trying to understand how these principles would apply in the situation miseleigh was talking about. I admit it was a mistake on my part to try and do that in a situation that could never exist, though. Edited July 20, 2006 by Maarten Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hunterrose Posted July 20, 2006 Report Share Posted July 20, 2006 Even if mutual respect doesn't count as a trade, then we should still respect their rights.There's a difficulty, in that thisEven if we couldn't trade anything of value with them, we should still try to respect their rights.seems to say something a bit different. If some other sentients had legal rights in our system, trying to respect them would no longer be sufficient. It'd have to be an all or nothing thing (I suspect,) and there are factors beyond sentience that might make a mutual recognizing of rights nigh impossible. You are missing the central contradiction of your proposed scenario due to pragmatism (i.e. determining principles based on the consequences of applying them). The only way there could be nothing to gain from the creatures is if they produce nothing. If they produce nothing they cannot live as rational beings - and have no rights. Your scenario is impossible. I think the credit/blame for the proposed scenario probably goes to me. At any rate, this may be hypothetical, but I doubt it's pragmatic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrocktor Posted July 20, 2006 Report Share Posted July 20, 2006 there are factors beyond sentience that might make a mutual recognizing of rights nigh impossible. Name one, please. mrock Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lathanar Posted July 20, 2006 Report Share Posted July 20, 2006 If God is sentient does he have rights? What if there were no hypotheticals? Until we know the makeup of another volitional creature, we can't determine what kind of rights that should be conferred on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted July 20, 2006 Report Share Posted July 20, 2006 The original poster asked about "sentient beings with a capability for intelligence much like our own". By 'sentient being', I understood "something that is like an animal (living but not a plant), with senses". For the scope of this thread, we can assume that animals do not have rights. Therefore, a sentient being without a capability for intelligence much like our own, but more like the capacity of a dog, would not have rights. So, I'd agree that "sentience" is not all that is required for rights. Alternatively, someone should explain what is meant by "sentient being". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted July 20, 2006 Report Share Posted July 20, 2006 I think the emphasis on sentience and intelligence is somewhat misguided. The fundamental prerequisite for having rights is the capacity to respect the equivalent rights of others. That means you must have volition, and the cognitive capacity to have principles -- a conceptual faculty -- so that you can recognise the instantiation of a general moral principle in a specific instance. To quote Mrocktor in #10, "any other being capable of conceptual thought and choice automatically posseses rights". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bold Standard Posted July 21, 2006 Report Share Posted July 21, 2006 Well, I don't know if that's the case. But as the situation where there are no benefits whatsoever from trading with other rational beings is very unlikely, it's not a big deal anyway. I just think that if there was no benefit whatsoever to humans for respecting "Creature A's" rights, then we should not do so, because it would be a sacrifice to go out of our way while getting nothing in return. This last would only be an issue if they were unable to violate our rights in any meaningful manner, but if they are rational beings they probably could.. This does seem to be a pragmatic approach. Since reationality and volition are the source of rights, any type of "creature" that posseses these has rights. I don't see why "Creature A" in your example couldn't just as easily be "Human A." IE, would you argue that if it were the case that no discernable or significant benefit could be accrued from trading with a specific human being, that that human would then lose his claim to individual rights? If so, how would this capacity for "benefit" be calculated? Would it be derived from some type of principles, or mere expedience, on a case-by-case basis? If some creatures possesing reason and volition have rights and some don't, why wouldn't this apply to people within the human species, too? How about mentally handicapped people, who are unable to produce anything on their own? Would you argue that these people forfeit any claim to individual rights, so that as long as someone is willing to keep them alive, he can then do anything he wants to them without being unethical? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc K. Posted July 21, 2006 Report Share Posted July 21, 2006 While echoing what Bold Standard and DavidOdden have just said I would like to reemphasize that: I don't think it's a good idea to grant rights to beings that offer us no value whatsoever Rights are not things that are granted. Your nature either requires that you possess them or it doesn't. Who granted you the power to deny rights to anyone who understands and can enumerate them? I just think that if there was no benefit whatsoever to humans for respecting "Creature A's" rights, then we should not do so, because it would be a sacrifice to go out of our way while getting nothing in return. Respecting the rights of others requires nothing of you except that you leave them alone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hunterrose Posted July 21, 2006 Report Share Posted July 21, 2006 Name one, please.A sentient/volitional/cognitive species that, as an aspect of their physiology, exhaled sarin or mustard gas would make a mutual recognization of rights nigh impossible, would it not? I don't see why "Creature A" in your example couldn't just as easily be "Human A." IE, would you argue that if it were the case that no discernable or significant benefit could be accrued from trading with a specific human being, that that human would then lose his claim to individual rights? If so, how would this capacity for "benefit" be calculated?Another thing that I think has to be factored in, besides cognition/volition, is compatibility of interests. Even if Human A receives no benefit from the existence of Human B, B's mere existence is not lethal to A. Different Creatures, on the other hand, may be biologically incompatible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bold Standard Posted July 21, 2006 Report Share Posted July 21, 2006 A sentient/volitional/cognitive species that, as an aspect of their physiology, exhaled sarin or mustard gas would make a mutual recognization of rights nigh impossible, would it not? Another thing that I think has to be factored in, besides cognition/volition, is compatibility of interests. Even if Human A receives no benefit from the existence of Human B, B's mere existence is not lethal to A. Different Creatures, on the other hand, may be biologically incompatible. Hm, well, how about humans who carry a deadly, infectious disease? Do they loose their individual rights because of it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maarten Posted July 21, 2006 Report Share Posted July 21, 2006 I see where my mistake was now... Well, if the deadly, infectious disease is an objective danger to other people, then they might not lose their rights per se, but they are initiating force against others (indirectly). I think in this case the government should step in. It is perhaps not their fault that they are sick like that, but it really doesn't matter to me if I catch ebola from someone who doesn't show it, or if I get shot. I don't think there are that many highly infectious, deadly diseases, though. But I think a person carrying one of those would count as a threat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.