Journal JavaRob's Journal: Embryonic Rights, part III 18
Picking up the thread again, as time permits. I just totally ran out of spare time for a while there.
Discussion background for the random visitor:
* Started in the "Start of Life Gene Discovered" article. Comments closed mid-discussion.
* Rescued when cagle_.25 hosted a continuation in his journal. Comments closed mid-discussion.
I'll insert full copies of the posts I'm responding to (as the anon user) so there's some kind of continuity. cagle_.25, if/when you have the time we can keep making our way through; when this one gets archived (if we're still going) I can pop up another journal entry.
I like this method of conversation -- we can take the time to mull over a new idea before replying; we can check back to what we argued earlier; we have the time to double-check some dimly-remembered stat, etc..
Cheers,
Rob
Re: Dred Scott decision (Score:2)
Now, I mention all this because it's important to understand that Taney and tho
Re: Dred Scott decision (Score:2)
Not exactly. My judgment that Taney was wrong is based on the idea that blacks were human beings, and he failed to recognize their rights. "Equal protection" I can agree with; awareness of suffering or fairness are not part of the picture.
I sho
Re: Dred Scott decision (Score:2)
Not exactly. My judgment that Taney was wrong is based on the idea that blacks were human beings, and he failed to recognize their rights. "Equal protection" I can agree with; awareness of suffering or fairness are not part of the picture.
I agree,
Re: Dred Scott decision (Score:2)
Definitely no. I have no reason to believe that you have an economic interest in these issues; you seem at every point to be arguing in good faith.
Re: physical attachment (Score:2)
But let's not pass too lightly over the point. She can indeed provide any of those alternative ways out, if such are available. But if not, then she's stuck. She cannot
Re:Points of clarification (Score:2)
I understand, though I don't see any reason to assume that human rights must be inherent (more below on this). The end result may be somewhat similar -- in that people need
Re:Points of clarification (Score:2)
Person X is said to have a right R when others owe him R as an obligation.
A human right is then a right owed to X because X is a human being. Notice that this term leaves "human being" undefined, to be argued later.
My claim is this: if R is a human right, it must be inherent, rather than gra
Re:Points of clarification (Score:2)
The idea of anything being "inherent" is a big claim to begin with -- how does that correlate with the physical world? If an idea is "inherent" -- if it exists somehow independant of people's varying conception of it -- doesn't that require some supern
Re:Points of clarification (Score:2)
Well, it doesn't correlate, actually. Inherency is a metaphysical concept. All moral claims are metaphysical. Even empiricism itself is metaphysical. So is the validity of your reality test -- can you prove that our ethical principles should correlate to the physical world, using physical evidence? This is what scientists mean when they say "science can't tell us everything." We as p
"recognize a claim" vs. "grant a right" (Score:2)
I agree, the language sounds similar; the important difference goes back to the point that we are all individuals acting (often similarly but) independantly.
If person A claims a right, person B may either recognize or refuse to recognize that right. Either way (here's the difference from your descriptions), this has no impact on whether person A "has" the right or n
Re:"recognize a claim" vs. "grant a right" (Score:2)
Agreed.
All of these options are implying that the "granting" actually *convey
Re:"recognize a claim" vs. "grant a right" (Score:2)
(3) If (A), then rights are either (C) granted by each society to its members, (D) granted by one society to all humans, or (E) granted by all people to all people (leaving out silly cases like "granted by societies to members of ot
Re:"recognize a claim" vs. "grant a right" (Score:2)
I strongly disagree. In this branch of the argument, rights are not inherent and also have no independent existence. Therefore, if the framers claim the right, and the king refuses to recognize it (which is the only way a claimed right can be acted on), then they h
Re:"recognize a claim" vs. "grant a right" (Score:2)
I'll just grab this snippet to focus on what I'm objecting to.
And why is the king's recognition the "only way a claimed right can be acted on"? You're changing the model so it doesn't reflect reality anymore. They can act
Results summary (Score:2)
No, that doesn't logically follow. The statement "X has right R" implies inherency. The statement "X does not have right R" does not imply inherency, because there might be two reasons for it: either rights are inherent, but X fails to have R (not possible in this branch), or else rights aren't inherent, and there
Re:"recognize a claim" vs. "grant a right" (Score:2)
If you present this statement with *no speaker* -- yes, it's kind of meaningless. With no speaker, it assumes R is inherent.
Exactly. In other words, when the speaker is oneself, the claim "I have the right R" assumes inherency. If rights are not inherent, then the statement is self-contradictory, hence incoherent. NOT false, incoherent. That's been my argument the entire time.
The statement "I have the right R" is, perhaps, inexact -- but what it really means is "I claim right R". People who are c