Comments on Don't Feed the Animals: On Morals and Human Rights

Morals and rights are not mutually exclusive. Wha...

2010-02-09T22:58:27.536-05:00

Morals and rights are not mutually exclusive. What we call 'rights' only exist through inductive reasoning (e.g. killing another is morally wrong therefore there is a right to life.) or societal forces. Ethics are the man-made constructs of morals that can be subjective. So morals are imbued from the time of whenever (conception/birth/consciousness/whatever) and ethics are the subjective reasonings that we apply to them. It is morally wrong to kill another EXCEPT WHEN *insert subjective reason here*. Certain 'rights', however, are wholly man made constructs; the 'right' to privacy, the 'right' to practice religion, and the 'right' habeas corpus among others. With two levels, one based on morals the other based on man-made constructs, you have to differentiate between the individual and the group/society (individual=moral, group/society=rights).

Sorry for my ramblings, but I disagree with you in that morals and human rights are mutually exclusive.

Thanks for making me think.

I see. Topic of another post, perhaps. Thanks for ...

2010-02-08T22:00:49.547-05:00

I see. Topic of another post, perhaps. Thanks for the discussion.

Kev: Why are they born with all rights? I suppose ...

2010-02-08T21:43:39.189-05:00

Kev: Why are they born with all rights? I suppose that is a complicated question to answer. Nature doesn't operate on the question of "Why?" It just IS. Nobody decides these things: they should be self-evident. Now, as to the question of what rights.. well, imagine a man's domain (his rights) as a sphere that surrounds him. Now, extend that sphere as far as possible until it can go no further without infringing upon another man's sphere. I'm sorry, I'm all out of simple ways to explain this, we're going into complicated territory.

I don't think the question should be "Why are men born with rights?" Here's what I think it should be: "Why do men restrict the rights of others?"

I really wish I had a better way of saying all this.

I see. But what I am asking is: why are humans alo...

2010-02-08T21:30:12.615-05:00

I see. But what I am asking is: why are humans alone born with rights? Why are they born with rights as opposed to conceived with rights? Who decides what rights they own?

Kev, I thought I was making myself MORE clear, but...

2010-02-08T20:54:46.565-05:00

Kev, I thought I was making myself MORE clear, but it appears you're not understanding what I am trying to say.

Step 1: Men are born with all rights.
Step 2: Society restricts those rights.

That is what I am trying to get at.

??? So rights only exist if an authority bestows ...

2010-02-08T20:49:08.644-05:00

???

So rights only exist if an authority bestows them? I only have a right if my greater tells me I have that right?

I think this quote is more appropriate here: "I can hardly imagine any laws so bad, to which I would not rather be subject, than to the caprice of a man." - John Stewart Mill.

I think your argument is breaking down a bit here...

Kev: Au contraire. Think of it this way... when yo...

2010-02-08T20:11:14.051-05:00

Kev: Au contraire. Think of it this way... when you're a child, you do what you want until an adult steps in and says, "No, you can't do that." Therefore, you learn about your boundaries by what authorities say you can't do. If it weren't for that, you would assume that there are no restrictions.

"All men are born free, but everywhere they are in chains." -Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Isn't that a little subjective and arbitrary?

2010-02-08T20:01:57.037-05:00

Isn't that a little subjective and arbitrary?

Kev: That's just how we are born. Nobody besto...

2010-02-08T18:43:59.118-05:00

Kev: That's just how we are born. Nobody bestows our rights onto us: if it were not for the restrictions we place, we would have the right to do anything.

How are rights bestowed automatically upon birth t...

2010-02-08T18:04:27.176-05:00

How are rights bestowed automatically upon birth to humans?

Kev: Thanks for taking the time to write out this ...

2010-02-08T17:58:43.165-05:00

Kev: Thanks for taking the time to write out this thoughtful reply. Here is my response...

I am stating that morality is subjective and arbitrary. I am not necessarily saying it is personal, but you can probably deduce that. As far as whether rights or morals beget one another, I don't see them as working on the same plane. Rights are given to us by our existence and it is artificial, man-made paradigms that restrict them. Morals are those paradigms. Though we like to see morals as positive things, I would like to refer to my point about morality being expected, thus making it not "moral" in the first place. Expectations are essentially limitations. I see human rights as the natural state of life, so that is my answer to the chicken/egg speculation.

As far as what is moral in science... well, we have these basic rights to life and freedom. That is why Nazi "science" is wrong. If it infringes upon a person's ability to live freely, it is not "moral."

I disagree, though my thoughts will be scattered a...

2010-02-08T17:29:39.374-05:00

I disagree, though my thoughts will be scattered at best. Essentially, it depends on why you think morality exists in the first place that will guide your ultimate conclusion to the question you have posed... Morality is, to most people, a system of believing in the choice of the good over the choice of the bad. Perhaps you should have started with a definition. Or maybe you are saying morality is meaningless because it is individual to each person. Well the same can then be said of personal experience of the world. It is individual to each person, none can agree on the 'correct' personal experience to derive from a phenomena, so therefore it is meaningless? I think many would say it is exactly that individuality that gives experience its worth.

But, to try and come more to your level (the Judeo-Christian morality is what I imagine you are trying to get at), I do think morality is a golden standard that can be approximated by those who learn about which virtues should outweigh which vices/other virtues. Even given this understanding, rights and morality are not mutually exclusive. Rather, one is foundational to the other. Which is more foundational - the moral choice to love or the right to possess free will? Of course free will - for if you cannot make any choices, you cannot truly love. But perhaps I digress...

Maybe the chicken/egg scenario is more appropriate. Does morality result in the bestowing of human rights or vice versa? Well the fact at all that you believe we have human rights that are inalienable by the state, is a form of morality in itself. Essentially, your conclusion is self-refuting because the 'rights' you think people should have is espousing a personal morality, and yet you say morality and rights oppose each other. The assertion itself is one that weighs certain values and grants them as the best ones to have in order to grant 'freedom,' making the statement itself a moral one. No matter the case, it could be that your personal morality surpasses those rights which you believe the state should bestow (like one thinking access to healthcare is not a right but is a moral imperative) or you can believe the rights one should have surpass morality (like one thinking one should have a right to healthcare even though it has to do with comfort in life and not morality) or you can believe the two are the same (the government should give everything which we are morally entitled to). It is a morality you are espousing, whether you define it as such or not...

Furthermore, I am certain you believe that morality should guide science, even though you seem to claim here you do not believe that to be so. If that is not true, why were Nazi experiments on human beings wrong? Why is vivisection evil? Why are lobotomies inherently wrong? Because you have a standard, a moral standard (personal or not), to which you adhere, and you believe it surpasses the values of the 'amoral' science for science's sake. Simply because technology has given us the ability to do something does not make it right. Otherwise, why not test out some nukes on civilian populations to ensure our kill capacity is maximized?

Don't be offended, I simply think this post needs some work/definitions/a complete rewrite. But I am enjoying reading through some of your posts and don't mean to insult your intelligence. You are a thinker, that is clear...

Thanks.