The Rights of Beings

[ysabetwordsmith]

my_partner_doug pointed me to this qualification of beings with rights: "The rule is anyone who can understand what rights are and can both respect and demand them, has them."

I really like that rule.  I also note that its second point would disqualify quite a lot of humans.

Comments

[lyonesse.livejournal.com]

hmm, i kinda don't, because a lot of people whom i think should have rights (kids under two, people with aphasia, people in unfamiliar linguistic environments) are unable to demand them.

there's also the question of what "demand" implies. should shy people be denied rights?

[pickledginger.livejournal.com]

"We are unanimous in that!"

[msstacy13.livejournal.com]

At least in chorus, if not unanimous.
:)

[pickledginger.livejournal.com]

:-)

[pickledginger.livejournal.com]

It sure would. :-) I'd rather hang onto some rights for people who don't understand them -- kids, for instance.

[msstacy13.livejournal.com]

And, among other things,
I cannot believe that an animal's inability to explain
why I should not kill him and eat him
entitles me to kill him and eat him,
or that a forest's inability to understand
what lumber and paper are
entitles me to put the ax to it.

[siliconshaman.livejournal.com]

It's a bit binary for me. You either have rights or you don't. It's easy to imagine a fully sentient A.I that has a built-in inhibitor preventing it from demanding it's rights.

I suspect it would be better to write that as:
Any being potentially able to comprehend it's rights has them.
Any being potentially able to demand it's rights must be accorded the freedom to do so.
Any being that demands it's rights has them.
Any being capable of respecting the rights of others, is automatically granted it's own.

This still allows the rights to be ignored of any being that could demand it's rights, but refuses to do so and doesn't respect the rights of others. But I think under those circumstances that's ok.

[msstacy13.livejournal.com]

While "potentially" still allows some arbitrary manipulation
in defining away the rights of others,
it does at least show considerably more insight into the question.

[msstacy13.livejournal.com]

At the risk of being disagreeable,
that's a breathtakingly elitist rule
designed to allow one to eat meat, endorse abortion,
perhaps even terraform another planet,
and still feel highly enlightened.

[marina-bonomi.livejournal.com]

No thanks.

Such a 'rule' would exclude a whole lot of people: children, people with mental ilnesses and disabilities and so on and leaves the door open to exclude a lot more once someone decides that 'X' doesn't qualify for whatever reason.

Been there, done that. Never again.

[aubergine-pilot.livejournal.com]

I want to throw that statement at tumblr's vegan fringe and watch them rage about it.

It would be a pleasant distraction from everything else today.

[cissa.livejournal.com]

How can one tell whether someone understands rights?

In my opinion, my cats would meet this requirement... but they cannot explain their understanding of "rights" (though they sure do insist on them in practice!), even though they're mostly pretty respectful of other's rights.

I don't have a problem with a lot of humans being disqualified.

[sagaciouslu.livejournal.com]

It is arguable that animals have rights, too, despite their inability to express themselves or articulate what that might mean to them.

I think that one major philosophical problem we are dealing with in the West is the fallout from 'rights' based morality. I've been thinking through a lot of duty based moral stances; I wonder if that might be a better model...