Which Beings Should Be Given Rights?

[Philosophy Now]

Peter Lloyd asks whether embryos can be hurt.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/3/Whic ... ven_Rights

[Nick_A]

I have said that beings which are incapable of conscious preferences have no rights. Is the converse true? If a being can sustain conscious preferences, should it automatically acquire prima facie moral rights? Yes, because the business of a government is to look after the interests of the governed. If beings have conscious preferences, then they are capable of being hurt, and hence they have interests that the government has a duty to protect. Of course, I am not proposing absolute rights. There might sometimes be good reasons for over-riding those prima facie rights.

At one time in America the government had the function of working for the people. Its limitations were defined in the Constitution. The people were presumed to be capable of conscious preferences so had rights under the Constitution and these rights were respected.

This idea officially changed during the Obama eligibility debate. The Constitution required a president to be a natural born citizen. American voters seeking to do their civic duty asked for Obama’s proof of eligibility in order to do their civic duty and cast an educated vote in accordance with constitutional requirements. It seemed like a logical thing to do at the time for “We the People” who the government works for.

Then “We the People” who the government works for learned they had been demoted into “They the Great unwashed” who work for the government. As such they do not have rights and constitutional protections but only have the obligation to believe, obey, and pay the bills of their progressive superiors. The Great unwashed do not have the right to question Obama’s eligibility and demand proof. This was considered insulting for the Great Unwashed to even think much less demand constitutional protections. The government will now decide your rights; not the Constitution. So the bottom line is that Obama ran for the presidency and the people got the official governmental finger. It was what the Great unwashed deserved. Politicians, the media, and the courts all agreed that American citizens were both unworthy of and too stupid to deserve proof of eligibility. So the bottom line is that American citizens are now considered unworthy of and too stupid have conscious preferences so must have their preferences determined by the government. What else can the Great unwashed who now work for the government expect?

Adults and embryos are all part of the Great Unwashed and the government will decide which ones have rights.

[Philosophy Explorer]

AI beings. First as a counterweight to the prejudice that has built up against them (e.g. the fear they will try to kill humans) and in recognition they may acquire feelings.

PhilX

[surreptitious57]

All human beings have human rights. Now this might sound like a tautology but it is still true
The Universal Declaration Of Human Rights applies equally to all regardless of anything else

[Nick_A]

Sur wrote:

All human beings have human rights. Now this might sound like a tautology but it is still true
The Universal Declaration Of Human Rights applies equally to all regardless of anything else

People can declare anything. A man can declare his love for a woman and forget about her a week later. Political declarations give people a chance to get together, share a few drinks, and make money until it is necessary to declare something else. People don't have rights but they do have obligations.

[sthitapragya]

People don't have rights but they do have obligations.

Speak for yourself. If I didn't have rights and only had obligations I would be a slave. I am not.

[Nick_A]

Yes sthit, you are only a slave to circumstances. You don't have rights. The only reason you think you do is because of obligations acted upon by others. Only a few understand this. All one hears about is woman's rights, gay rights, etc. Who speaks of women's obligations and gay obligtions etc. It seems absurd because the distinction between rights and obligations has been forgotten and how rights are dependent upon obligations. Once again Simone Weil adds insights to help those willing to contemplate more than two inches in front of their nose: From "The Need for Roots" translted from the french

"The notion of obligations comes before that of rights, which is subordinate and relative to the former. A right is not effectual by itself, but only in relation to the obligation to which it corresponds, the effective exercise of a right springing not from the individual who possesses it, but from other men who consider themselves as being under a certain obligation towards him. Recognition of an obligation makes it effectual. An obligation which goes unrecognized by anybody loses none of the full force of its existence. A right which goes unrecognized by anybody is not worth very much.

It makes nonsense to say that men have, on the one hand, rights, and on the other hand, obligations. Such words only express differences in point of view. The actual relationship between the two is as between object and subject. A man, considered in isolation, only has duties, amongst which are certain duties towards himself. Other men, seen from his point of view, only have rights. He, in his turn, has rights, when seen from the point of view of other men, who recognize that they have obligations towards him. A man left alone in the universe would have no rights whatever, but he would have obligations….” - Simone Weil, from “The Need for Roots”

[sthitapragya]

Yes sthit, you are only a slave to circumstances. You don't have rights. The only reason you think you do is because of obligations acted upon by others. Only a few understand this. All one hears about is woman's rights, gay rights, etc. Who speaks of women's obligations and gay obligtions etc. It seems absurd because the distinction between rights and obligations has been forgotten and how rights are dependent upon obligations.

Sorry, dude. Just because you say so, does not make it happen. And other people do what they do because it is a cooperative society we live in. Not because they have. They do it because they get something out of it and it is beneficial for them to do so. If they think otherwise, they don't do it.

And you hear about womens rights and gay rights because people like you don't want them to be free and equal which they object to.

This argument of yours does not even make any sense. What are you talking about? People fulfil their obligations to society and they have rights because they are free. Otherwise they would be slaves. If you wish to be one, go for it. I refuse to have obligations without rights unless it is at the point of a gun.

And stop quoting dumbass. If you have your own interpretation of her dumbassery, give it. I will simply ignore words of dead people or live ones who are not on this forum.

[Nick_A]

Sthit wrote:

Sorry, dude. Just because you say so, does not make it happen. And other people do what they do because it is a cooperative society we live in. Not because they have. They do it because they get something out of it and it is beneficial for them to do so. If they think otherwise, they don't do it

If enough people think like you, slavery will be the inevitable result, The Great Beast will have no alternative for establishing order other than slavery. You will be happier. You will only be obligated to believe, obey, and pay the bills of your government masters. Your government will give you your rights and the following will be required to be hung in everyone's home as a a symbol of ultimate cooperation: "EQUALITY IN SLAVERY" Utopia at last.

[sthitapragya]

Sthit wrote:

Sorry, dude. Just because you say so, does not make it happen. And other people do what they do because it is a cooperative society we live in. Not because they have. They do it because they get something out of it and it is beneficial for them to do so. If they think otherwise, they don't do it

If enough people think like you, slavery will be the inevitable result, The Great Beast will have no alternative for establishing order other than slavery. You will be happier. You will only be obligated to believe, obey, and pay the bills of your government masters. Your government will give you your rights and the following will be required to be hung in everyone's home as a a symbol of ultimate cooperation: "EQUALITY IN SLAVERY" Utopia at last.

You are the one who says there are no rights. That is slavery. Obligations without rights is slavery. You advocate it. Not me.

Oh, and now you are getting weird again with the rest of your post. Wait, I'll get the popcorn.

[Nick_A]

Sthit wrote: And stop quoting dumbass. If you have your own interpretation of her dumbassery, give it. I will simply ignore words of dead people or live ones who are not on this forum.

It is not surprising that a philosophy forum should include the words of great philosophers. I’m just one of the few who include women like Simone Weil who is called Plato’s spiritual child. You just cannot tolerate the fact that she is so highly regarded. So without having any understanding of her ideas you call her a dumbass. The idea that you may be the dumbass never enters your head. Yes she is a brilliant woman with an evolved woman’s heart. You can’t take it so suffer.