Real universal rights

[Rational ethicist]

lol That is to substitute the act of making a distinction between distinctions for the act of making a distinction between kinds of being.

Here we were talking about the act to choose one distinction out of the set of all possible distinctions.- There lies your arbitrariness.

I am concerned enough to consider arguments that some kinds of beings are being denied rights that should be accorded them. But kinds of distinctions? They are abstractions. They have no rights.

I was not talking about rights of distinctions.

And no, my choice is not arbitrary.

then tell me what selection rule did you use to select that one distinction?

It is a matter of long-established and near universal agreement.

so your selection rule is basically: if more than X% of the population selects that distinction, then I select that distinction? But what selection rule did those other people use? And near universal agreement means X is less than 100%. So what selection rule did you use to select X% instead of Y%? Choosing that threshold value X% is also arbitrary. The same for how long it should be established: how many years exactly? Why so many years and not another number of years?

If you want to challenge it on ethical grounds, feel free to make a case or cases against it, but "there are other options, and their mere possibility invalidates use of the human/non-human distinction" is uncompelling.

the casde against it is simple: it is an unwanted arbitrariness. The choice of that distinction is arbitrary, and individuals who are excluded according to that distinction, cannot consistently want that you select that distinction. This is the basics of discrimination: making an arbitrary distinction between groups, and excluding individuals based on that distinction in such a way that those excluded individuals do not want that exclusion. Discrimination is a kind of unwanted arbitrariness https://stijnbruers.files.wordpress.com ... riness.pdf

If I were in a situation in which an ancient ancestor of mine might have rights that they needed me to defend, this could be more of an issue. I cannot imagine how such a situation might arise. Can you?

That is irrelevant, because your ethic should be able to deal with all possible situations, including situations that are not actual, such as the situation where your ancestors have rights they need you to defend. Allowing ethical theories that only apply to actual situations, is too lenient. It is like the case of slavery, with the argument against slavery containing the golden rule question: "what if you were a slave, treated like a slave? Would you like that? If not, then you shouldn't use other people as slaves", and the slave-owner simply replied: "I am not a slave, so I may use that person as a slave."

[Rational ethicist]

which real universal rights would you propose?

The right to one's own life, liberty, and property.

which rights should we grant to really everything in the universe?

None. Only a person has a right to his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property.

A toaster, a lawn, a platypus, the bacon I'm munching on as I type: none these are or were persons.

Who counts as a person? And why do you exclude non-persons from getting rights? Roghts do not refer to personhood. Consider the right to life (more exactly the right not to be killed against one's will): that refers to life, not personhood. So what has personhood got to do with this right? Why restrict rights to persons and not to e.g. white men? Or primates? Or beings taller than 30 cm? The choice for personhood seems arbitrary, except when you give selection rule, why you chose personhood instead of the many other possible things.

[henry quirk]

Who counts as a person?

That, to my mind, in context, is the question.

Rights do not refer to personhood.

As I see it: only a person has a right to his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property. That is: personhood is the context within rights exist.

Consider the right to life (more exactly the right not to be killed against one's will): that refers to life, not personhood.

No. You have a right to your life. This comes first. The does not stand free of you. It exists only bcuz you, a person, exist. From this right we can infer it would be wrong for me to take your life. Your life is not mine to take.

So what has personhood got to do with this right?

Everything.

Why restrict rights to persons and not to e.g. white men (etc.)?

Becuz white men are not the only persons. White ladies, black, yellow, red, etc. men and women (and children) are persons too. Also, there may be non-human persons (bringin' us right back to Who counts as a person? [we can talk about that if you like]).

[Harbal]

Who counts as a person? And why do you exclude non-persons from getting rights? Roghts do not refer to personhood. Consider the right to life (more exactly the right not to be killed against one's will): that refers to life, not personhood. So what has personhood got to do with this right? Why restrict rights to persons and not to e.g. white men? Or primates? Or beings taller than 30 cm? The choice for personhood seems arbitrary, except when you give selection rule, why you chose personhood instead of the many other possible things.

Rights go hand in hand with responsibilities. I have the right to be protected by the law, but, in return, I have to take on the responsibility of not breaking the law. Let's give rights to beings who are capable of understanding, and willing to accept, responsibility.

[Sculptor]

Granting a right to everything is truly arbitrary.

Why is it arbitrary? More importantly, arbitrariness itself is not a problem, unwanted arbitrariness is the problem. https://stijnbruers.files.wordpress.com ... riness.pdf
Arbitrariness is unwanted if it cannot be consistently wanted by at least someone. But granting a right to everything is not unwanted in this sense, because no-one is excluded from getting a right.

If you do not have a reason for giving a man the right to have a baby or a rock to have a high school education then that is arbitrary.
It's a personal whim, unrestrained, without reason ; almost tet book arbitrariness.

It's the rights of Loretta

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dgp9MPLEAqA

[Sculptor]

WHy not to rocks or the air with breath - surely they also have a right to free education?

sure, but no-one is blocking their right to education. I would reframe that right, however: the right to education according to one's capacity. Not sure if that right has to be free: that depends if there is enough funding possible.

No rights at all, since you cannot give the right to life for a thing that is not living.

what about the right not to be killed? It is possible not to kill a non-living entity. But I would rather go for the right not to be killed against one's will.

But does a jar of arsenic have a body? Surely you would have to deny that right to so many thing, making it exceptional.

as that jar does not have a sense of its own body, you can say that the body of that jar is not well-defined. In any case, you always respect that right of the jar, because you can never use the body of the jar against its will. So it is very easy to grant jars that right. No exceptions necessary.

You cannot prove such a quality. Can you say if a tapeworm has a will? Or a bacteria, or a mosquito?

we have uncertainty, because we do not know everything, but there is an objective answer to the question whether the tapeworm has a will: it is either yes or no. With science, we can learn more about sentience, about which entities have a will. It might be the case that many insects, perhaps mosquitos, have a will
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/pos ... ange-table
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 9121002197

Can you prove that YOU have a will, or do you just exhibit the appearance of a will ?

can you prove that you exist? No, but let's consider that as irrelevant: the fact that you may be a hallucination or a virtual avatar does not imply we should reject all rights. So don't place the bar of proof to high.

Why would you want to validate a will anyway?

because that is what you want, and what everyone who has a will wants. If you disagree, than I can simply say that I want a will to be validated or respected, and if you do not want that, you cannot object because you acknowledge that what you want should not be respected or validated. So I can ask you: is it against your will if I validate a will?

What if the thing has a will to kill; how can you deny that right?

If the thing has a right to kill, then I have a right to kill as well, and then I kill that thing and then that thing no longer has a will to kill. There you go: problem solved! So the right to kill is not a right that we will come up with when we are looking for rights that can be granted to everything.

One question.
Why are you calling yourself "rational" when you want to give a jar of arsenic the right to have a baby?

How can you reconcile the right of a man to kill with the right of another thing to have a life?

[Sculptor]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dgp9MPLEAqA

[Rational ethicist]

Rights do not refer to personhood.

As I see it: only a person has a right to his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property. That is: personhood is the context within rights exist.

doesn't that result in a circular reasoning? Like saying rights apply to those to whom rights apply

Consider the right to life (more exactly the right not to be killed against one's will): that refers to life, not personhood.

No. You have a right to your life.

sure, but I don't see the letters p, e, r, s, o and n in your reply nor in your description of the right.I do see the letters l, i, f and e, so indeed your reply, which uses those letters, is ok

This comes first. The does not stand free of you. It exists only bcuz you, a person, exist.

it seems like you define a person now as a living being? Because 'life' refers to a living being, and if it also refers to a person...

So what has personhood got to do with this right?

Why restrict rights to persons and not to e.g. white men (etc.)?

Becuz white men are not the only persons.

sure, but persons are not the only entities in the universe. Why are you allowed to restrict rights to persons and not to white men? I would say rights should not be restricted to any group, but should be granted to everyone and everything. Otherwise you have an endless discussion...

White ladies, black, yellow, red, etc. men and women (and children) are persons too.

and animals, plants, computers, rocks,... are entities too.

Also, there may be non-human persons (bringin' us right back to Who counts as a person? [we can talk about that if you like]).

I think it is easier to avoid that discussion about what is a person, and simply grant rights to everything.

[Rational ethicist]

One question.
Why are you calling yourself "rational" when you want to give a jar of arsenic the right to have a baby?

I was not proposing the right to have a baby, but sure, let's grant that right to everything, and be more specific: it is the right not to to be prevented from having a baby. Whatever I do, I am not preventing that jar from having a baby, so I always automatically respect that right of that jar. No problems there...
rational means accurateness in beliefs, effectiveness in means, and consistency in ends.

How can you reconcile the right of a man to kill with the right of another thing to have a life?

these cannot be reconciled, so you have to choose one of those rights. Otherwise you have a contradiction or inconsistency, and that is irrational.
So the question was: which rights should we grant to everything? You cannot grant both the right to kill and the right not to be killed to everything.
Do you prefer the right to kill, or the right not to be killed? (I'm pretty sure I know your answer)

[Rational ethicist]

If you do not have a reason for giving a man the right to have a baby or a rock to have a high school education then that is arbitrary.

I'm not sure what you mean. I can say that a man has a right not to be prevented from having a baby, and that a rock has a right not to be prevented from learning things through education, and whatever you do, you always automatically satisfy those rights for the man and the rock. If you mean the man has a right to become pregnant, then that right can never be satisfied for that man. If you exclude that man from getting that right, that exclusion is not arbitrary. The selection rule is: grant the right only to those to whom it is possible to become pregnant. As there is a selection rule, the choice is not arbitrary.

[Sculptor]

If you do not have a reason for giving a man the right to have a baby or a rock to have a high school education then that is arbitrary.

I'm not sure what you mean. I can say that a man has a right not to be prevented from having a baby, and that a rock has a right not to be prevented from learning things through education, and whatever you do, you always automatically satisfy those rights for the man and the rock. If you mean the man has a right to become pregnant, then that right can never be satisfied for that man. If you exclude that man from getting that right, that exclusion is not arbitrary. The selection rule is: grant the right only to those to whom it is possible to become pregnant. As there is a selection rule, the choice is not arbitrary.

You are now changing goalposts. It's a very low tactic.
You are switching from positive rights to negative rights.
Nonetheless stopping a tub of lard from being prevented from having a baby is just as stupid as allowing a tub of lard to have a baby.

[Walker]

The right to one's own life, liberty, and property.



None. Only a person has a right to his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property.

A toaster, a lawn, a platypus, the bacon I'm munching on as I type: none these are or were persons.

That means that a person has dominion over all that is perceived by that person, with the exception of other persons.

I can't see how my having an inalienable right to my life, my liberty, my property, can be interpreted as my having dominion over all I perceive. The platypus, for example, is unclaimed. I can catch it, make it mine, yes. I have to work for it, though. Working' for it, intermingling my effort and intent with the unclaimed object is, I think, fundamental to property. Sometimes the effort is small, sometimes large, but you gotta pay it (TANFL).

What if someone gives you the platypus, Henry? Is it your property?

Sure. Joe can give me *his platypus (transfer ownership to me). Control over one's property is also fundamental to property. Joe's platypus is his to sell, to gift, to make into platypus stew.

*I'm assuming here it is his...that he worked for it, or that he bought it or was gifted it.

Yes, humans have dominion over all they perceive. This is uncorrupted human nature. We have a 3-year old in the big family. He has dominion over all that he perceives. As with all youngsters, he must be taught to control that natural impulse in order to someday walk through crowds of people without touching a stranger or being touched, which we all learn how to do.

Extend this into the adult world and we learn about the boundaries of all our relationships, and when breaking boundaries is the most appropriate thing to do. However, because we have dominion over all that we perceive, we perceive the consequences of our actions and thus like the three-year old, learn to understand appropriateness in light of all things considered, for that affects quality of life.

Also, there is the distinction of not having dominion over another person. Stealing property is asserting dominion over the owner of that property, and that’s a tendency tempered by morality for the self-interest of not forfeiting freedom of movement and self-determination.

Humans have dominion over all things that are not other people. That’s the natural tendency of an uncorrupted human. However, when that conflicts with another human’s dominion, then the resolution determines the nature of the society. Put simply, if someone wants your stuff and claims the right to have your stuff, over your right to your stuff, then there is a conflict to be resolved if you want to keep your stuff. Apply the same principle to your life instead of stuff, and that clarifies the concept of self-defense, and rule of law.

[Rational ethicist]

You are now changing goalposts. It's a very low tactic.
You are switching from positive rights to negative rights.

I was simply showing that neither the positive nor the negative right involved arbitrariness. I think you were talking about the positive right? But we agree that that is a very weird right.

Nonetheless stopping a tub of lard from being prevented from having a baby is just as stupid as allowing a tub of lard to have a baby.

I disagree: the former is always possible, the latter is always impossible (if "allowing" means something stronger than "stopping from being prevented", like "making sure"). Something that is never possible is more stupid than something that is always possible.

[Harbal]

I've said this before, but was ignored, so I'm saying it again:

To give rights to things that are incapable of understanding what rights are does not make sense. If we are concerned about the wellfare of an animal, we can place a responsibility on ourselves to treat that animal accordingly, but trying to give it a right is just stupid.

[Rational ethicist]

I've said this before, but was ignored, so I'm saying it again:

To give rights to things that are incapable of understanding what rights are does not make sense.

Why would being capable of understanding rights be relevant? The person who gives the right has to be able to understand what rights are, but the receiver doesn't have to understand it.
What about children's rights? Young children are like animals not capable of understanding rights, but most people are in favor of children's rights

If we are concerned about the wellfare of an animal, we can place a responsibility on ourselves to treat that animal accordingly, but trying to give it a right is just stupid.

I don't see why this doesn't require the same condition as with rights. What is the difference between giving rights and placing a responsibility on oneself to treat someone accordingly? Why not say: "To place a responsibility on ourselves to treat things that are incapable of understanding what responsibilities are does not make sense"?