Real universal rights

[FlashDangerpants]

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.

Sort of depends on whether you are doing a contractarian mash up of rights with responsibilities, in which case the classic argument is that animal rights are meaningless because tigers accept little responsibility for their actions. But rights for coma patients and fetuses hit the same bonfire.

If you do a natural rights take on it, that hard link between a right and a concommitant responsibility is broken but you have a mess of finding these "rights" things in nature which doesn't really seem to contain any such thing. Optionally you can import natural responsibilities with natural rights, but only if you are choosing to have the coma and fetus problem.

Legal rights can go either way but the general gist is that wer just decide to extend rights to in groups because we have sympathy with them and we want to express that in the form of protections. The rights are contingent legal fictions, not a part of the world or some logical necessity. That way the Swiss can grant a legal right to personal dignity on behalf of house plants.

Everyone thinks they personally have a very sensible take on what rights are and how they ought to work. But a cursory examination reveals it is all kinda thrown together, unless you offload all the work onto God of course.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Hi, I have a very simple idea.
In traditional ethics, we start with for example a set of all important rights and then ask the question: which entities in the universe get all those rights? Then we see an expanding moral circle through history: from our family to our tribe to our fellow countrymen to all humans, and now expanding further to include some non-human animals. But this approach always ends up with an arbitrariness: why not expand the moral circle further, to all sentient beings, all living beings or all entities in the universe?
I propose to follow the reverse direction: start with the assumption that everyone and everything counts morally and is fully included in the moral circle. Everything, from humans to plants to computers to rocks to planets to molecules, deserves equal rights, without arbitrary exclusions. Then the question becomes: which rights should we grant to everyone and everything?
...
Question: which real universal rights would you propose? I.e. which rights should we grant to really everything in the universe?

You are starting with the wrong footing.

In this case you have to define what you mean by 'morality' and 'ethics'.

Morality is about promoting good and avoiding evil towards the optimal well being of individual[s] and that of humanity.
what is good is not-evil.
Then we need to produce an exhaustive taxonomy of what evil comprised of.

Morality is the Pure while Ethics is the Applied aspects of promoting good and avoiding evil.

Morality and Ethics is primarily confined to the human species only with extension to non-human living things that has impact on the well beings of humanity. In this case, there will no blind altruism to non-human living things.
But since everything interconnected, all human actions [re human, living non-human and things ] must be done optimally such that there is no negative feedback to the well being of the individual[s] and humanity.

Morality and Ethics is to be self-legislated by all rational beings.

It is only because individuals within humanity are not capable to individual self-legislation at present that there is a question of rights which is the concern of politics not morality nor ethics.
The most fundamental universal right of humans is the right to live, breathe, has basic freedom, justice, self-development, to property and ?.

[Harbal]

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.

I could give a computer to my dog (if I had one) with the justification that I understood how to use it, but what use would that be to the dog?

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

Yes, that is correct, we do give rights to children who are too young to understand what rights are, but what is the point? Even if a 6 month old baby somehow managed to work out that he was being denied his rights, what do you suppose he's going to do to assert them?

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?

You can only have a system of rights when all involved parties are obliged to participate in it. This is possible in a society consisting of human beings because we understand the concept of rights. We know, for the most part, what rights we have, but, equally as important, we know that there are instances where we do not have rights. I do not have the right to enter your property without permission, for example. Or, to look at it another way, if I were to come into your property uninvited, your right to privacy would entitle you to eject me, or call upon the authorities to do it on your behalf. The system only works because we all understand the rules and comply with them. If you tried to impose it on things like cats and mice they would only make a complete hash of it. Rights of the sort you propose have a reciprocal aspect to them that make them of utility only to human beings. This is why it is pointless to try to give a right to an animal.

Why not say: "To place a responsibility on ourselves to treat things that are incapable of understanding what responsibilities are does not make sense"?

Because it does make sense, of course.

[Rational ethicist]

In this case you have to define what you mean by 'morality' and 'ethics'.

why do we have to define it here? Morality is about what agents (individuals who make choices) should and should not do or choose.

Morality is about promoting good and avoiding evil towards the optimal well being of individual[s] and that of humanity.

why restrict it to humanity?

Morality and Ethics is primarily confined to the human species

no, that is too arbitrary. Why confine it to the human species and not for example the white race or the great-ape family or the primate order or the mammal class or whatever...? And - considering our ancient ancestors or interspecies hybrids and chimeras - who belongs to the human species?

The most fundamental universal right of humans is the right to live, breathe, has basic freedom, justice, self-development, to property and ?.

But why restrict those rights to humans? It arbitrarily excludes non-humans. Therefor, I suggest to avoid any arbitrary exclusions, by granting rights to everyone and everything. So I suggest "universal right of entities"

[Rational ethicist]

I could give a computer to my dog (if I had one) with the justification that I understood how to use it, but what use would that be to the dog?

Yes, you can give useless rights to others, but why bother? Why not granting others rights that are useful for them? Like giving your dog a rabies vaccine, even if you do and your dog does not know what a vaccine is, how it works,...

Yes, that is correct, we do give rights to children who are too young to understand what rights are, but what is the point?

that knowing what rights are is irrelevant, that being capable to know what rights are is not a necessary condition for being granted rights.

Even if a. 6 month old baby somehow managed to work out that he was being denied his rights, what do you suppose he's going to do to assert them?

nothing, so not doing anything to assert rights is not important (not a necessary condition) either.

You can only have a system of rights when all involved parties are obliged to participate in it.

that is true, otherwise there would be unwanted arbitrariness.

This is possible in a society consisting of human beings because we understand the concept of rights.

but some human beings do not understand the concept of rights.
It seems you are confusing the individuals who grant rights to others with the entities who get rights. The first group are the people who are obliged to participate in a system of rights, i.e. to respect the rights of others. The second group can include animals and children...

We know, for the most part, what rights we have, but, equally as important, we know that there are instances where we do not have rights. I do not have the right to enter your property without permission, for example.

don't see why this is relevant...

Rights of the sort you propose have a reciprocal aspect to them

no, definitely not. Reciprocity is not required. I grant you the right not to be killed, so no-one should kill you, but I do not expect anything in return from you.

that make them of utility only to human beings.

definitely not: there are human beings who are not capable of reciprocity, and some non-human animals who are.

This is why it is pointless to try to give a right to an animal.

and equally pointless to give a right to a child or a mentally disabled human? I really don't see why it is pointless. I am really able to grant rights to animals and children, and those rights really have consequences for my actions, what I may and may not do with animals and children.

Why not say: "To place a responsibility on ourselves to treat things that are incapable of understanding what responsibilities are does not make sense"?

Because it does make sense, of course.

You could equally say "because it does not make sense, of course". So why does the first thing (about rights) not make sense whereas the second thing (about responsibility) does? What is the difference?

[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.

Sort of depends on whether you are doing a contractarian mash up of rights with responsibilities, in which case the classic argument is that animal rights are meaningless because tigers accept little responsibility for their actions. But rights for coma patients and fetuses hit the same bonfire.

If you do a natural rights take on it, that hard link between a right and a concommitant responsibility is broken but you have a mess of finding these "rights" things in nature which doesn't really seem to contain any such thing. Optionally you can import natural responsibilities with natural rights, but only if you are choosing to have the coma and fetus problem.

Legal rights can go either way but the general gist is that wer just decide to extend rights to in groups because we have sympathy with them and we want to express that in the form of protections. The rights are contingent legal fictions, not a part of the world or some logical necessity. That way the Swiss can grant a legal right to personal dignity on behalf of house plants.

Everyone thinks they personally have a very sensible take on what rights are and how they ought to work. But a cursory examination reveals it is all kinda thrown together, unless you offload all the work onto God of course.

I see all this as supporting material for the view that granting rights to animals is a quagmire best avoided.

[FlashDangerpants]

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.

Sort of depends on whether you are doing a contractarian mash up of rights with responsibilities, in which case the classic argument is that animal rights are meaningless because tigers accept little responsibility for their actions. But rights for coma patients and fetuses hit the same bonfire.

If you do a natural rights take on it, that hard link between a right and a concommitant responsibility is broken but you have a mess of finding these "rights" things in nature which doesn't really seem to contain any such thing. Optionally you can import natural responsibilities with natural rights, but only if you are choosing to have the coma and fetus problem.

Legal rights can go either way but the general gist is that wer just decide to extend rights to in groups because we have sympathy with them and we want to express that in the form of protections. The rights are contingent legal fictions, not a part of the world or some logical necessity. That way the Swiss can grant a legal right to personal dignity on behalf of house plants.

Everyone thinks they personally have a very sensible take on what rights are and how they ought to work. But a cursory examination reveals it is all kinda thrown together, unless you offload all the work onto God of course.

I see all this as supporting material for the view that granting rights to animals is a quagmire best avoided.

But why? One reason to see it as a quagmire is because it serves to expose the notion of rights to scrutiny which it turns out cannot be adequately answered. But is it fair for veal calves to suffer in rancid little cages so that you and I don't have to feel awkward about explaining why it is ok when he have no very good basis to do so?

Glossing over such difficulties is how one ends up with an anaemic little half of a moral theory like Henry's.
Using God to never have to worry about stuff like this is how you end up like IC.

[Harbal]

I could give a computer to my dog (if I had one) with the justification that I understood how to use it, but what use would that be to the dog?

Yes, you can give useless rights to others, but why bother? Why not granting others rights that are useful for them? Like giving your dog a rabies vaccine, even if you do and your dog does not know what a vaccine is, how it works,...

Yes, that is correct, we do give rights to children who are too young to understand what rights are, but what is the point?

that knowing what rights are is irrelevant, that being capable to know what rights are is not a necessary condition for being granted rights.

Even if a. 6 month old baby somehow managed to work out that he was being denied his rights, what do you suppose he's going to do to assert them?

nothing, so not doing anything to assert rights is not important (not a necessary condition) either.

You can only have a system of rights when all involved parties are obliged to participate in it.

that is true, otherwise there would be unwanted arbitrariness.

This is possible in a society consisting of human beings because we understand the concept of rights.

but some human beings do not understand the concept of rights.
It seems you are confusing the individuals who grant rights to others with the entities who get rights. The first group are the people who are obliged to participate in a system of rights, i.e. to respect the rights of others. The second group can include animals and children...

We know, for the most part, what rights we have, but, equally as important, we know that there are instances where we do not have rights. I do not have the right to enter your property without permission, for example.

don't see why this is relevant...

Rights of the sort you propose have a reciprocal aspect to them

no, definitely not. Reciprocity is not required. I grant you the right not to be killed, so no-one should kill you, but I do not expect anything in return from you.

that make them of utility only to human beings.

definitely not: there are human beings who are not capable of reciprocity, and some non-human animals who are.

This is why it is pointless to try to give a right to an animal.

and equally pointless to give a right to a child or a mentally disabled human? I really don't see why it is pointless. I am really able to grant rights to animals and children, and those rights really have consequences for my actions, what I may and may not do with animals and children.

Why not say: "To place a responsibility on ourselves to treat things that are incapable of understanding what responsibilities are does not make sense"?

Because it does make sense, of course.

You could equally say "because it does not make sense, of course". So why does the first thing (about rights) not make sense whereas the second thing (about responsibility) does? What is the difference?

Okay, we are just going in circles now. There is no use in my continuing to make the same points over and over, and your continuing to raise the same objections to them over and over. I think your proposal is utterly bonkers, whereas you think it makes sense, and we must leave it at that.

[Sculptor]

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.

Seriously - how fucking stupid can you get?

It is not possible to prevent a tub of lard from having a baby.

[Sculptor]

Okay, we are just going in circles now. There is no use in my continuing to make the same points over and over, and your continuing to raise the same objections to them over and over. I think your proposal is utterly bonkers, whereas you think it makes sense, and we must leave it at that.

Yeah - what he said!!

[Harbal]

But why? One reason to see it as a quagmire is because it serves to expose the notion of rights to scrutiny which it turns out cannot be adequately answered. But is it fair for veal calves to suffer in rancid little cages so that you and I don't have to feel awkward about explaining why it is ok when he have no very good basis to do so?

Glossing over such difficulties is how one ends up with an anaemic little half of a moral theory like Henry's.
Using God to never have to worry about stuff like this is how you end up like IC.

I think you misunderstand me, Flash. I am very much against the cruel treatment of animals, but I think the way to approach the issue is to think in terms of our own ethical standards, rather than handing out rights. That would only apply to our behaviour towards other living creatures, of course, which is, in my opinion, as far as we should go. Trying to impose ethics and moral standards on nature, which this thread is actually proposing, is beyond ridiculous.

[FlashDangerpants]

But why? One reason to see it as a quagmire is because it serves to expose the notion of rights to scrutiny which it turns out cannot be adequately answered. But is it fair for veal calves to suffer in rancid little cages so that you and I don't have to feel awkward about explaining why it is ok when he have no very good basis to do so?

Glossing over such difficulties is how one ends up with an anaemic little half of a moral theory like Henry's.
Using God to never have to worry about stuff like this is how you end up like IC.

I think you misunderstand me, Flash. I am very much against the cruel treatment of animals, but I think the way to approach the issue is to think in terms of our own ethical standards, rather than handing out rights. That would only apply to our behaviour towards other living creatures, of course, which is, in my opinion, as far as we should go. Trying to impose ethics and moral standards on nature, which this thread is actually proposing, is beyond ridiculous.

Rational ethicist seems to be making his case very poorly, and has reached the point where it's just a yes-and routine while you guys argue him to absurd conclusions. He seems to be arguing that the cheese has a right to wear as much satin as it can afford, but no right to not be eaten. He's toast but that may be because he's bad at stuff rather than the thing he is trying to explain being all that bad by itself.

Rights, I would argue, are just a shorthand term for how we already do go about setting our ethical standards, and specifically how we formalise them to best avoid confusion about our duties as they curerntly stand. Taken to an absurd extreme, we could choose to apply our standards in the way Re describes, but as McStinky says, you first must persuade the general public that this represents an upgrade that we should aspire to.

If you are of the view that rights are just meaningless (nonsense upon stilts) and perhaps that the term should be dropped altogether, I would suggest it has proven useful thus far and that is why it hasn't been dropped by previous generations already. Conversely, if you are of the view that rights are some inherent natural quality of being alive and conscious, then I would point out that no satisfactory explanation has ever been made of the proper means by which to discover this thing, so until that glorious day I recommend we accept that the current thing is to regularly stop and review what we have put together and then decide in which ways it is presenetly inadequate.

The thing Re is so poorly trying to articulate appears to refer to that last sentence in the previous para. His plan amounts to a general assumption that our current framework of rights is inadequate in every direction, and for releif he offers a radical reversal of process such that we automatically extend recognition to all matter. My issue with that is that then we must remove a right every time we want a cheese sandwich.

[Harbal]

If you are of the view that rights are just meaningless (nonsense upon stilts) and perhaps that the term should be dropped altogether, I would suggest it has proven useful thus far and that is why it hasn't been dropped by previous generations already. Conversely, if you are of the view that rights are some inherent natural quality of being alive and conscious, then I would point out that no satisfactory explanation has ever been made of the proper means by which to discover this thing, so until that glorious day I recommend we accept that the current thing is to regularly stop and review what we have put together and then decide in which ways it is presenetly inadequate.

Don't get me wrong, I think rights are great for human beings, just not for anything else.

[FlashDangerpants]

If you are of the view that rights are just meaningless (nonsense upon stilts) and perhaps that the term should be dropped altogether, I would suggest it has proven useful thus far and that is why it hasn't been dropped by previous generations already. Conversely, if you are of the view that rights are some inherent natural quality of being alive and conscious, then I would point out that no satisfactory explanation has ever been made of the proper means by which to discover this thing, so until that glorious day I recommend we accept that the current thing is to regularly stop and review what we have put together and then decide in which ways it is presenetly inadequate.

Don't get me wrong, I think rights are great for human beings, just not for anything else.

Suppose there are two towns, Atown and Btown.
In Atown a new local ordnance is passed that says puppies have the right to be reared by their mother for 8 weeks and cannot be sold until that age.
In Btown a new local ordnance is passed that says puppies under 8 weeks of age cannot be sold seperatelyt from the mother.
You want to open a puppy factory, what reason have you to choose one jurisdiction over the other?

If you are in favour of there being rules of conduct towards animals then whether you describe those as rights pertaining to the animal or duties applied to the human seems to be semantics to me.

The only reason Henry doesn't grant rights to animals is because he explicitly doesn't apply any rules either except property law - I have tested that commitment to breaking point. Same goes for VA. Neither of them thinks it is actually immoral to have sex with your own dead grandma and then get her dog to lick your genitals clean afterwards.

[Rational ethicist]

Don't get me wrong, I think rights are great for human beings, just not for anything else.

I'm still curious why you think so. Because humans can understand rights? No, that cannot be it, as not all humans can understand rights. I don't see the connection between rights and humans. I see as little connection between rights and humans as I see between rights and primates.