(February 9, 2012 at 4:56 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Sure, but again, it's difficult to determine what a rational "innate right" is if we cannot demonstrate such a thing as an "innate right" in the objective sense.
I think you meant to say "demonstrate "innate property" in the objective sense".
Like I said, innate rights are the recognition given to innate characteristics of human beings.
(February 9, 2012 at 4:56 pm)Rhythm Wrote: If our definition is simply "originating in the mind" (which is one definition of innate btw) then all innate rights we could possibly conceive of are rational, aren't they?
The definition I'm using in this context is "Possessed as an essential characteristic".
(February 9, 2012 at 4:56 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Such as my innate right to eat your children. Isn't it much better to simply go with what we can show? That we have decided that there are things called rights, that we've decided what those rights are (for now, subject to revision) and that even though these rights can only be shown to exist in our minds they are useful and we should keep plugging along with them, as long as we always remember just how shaky the concept is. That thin veneer of civility bit. There's a difference between saying, "this concept is useful", and "this concept is objectively true, or exists objectively" That difference is important to me. We can rationilize rights, but to demand that something so emotional be completely rational is probably expecting a little to much from us (though obviously, I wish we could be completely rational and completely "human" at the same time...sometimes our irrationality does shine brightly in our favor)
They are, aren't they. They weren't conceived as such amusingly, nor do they always do this. I agree, very counter-intuitive, but at the end of the day we've decided that we have to protect ourselves from the tyranny of the majority somehow, and this leaves the door open to both the good and the bad, as it were.
I'm pretty sure you're being very generous with regards to our character.
(playing the devils advocate on some things is very very difficult btw, thanks for bearing with me thusfar,..lol)
I've no interest in rationalizing anything.
I didn't want to use this argument because it has the potential of leading the debate in a very different direction, but here it is anyway.
I consider the drive to be rational the essential and defining characteristic of a human being. On second thought, let's call that the essential characteristic of being a person to separate the concept of a person from simply a biological member of the human species.
Even the mentally ill, whose capacity for rationality has been greatly diminished, display the drive to be rational - to the extent they are able. The essential requirement for this quality is that the person must be alive and the person must be free to act rationally. This quality of "drive to be rational" would be both objective and demonstrable.
Hence, I think that anyone or anything that displays this characteristic should be considered a person and granted rights in accordance with the recognition, whether they be apes, dolphins or elephants. On the other hand, anyone who does not display this quality, should not be regarded as a person, whether they may genetically belong to our species or not.
On a related note, no, I would not consider babies to have this right. Though I'm not sure where I'd draw the line, since in my experience babies seem to develop this drive quite soon after birth. That still wouldn't give me the right to eat your babies. Until they become their own person, they can be considered your property and I wouldn't have any right to them. My own babies, on the other hand, might be fair game. Though not completely, because they would be under joint ownership of me and my wife.
