SRL Archive - Discussions & Debates

What makes something eligible for moral consideration? In simpler terms, what do you think are the defining factors that come into play that influence our decisions on whether something has rights or not?

I'll start with a simple example and this will probably become the main topic of the thread.

What defines us humans as having the right to eat an animal (I'm not preaching animal rights I just figured this would be the broadest subject for the most responses)?

Feel free to add your own scenarios.

The food chain. Bazinga.

-RM

If the human is near death, has ate nothing but berries and has survived for an entire month on that diet, I think they would be entitled to eating a deer after cooking it somehow.

Just like if a pet cat has not been fed for the past week and their owner abuses them physically, I think they'd be entitled to eating that owner while they sleep. For survival, of course.

Every scenario will have a different answer.

@ RM :

Well naturally, that is commonly called the lifeboat scenario, and all is fair in the lifeboat scenario.

How about a different scenario then?

What gives a human the right to punish their child physically past a certain limit? Far more than just a spank on their butt, keep in mind.

Well, I don't think they have one really, it's an outdated form of punishment. I mean this in the sense that there are many other possible solutions that just take a bit more work. I would have to ask, what is the difference between the parent and the child, the difference is knowledge of right and wrong (to an extent) and the child is being punished for wrong by being beaten. Now, if that's what a parent chooses to operate off of, most of these right and wrongs are relative to culture, so I would say if you wish to punish your child physically for breaking a social norm, then you must in turn willingly be beat if you happened to travel to China and use your left hand to shake hands which is considered unacceptable.

Without bringing religion in to the scenario, how is it outdated? Who has claimed that it's outdated and why is it outdated?
What about in the under developed societies in say, a stereotypical place like Africa, where there are no governed or claimed social norms? How would the parents of a(the) child(ren) know whether it's right or wrong to beat their child for wrong doings?

Hahaha I had no intention of bringing religion into this, that's the last thing I want to do. In answer to your question, and the topic being moral consideration, I'd say that at least now in America, I would think it is somewhat common knowledge that their are alternatives. I think it's awfully reminiscent of Machiavelli's "The Prince" in terms of "Ruling out of fear and not respect." Now switching gears to under developed societies, obviously things like this happen in nature, parent dogs nipping the scruff of puppies and so forth, and that a child is in no terms different then that of an adult in terms of proper treatment. Beating a child for doing something wrong is something to think of if universalized. If an adult in that society does not get beaten for let's saying wetting their pants, then the child should therefore not be beaten. Now you could argue that the beating is because the child is less knowledgeable and therefore needs to be corrected, but that would also mean that a mentally handicapped person of adult age who is incapable of comprehending the same thing should also be beaten. I think that is where the kinks come in, and anything more than a slight spanking is just frustration being let out through the wrong medium.

Where do rights come from?

This question is central to all political philosophy. How you answer it will affect nearly all your political beliefs.

Where do rights come from or what are rights? because I think rights consist of your natural entitlements.

Analysis of rights by an American liberal. Please read it before you carry on.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-rights.htm

what is a human?, what are the requierements to be human? morals? food chain? i dont thinks that makes us human. I think that the only way a human is a human and not a cat or a bird is his caracteristiques. we have 2 arms 2 legs 1 torso 1 head fisicallly that makes us human (like a specie dont im not saying paralitycs arent humans dont misinterpred me) . other importent point is our hability of racionalization, we think in a complex way that make us diferent from others animals and other people, but keep an eye I say dierenet not superior.
and in the rights, i think that is a very selfish way of us, humans, to say that something belongs to us. right of education, right of food, of housing etc, when did humans start being the owners of the world? i think that humans shouldnt have anymore rights than other animals. no one gave us the powwer to govern others lifes. so how do we keep paving over the paradise? (quote from a song).
so sumerising a human doesnt need to be "good or bad" or have right or no to be a human like a dog doesnt need to be domesticate or not to be a dog.
we arent that especial ;)

^ eduardo, I agree with you on some levels, especially the "we aren't that special" point. you can't fully use intelligence as criteria to exclude animals because by that rationalization that would mean I could eat people less intelligent than I.

Yakman, interesting article, definitely saved it, the only right I truly believe in is the right to autonomy, that is, as long as my actions don't harm another, I can do as I wish.

I think there is really only one factor that includes all humans under moral consideration that doesn't exclude another (ie intelligence, legs, race) and that is the ability to suffer. Peter Singer has some interesting articles about this. What's more interesting is that the ability to suffer also includes animals. If anyone is interested I can find the articles where he states his argument, he is very convincing and sets his argument up in a way that it almost makes you agree with him.

Nietszche with our knowledge of environmental science, doesn't that right mean we can't do almost anything.
Almost anything we do these days involves environmental distruction. Most of our electricity is generated by burning fossil fuels. Our plastics and fuels come from crude oil.

I also see some of you are wondering what is a human. Perhaps you'd like to read this. http://hermiene.net/essays-trans/gaps_in_the_mind.html

Ahhh Richard Dawkins. Thank you for the literature sir. As for your question, that was actually difficult for me to respond to, but here's what I've got, and please correct me if I'm missing the point. Our autonomy and being able to do what we want unless it harms another is based on harming another or infringing upon another autonomous entity. AS FAR AS WE KNOW, and I capitalize that for the sake of possible future discovery, environment such as trees, vegetation, and the ozone, do not feel and therefore their autonomy cannot be infringed upon. Now, of course destroying habitats is affecting another autonomous creature (whatever lives there) and this is wrong, although unfortunately it's nearly impossible not to take part in that nowadays.

~~Read through some of the article, the guy I mentioned, Peter Singer, and Dawkins are on the same page regarding Speciesism.

Please link me to some Singer. :)

You're right that its nearly impossible to not damage the environment, our society is sadly addicted to fossil fuels especially oil.
However I fail to see why you're allowed to simply disregard this as impractical. All it means is that you're breaking your own moral code every single day.
If you say that the point of a moral philosophy is to distinguish for us between right and wrong, then your philosophy isn't very useful if it describes nearly every single action we do as wrong.

Everyone lives life as an individual, other peoples thoughts should not affect your next decision, wether you eat meat, wether you choose to live from benefits, or wether your an extremist, we simply live and strive like any other predator, it's just the our minds are alot more easily manipulated than most ha.

From: Yakman
Please link me to some Singer. :)

You're right that its nearly impossible to not damage the environment, our society is sadly addicted to fossil fuels especially oil.
However I fail to see why you're allowed to simply disregard this as impractical. All it means is that you're breaking your own moral code every single day.
If you say that the point of a moral philosophy is to distinguish for us between right and wrong, then your philosophy isn't very useful if it describes nearly every single action we do as wrong.

Well, yes in a sense I would be, but when I say we're all taking part of it I mean even though I'm not out being Mr. Lumberjack clearing forests I still pay taxes that pay for government projects relating to that. And that's not necessarily my philosophy, that's Immanual Kant's (kantianism) and I'm really only focused on the autonomy part. As long as what you want to do does not infringe upon another's autonomy, it is O.K. to do.

"Fossil Fuels" is itself a morally laden term, since nobody is exactly clear how such fuels are/were produced. If they are produced abiotically as some scientists believe, they wouldn't be "fossil fuels", would they?

In that case, it would be more like taking milk from a cow than killing and eating the cow, or taking sap from a maple tree instead of cutting it down and burning it.

Parents naturally have dominion over children because without culturing/teaching, humans would just be inhumane beasts. Look at some of those rare individuals who have been raised by wolves. They have biological potential for humanity, but unless it is cultivated they behave as sub-humans. Therefore, a parent has an essential role in teaching and cultivating their children's humanity, and have wide latitude in how best to do this, due to the wide variety of inborn personalities and cultural norms.

I'm not saying parents don't have dominion over children, I'm saying there are more creative and effective ways than beating. Example. When I was 5 I learned that if I touched a doughnut in a store my mom would have to buy it, so instead of hitting me, she bought two of my favorite doughnuts, brought me home, sat me at the table, and then she ate them both. Didn't use force, and I never did that again.

Physical abuse is not accepted, but a simple slap for doing something deemed as really 'naughty' is acceptable in my opinion, and I guess that word explains everyones views, its all an opinion, it's just that everyone else wants to get involved :P

From: Yakman
Please link me to some Singer. :)

http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/singer05.htm It's a bit dry, if you want me to find something else regarding his "Speciesism is the next racism" argument I can.

What gives us the right to say what rights we should give ourselves?

Rights are given by God, and protected by government.

When government attempts to transfer individual rights to society as a whole, that is when tyranny begins.

Rights cannot be God-given, because God originally blessed the rights of monarchy, slavery, genocide, polygamy, parental killing of disrespectful children, and other rights no one seriously defends today.
Also, quite a lot of people reckon God doesn't exist as there's no evidence.

From: Yakman
Also, quite a lot of people reckon God doesn't exist as there's no evidence.

This is true, but religion and more specifically the holy books are defining a lot of rights

From: RISK
How about a different scenario then?

What gives a human the right to punish their child physically past a certain limit? Far more than just a spank on their butt, keep in mind.

Sorry for not commenting on one of the more recent posts but…

The idea being that this (the spanking) will stop the child doing an action again, say it might deter them running out in front of a car and therefore, I would argue, is morally sound as it potentially saves their life….

The fact one has to spank there kids time and time again however would suggest it does not work.

I think perhaps the most informative example would be a baby immediately before/after birth.

One has rights, the other doesn't. If a baby is 90% delivered, but still has the crown of its head in the birth canal, it has no rights, and can be murdered and thrown out with the trash. A few moments later it has full rights, and is required by law to be treated with respect.

This can't have anything to do with maternal intent, because there are cases of bungled late term abortions where the baby accidentally slipped out during the procedure and was then entitled to rights.

Oh great, abortion.
The limit for legal abortion (how many weeks into a pregnancy an abortion can be carried out) varies between the US states. Usual range is between 12 and 24 weeks.
In the UK its 22 weeks.
The immediately before or after birth stuff seems to be a myth.

Perhaps its better to look at an example we both agree on, rather than a polarising and emotional issue.
In the past, it was possible for certain people to be property. We called them slaves.
Holy books like the bible and quran say that was okay. But the reason we don't do it today is because people had lots of debates and convinced society that slavery was a bad thing.

well look at it this way, mother nature is our playing ground, these things called human rights are man made, they do not exist in nature. In nature it is as the coined phrase goes survival of the fittest, and as humans we tend to always think we are the fittest. But we need these ideas of rights simply to make one seem better than another. It is just another form of competition that we have set aside for one another to reward those and punish others. It all comes down to relativity. One must know sadness, anger etc to know the things we crave so much in the world, mainly happiness. Think of it like this, if a child s born in a society that is always happy in our eyes, are they ever truly happy in the society, no, simply because they have not known the opposite, think of Einsteins relativity. he once said, we're all brilliant in our own ways, but if you judge a fish on its ability to climb a tree, its retarded. So yes human rights, technically we all have them as mother nature is fair, its just humans who give them and take them away depending on how you behave within a society. Completely human system, and if you belong to a society, you are object to their ability to take the right away from you, thus in reality, unless you are in solitude, you have no rights.