jrrt@hogpd.UUCP (R.MITCHELL) (08/23/83)
I disagree with the thesis that rights are "natural". The writer who claimed that rights are pervasive in animal societies, and that such rights had survival value, is anthropomorphizing the animal kingdom. Rights only exist when they are granted by individuals, or organizations, and are accepted by the recipients. Thus, the concept of rights seems to be based on however the individuals or the organizations feel at the moment. I suggest that "rights" are fictions. There are no such things as rights, only courtesies that are extended from one person to another. Given that rights are actually only courtesies, what are the consequences? First, no one is obligated to extend a given courtesy to every one else. In other words, I owe society nothing. Hence, smokers *may* light up in a poorly-ventilated room while I'm in there (although I would encourage them not to, and rather strongly). Or as another example, women don't have an intrinsic "right" to be paid as much as men (or vice versa, of course). Second, no one can expect to receive a given courtesy from everyone, or even anyone. Therefore, society owes me nothing. It is inappropriate for me to expect society to universally embrace my Code of Courtesy. Therefore, I must not insist that the government is obliged to give me a student loan. I may want the loan very much, and I may want it without draft-registration strings, but such a loan is not part of the Natural Order of Things. I must convince the government to extend such a courtesy to me (this is done by writing Congress, etc). Third, when a courtesy is not extended to you that you want, or if a discourtesy is done to you, you may do whatever you feel is appropriate. Suffer silently, complain to the smoker, move, douse the cigarette with a bucket of water -- choose an alternative (thereby extending a courtesy or discourtesy) and endure the result. The bottom line is: rights are artificial, and you should not expect everyone to accept your version of OK/not OK. Arguments that state, "... it is my right to ... [drive over 55, drive under 55, smoke, flame, etc]" are void of truth. At best, you can reasonably state, "These are the courtesies that I will extend to you and that I want you to extend to me:" and then proceed to enumerate two sets. Note that if the set of courtesies you extend is the same as the set you want extended to you, then you live by the Golden Rule.
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (08/24/83)
================= I disagree with the thesis that rights are "natural". The writer who claimed that rights are pervasive in animal societies, and that such rights had survival value, is anthropomorphizing the animal kingdom. ================= The attitude expressed by this comment represents an all too common fallacy: that humans are not animals. No matter what differentiates us from other animals, there is a lot more that we share. Most of our behaviour patterns are founded on those that have developed over the billions of years or learning how to get along, and I think it rather presumptuous of any individual to think that his mind can come up with a better solution - hey, presto - for particular ethical problems that arise moment to moment. Sure, we have cultural norms that differ among human societies. Sure, we differ from most other animals in being able to string together a few elementary concepts in a "logical" manner that includes conditionals. We don't know to what extent other animals have that facility, but it isn't enough to allow them to develop syntactically complex language (although clever chimpanzees can apparently use rudiments of conditional syntax sometimes). There is a legitimate distinction between legal "rights" and natural "rights". My claim is that natural "rights" represent our verbalizations of survival patterns developed over the billenia. And if you don't think that accepting the rights of others over your own (apparent) selfish interest can be a survival trait, read the Metamagical Thema essays on the Prisoner's Dilemma in Scientific American this Spring. Even bacteria may well (operationally) respect each other's rights. Martin Taylor