trc@houti.UUCP (T.CRAVER) (08/23/83)
Response to ariel!norm Norm, I think that part of the problem is that I have used an meat axe where a scalpel is more appropriate - which I can only justify in the context of the large difference in views between myself and those attacking my views on rights. I am not, however, entirely convinced that rights are just a good invention, that fit the needs of humans. I rather regard them in somewhat the same sense as a principle of physics. It is more appropriate to say that Newton *discovered* the laws of gravity, rather than invented them. I think that at least part of the difference lies in the question of whether there can be an alternative system (to rights, or to the laws of gravity) that fits reality. That is, are human rights the *only* proper principle for describing how humans should treat other humans, or are there equally valid others? I see no other proper way for humans to act with respect to one another. If rights are necessary for proper interaction among humans, and if the necessity of those rights arises from the nature of humans and of their relationships to each other and reality, why is it not valid to claim that that nature and those relationships are the source of the validity of human rights as principles for governing actions? Other than this distinction, I agree with you - and in particular, I note that I left implicit the idea that rights are needed because humans interact - that for a person totally isolated, there is no question of human rights. And I do agree that human rights had to be thought of - just as every other concept had to be originated at some point. Tom Craver houti!trc