[net.religion] The Nature of Rights

cbostrum@watdaisy.UUCP (Calvin Bruce Ostrum) (07/04/83)

This should really be in philosophy, not religion. 
Direct replies there, and note this is not so much a discussion of
abortion as it is rights in general.

>From liz@umcp-cs.UUCP 
>	... What are the necessary morally relevant criteria for
>	possessing a right to life? ...  
>This is a religious question and a matter of belief.  Are humans
>morally special in some way different from the animals in the world
>around us?  I think most of us act like this even if we haven't
>verbalized the difference.  The laws of the US support this in that
>the cause of any human death (after birth, anyway) must always be
>known or found out whereas if my cat dies there is no such concern.

Whoa! Whether or not you have rights is a religious question? If
you mean by that there is a lot of heated, emotional and apparently
nonlogical argument about it, I will agree, but if you mean
the nature of rights or means of possessing them is religious, then for
all those athiests out there who believe in rights, I should hope
it isnt!
The laws of the US are hardly the last word on what is right and wrong,
are they? If they were, there would never be any argument about, eg, 
whether abortion were right or wrong, just check the books.

>How do you know it can't?  The instinct for survival is very strong.
>Even if it can't, it will be able to will if it does survive.  Think
>of someone who is comatose for a while but survives.  While they are
>comatose, they are no more able to will than the foetus.  Do they
>cease to be "morally special" for a while?

The fact that you have an instinct to survive does not mean that you
are capable of understanding the idea of your life as something extending
into the future that you make plans about. I can build a simple
machine that has an instinct to survive.

The issue about comatose people does seem difficult to solve for many
pro-abortion people who take a similiar line. I submit that it is simple.
It is totally analogous to the way that when someone dies, he can dispose
of his property (and in fact his body) for the most part as he sees fit.
Why? Because they *are* his property. Once you conceive of a peron's
body and his life as his property, this problem dissolves. Just as
murder and lying are considered wrong since they are an offense against
someones's property (and this is an *implicit* agreement) so killing a
comatose person should be accepted as wrong, without his previous 
permission since there is a similar implicit agreement that this is an
offense against his property.

>  			 	I object to such arguments not only
>because they endanger the foetus, but there always seem to be some
>other group of people who would not have full personhood by the
>same argument.  Such arguments endanger their rights as well --
>where will the line be drawn?

"Where will the line be drawn?". I dont know, I thought 
we were trying to decide that. The line we are talking about is the
criterion for right to life and rights in general. So by saying
"such arguments endanger their rights as well" you are engaging in the
fallacy of presuming they have rights to begin with.
It appears that perhaps you have an axe to grind, and have already decided
for certain that foetuses have a right to life, but no nonhumans do.
The question is, **On what ground do you base these beliefs??**. While
I admit that my criterion so far is not perfect, it is one hell of a lot
better than "X can have rights iff X is human",
or "X has rights iff God says so" (that last is a screamer).

		Calvin Ostrum, Dept Computer Science, University of Waterloo
		...{decvax,allegra,utzoo}!watmath!watdaisy!cbostrum

liz@umcp-cs.UUCP (07/06/83)

	From: cbostrum@watdaisy.UUCP

	>From liz@umcp-cs.UUCP
	>	... What are the necessary morally relevant criteria
	>	for possessing a right to life? ...
	>This is a religious question and a matter of belief.  Are
	>humans morally special in some way different from the
	>animals ...?

	Whoa! Whether or not you have rights is a religious question?
	... if you mean the nature of rights or means of possessing
	them is religious, then for all those athiests out there who
	believe in rights, I should hope it isn't!

By "a religious question", I didn't mean that atheists couldn't believe
in rights.  I just meant that different people have different views on
human rights, and that (in the context of abortion and someone asking
"What's so special about being human?") what it meant to be human
depends on what you believe about human rights.

By the way, if rights do not depend on people's beliefs, then they must
be some kind of absolute standard... (and I do believe in this kind of
absolute.)

On abortion, you say:

	The issue about comatose people does seem difficult to solve
	for many pro-abortion people who take a similar line.  I submit
	that it is simple.  It is totally analogous to the way that
	when someone dies, he can dispose of his property (and in fact
	his body) for the most part as he sees fit.  Why?  Because they
	*are* his property.  Once you conceive of a person's body and
	his life as his propery, this problem dissolves.  Just as
	murder and lying are considered wrong since they are an offense
	against someone's property (and this is an *implicit*
	agreement) so killing a comatose person should be accepted as
	wrong, without his previous permission since there is a similar
	implicit agreement that this is an offense against his property.

Well, the obvious reply to this is that killing a fetus is an offense
against the fetus' property.  But, I think you mean also that the fetus
is not yet capable of having property and that his body still belongs
to its mother.  This is harder to answer.  Two things come to mind.
One is that the body of the fetus does belong to the fetus and it is
certainly the one that experiences the pain of being forcibly removed
(although the woman does experience some labour -- but she has some
choice...).  The second is that (as I believe that the fetus is human
and a person) whether it has grown to the point it can fully possess
its body.

	... by saying "such arguments endanger [fetal] rights as well"
	you are engaging in the fallacy of presuming they have rights
	to begin with.

Yes, because I'm assuming they are human.

	It appears you have an axe to grind, and have
	already decided for certain that foetuses have a right to life,
	but no nonhumans do.  The question is, **On what ground do you
	base these beliefs??**  While I admit that my criterion so far
	is not perfect, it is one hell of a lot better than "X can have
	rights iff X is human", or "X has rights iff God says so" (the
	last is a screamer).

I'm not so much discussing whether nonhumans have a right to life, but
whether a fetus (which I'm assuming is human) has a right to life.
And, I do base my beliefs in a belief in God as a starting point.  I
don't think its illogical to believe that there's a God that's
interested in our affairs and has some things to say about them.  But I
also think that from a medical stand-point, a seperate unique life
begins at conception and that it is indeed a human life.  Sigh...-- 

				-Liz
				...!seismo!umcp-cs!liz (Usenet)
				liz.umcp-cs@Udel-Relay (Arpanet)

liz@umcp-cs.UUCP (07/06/83)

(I tried to post this once before to both net.philosophy and
net.religion, but it only went to net.philosophy because I put a space
as well as a comma between the two names ("net.philosophy, net.religion"
instead of "net.philosophy,net.religion").  >Sigh<...)

	From: cbostrum@watdaisy.UUCP

	>From liz@umcp-cs.UUCP
	>	... What are the necessary morally relevant criteria
	>	for possessing a right to life? ...
	>This is a religious question and a matter of belief.  Are
	>humans morally special in some way different from the
	>animals ...?

	Whoa! Whether or not you have rights is a religious question?
	... if you mean the nature of rights or means of possessing
	them is religious, then for all those athiests out there who
	believe in rights, I should hope it isn't!

By "a religious question", I didn't mean that atheists couldn't believe
in rights.  I just meant that different people have different views on
human rights, and that (in the context of abortion and someone asking
"What's so special about being human?") what it meant to be human
depends on what you believe about human rights.

By the way, if rights do not depend on people's beliefs, then they must
be some kind of absolute standard... (and I do believe in this kind of
absolute.)

On abortion, you say:

	The issue about comatose people does seem difficult to solve
	for many pro-abortion people who take a similar line.  I submit
	that it is simple.  It is totally analogous to the way that
	when someone dies, he can dispose of his property (and in fact
	his body) for the most part as he sees fit.  Why?  Because they
	*are* his property.  Once you conceive of a person's body and
	his life as his propery, this problem dissolves.  Just as
	murder and lying are considered wrong since they are an offense
	against someone's property (and this is an *implicit*
	agreement) so killing a comatose person should be accepted as
	wrong, without his previous permission since there is a similar
	implicit agreement that this is an offense against his property.

Well, the obvious reply to this is that killing a fetus is an offense
against the fetus' property.  But, I think you mean also that the fetus
is not yet capable of having property and that his body still belongs
to its mother.  This is harder to answer.  Two things come to mind.
One is that the body of the fetus does belong to the fetus and it is
certainly the one that experiences the pain of being forcibly removed
(although the woman does experience some labour -- but she has some
choice...).  The second is that (as I believe that the fetus is human
and a person) whether it has grown to the point it can fully possess
its body.

	... by saying "such arguments endanger [fetal] rights as well"
	you are engaging in the fallacy of presuming they have rights
	to begin with.

Yes, because I'm assuming they are human.

	It appears you have an axe to grind, and have
	already decided for certain that foetuses have a right to life,
	but no nonhumans do.  The question is, **On what ground do you
	base these beliefs??**  While I admit that my criterion so far
	is not perfect, it is one hell of a lot better than "X can have
	rights iff X is human", or "X has rights iff God says so" (the
	last is a screamer).

I'm not so much discussing whether nonhumans have a right to life, but
whether a fetus (which I'm assuming is human) has a right to life.
And, I do base my beliefs in a belief in God as a starting point.  I
don't think its illogical to believe that there's a God that's
interested in our affairs and has some things to say about them.  But I
also think that from a medical stand-point, a seperate unique life
begins at conception and that it is indeed a human life.  Sigh...-- 

				-Liz
				...!seismo!umcp-cs!liz (Usenet)
				liz.umcp-cs@Udel-Relay (Arpanet)
-- 

				-Liz Allen
				...!seismo!umcp-cs!liz (Usenet)
				liz.umcp-cs@Udel-Relay (Arpanet)

faustus@ucbvax.UUCP (07/07/83)

Liz seems to think that the right to property is the most
fundamental right one can possess, as the right to life is
derived from it (I have a right to live as my life is my
property).  I do not see where this fundamental right comes
from, or how it can be justified. Is the right to private
property the fundamental right which is given to us by God?
Or is it something which is an inherent right of all intelligent
life? If it is the latter than we cannot really say that fetuses
and comatose (vegetable) people possess it, as they are not
actively intelligent. (You could say that a fetus has potential
to become intelligent, but so does the food that its mother
eats during pregnancy.) Is the right to property purely a human
right? If we say this then we exclude all non-human intelligent
life.  I think that any such attempts to justify our actions by
means of a priori "rights" are doomed to failure.

	Wayne