samet@sfmag.UUCP (A.I.Samet) (06/02/85)
> ... your rights end where my rights begin ...
The issue of rights is at the heart of many disagreements
expressed here and it deserves comment.
One argument for respecting men's rights is that the common
interest of all men is best served if we all adhere to this
principle. This argument establishes rights infringements as
wrong because they violate a social norm subscribed to by members
of society, for society's perceived benefit. Under this view, the
limit on personal rights is determined solely by the principle
of personal rights, i.e., your rights cannot infringe on mine.
A second argument is that man is inherently endowed with certain
inalienable rights. For some, this position relatively
axiomatic, in the sense that they don't see any real need to
prove it, and can't understand how anyone could think otherwise.
A third argument is very close to the second. Man's endowment
with rights stems from the religious perspective that he is
somewhat sacred, being created in the image of G*d. According to
this position, the ultimate reason for respecting others, and
respecting their rights, would be because of man's inherent
sanctity. Historically, this view pervaded Western society, and
in that sense, its incorporation into our legal system reflects
our heritage of so-called "judao-christian" values.
It's safe to say that the Torah sees certain validity in the
first and third arguments. (The second one is unnecsary in that
the third provides a basis for what was taken axiomatically in
the second.) In many cases the consequences are the same for all
three positions.
In others, the third view would lead to different conclusions.
The reason for this is that this view sees G*d, in
contradistinction to Man, as the ultimate arbiter of values. In
this sense, it would place morality above ethics. (People often
use the term morality and ethics interchangibly. I am selecting
a usage which stresses the distinction between values stemming
from a Divine imperative and those which are necessary for
orderly human relations.)
In applying the third view, the Torah might require capital
punishment for certain religious sins. This would override any
right to life which would be posited by purely man-centered value
systems. In such cases, it would appear that the Torah sees man's
sanctity as second to some other realm of sanctity, or perhaps
that certain actions undermine his sanctity or threaten to
corrupt the basic sanctity of mankind. Such considerations would
seem to take precedence, in the Torah view, over argument #1.
As an aside, Christianity attempts, on the one hand to subscribe
to the Torah, and on the other hand to advocate tolerance towards
some practices which the Torah views harshly. The liberal
tendencies of modern humanism stem in part from such biases which
are tracable to Christianity. Again, the issue of capital
punishment is a case in point.
Intelligent debate over rights issues (and others) requires us
to identify the relevant sacred cows rather than to posit their
sanctity. An approach which ignores its own underlying dogmas and
simultaneously attacks the Torah view as dogmatic and arbitrary
is blindly biased and self-righteous.
Yitzchok Sametrlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) (06/04/85)
>>... your rights end where my rights begin ... [ROSEN] > The issue of rights is at the heart of many disagreements > expressed here and it deserves comment. [SAMET] > > One argument for respecting men's rights is that the common > interest of all men is best served if we all adhere to this > principle. This argument establishes rights infringements as > wrong because they violate a social norm subscribed to by members > of society, for society's perceived benefit. Under this view, the > limit on personal rights is determined solely by the principle > of personal rights, i.e., your rights cannot infringe on mine. Clearly this argument has a rational basis behind and limits its presumptions. > A second argument is that man is inherently endowed with certain > inalienable rights. For some, this position relatively > axiomatic, in the sense that they don't see any real need to > prove it, and can't understand how anyone could think otherwise. This argument assumes the existence of an endower, which is an unproven (and a wishful thinking) assumption. > A third argument is very close to the second. Man's endowment > with rights stems from the religious perspective that he is > somewhat sacred, being created in the image of G*d. According to > this position, the ultimate reason for respecting others, and > respecting their rights, would be because of man's inherent > sanctity. Historically, this view pervaded Western society, and > in that sense, its incorporation into our legal system reflects > our heritage of so-called "judao-christian" values. See above. > It's safe to say that the Torah sees certain validity in the > first and third arguments. (The second one is unnecsary in that > the third provides a basis for what was taken axiomatically in > the second.) If you choose to take the same assumptions that Mr. Samet does as your axioms. > In many cases the consequences are the same for all three positions. In > others, the third view would lead to different conclusions. But why take the presumptive third view, with its wishful thinking presumptions behind it, when you have the first view which has its roots in a clear rational basis? The second and third views only work as justifications if your accept the premises about "endowers". > The reason for this is that this view sees G*d, in > contradistinction to Man, as the ultimate arbiter of values. In > this sense, it would place morality above ethics. (People often > use the term morality and ethics interchangibly. I am selecting > a usage which stresses the distinction between values stemming > from a Divine imperative and those which are necessary for > orderly human relations.) See above. Mr. Samet's views would require that you make his types of presumptions about the existence of god and, moreover, that your assumptions be exactly the same as his. > In applying the third view, the Torah might require capital > punishment for certain religious sins. This would override any > right to life which would be posited by purely man-centered value > systems. What about the rights of those who don't hold your presumptions about god? > In such cases, it would appear that the Torah sees man's > sanctity as second to some other realm of sanctity, or perhaps > that certain actions undermine his sanctity or threaten to > corrupt the basic sanctity of mankind. Such considerations would > seem to take precedence, in the Torah view, over argument #1. If and only if you could prove your presumptions about the nature of the law within the Torah. > As an aside, Christianity attempts, on the one hand to subscribe > to the Torah, and on the other hand to advocate tolerance towards > some practices which the Torah views harshly. The liberal > tendencies of modern humanism stem in part from such biases which > are tracable to Christianity. Again, the issue of capital > punishment is a case in point. This is funny: accusing the religion credited with perhaps the most intolerance throughout the centuries with being overtolerant of things like the dreaded "humanism", which, when you look at it, appears (to these people) to "place humans on a pedestal" because it takes the presumptions about go OFF of that pedestal where they do not belong. > Intelligent debate over rights issues (and others) requires us > to identify the relevant sacred cows rather than to posit their > sanctity. An approach which ignores its own underlying dogmas and > simultaneously attacks the Torah view as dogmatic and arbitrary > is blindly biased and self-righteous. It's dogmatic and arbitrary in that your basis for accepting it as fact is no sounding than that of any other religious believer. -- "Ya dee apockety, rum fing f'doo. Ni, ni, ni, YOWWWWWWWWWW!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
buchbind@agrigene.UUCP (06/10/85)
> As an aside, Christianity attempts, on the one hand to subscribe > to the Torah, and on the other hand to advocate tolerance towards > some practices which the Torah views harshly. The liberal > tendencies of modern humanism stem in part from such biases which > are tracable to Christianity. Again, the issue of capital > punishment is a case in point. Christianity may "advocate tolerance towards some practices which the Torah views harshly" but it is not tolerant per se. Remember, Judaism introduced the world to the idea of a universal God but it was Christianity that introduced the idea of universal religion. Modern humanism is a secular movement even if it origionated in Christian surroundings. (For example, the Catholic Church and many Protestant denominations disaprove of the practice of homosexually.) I would argue that humanism in this century has been greatly influenced by Jews who were trying to cultivate in society a sense of tolerance that would make the types of oppression we (and others) experiened over the centuries less acceptable in Western societies. I'm not sure what the point on capital punishment is. If you are implying that the Torah approves the death penalty while liberal Americans do not, I seem to remember some Talmudic citation that referred to a court that would apply the death penalty (more than once in 70 yrs.) in very disapproving terms. As for Christianity's disaprovaly of executions, you will recall burning at the stake and other nasty forms of death were used by the Catholic Church and some Protestant denominations at various times. Barry Buchbinder 5649 E. Buckeye Rd. Madison, WI 53716 (608)221-5000 {seismo,ihnp4,harpo}!uwvax!astroatc!nicmad!agrigene!buchbind -- Barry Buchbinder 5649 E. Buckeye Rd. Madison, WI 53716 (608)221-5000 {seismo,ihnp4,harpo}!uwvax!astroatc!nicmad!agrigene!buchbind