78 replies to this topic

[Tomill]

We were talking about mentally challenged people, not animals

Animals was the topic but I came in this topic because of the rights of mentally disabled people and now it's just got confusing >.>

I remember a simpler time, a time when we discussed how delicious steak was when compared to not steak. I miss those times. Maybe one day we can return to those times, the times of steak & bacon talk, but unfortunately, I don't think those times are today.

[Darkademic]

We were talking about mentally challenged people, not animals

Animals was the topic but I came in this topic because of the rights of mentally disabled people and now it's just got confusing >.>

Lol. Well the same principle applies. The question is whether mentally challenged people possess a rational faculty, and I would argue that in nearly all cases they do. The only exceptions I am certain about are dead people and people in permanently vegetative states.

I'd also add that it's also possible for a person to possess a rational faculty, but have few or no rights - those people are called criminals. So rights are effectively proportional to the extent you can deal rationally with a particular entity.

[mixe]

we've evolved metabolic systems in which female sense the pheromones of other women in their menstrual cycle .. well is that not instinct what is killing things? greed? pleases give me a animal example of instinct so i can understand also on the rights thing dead ppl have rights trees do old buildings have rights too i think humans give anything rights these days tbh ^^ As far as rights go, laws were created to bring fairness to all, in reality this rarely happens but humans like to think that they treat everything/everyone fairly and the legal system is based upon this through the legislation that has been created and the common law that has evolved over time. However, as with everything created by man the system is flawed!

[Ancient]

However, as with everything created by man the system is flawed!

First thing on here that I actually agree with and actually makes realistic sense!

Ninja edit: Though the word 'man' should be replaced by 'humans' to be more factually correct.

Edited by Ancient, 10 May 2012 - 08:55 pm.

[DeanAdamFry]

Lol. Well the same principle applies. The question is whether mentally challenged people possess a rational faculty, and I would argue that in nearly all cases they do. The only exceptions I am certain about are dead people and people in permanently vegetative states.

I'd also add that it's also possible for a person to possess a rational faculty, but have few or no rights - those people are called criminals. So rights are effectively proportional to the extent you can deal rationally with a particular entity.

It depends on the criminal, if he only stole something then you can't really say he has no rights I mean if that was the case then we would all have no rights XD

But yeah criminals who rape, molest children, mindless murder etc. get no rights in my book.

[Ancient]

But yeah criminals who rape, molest children, mindless murder etc. get no rights in my book.

Yet (civilised) society would disagree with you.

[Tomill]

we've evolved metabolic systems in which female sense the pheromones of other women in their menstrual cycle .. well is that not instinct what is killing things? greed? pleases give me a animal example of instinct so i can understand also on the rights thing dead ppl have rights trees do old buildings have rights too i think humans give anything rights these days tbh ^^ As far as rights go, laws were created to bring fairness to all, in reality this rarely happens but humans like to think that they treat everything/everyone fairly and the legal system is based upon this through the legislation that has been created and the common law that has evolved over time. However, as with everything created by man the system is flawed!

That's not an instinct as it's a metabolic response, it has variable responses and isn't the same across a species, which is what defines an instinct. An instinct is a complex nervous response which is done automatically as a response to stimuli, without thinking. An example would be the fact that a baby knows from birth how to breast feed, cry and grab onto things. Anything an insect does, such as a butterfly crawling out of a chrystalis after pupation is instinct.

As Darkademic reminded me yesterday, an instinct is a more complex response than a reflex, which is a simpler automatic response, like recoiling in pain. The fact some animals avoid predators & attack prey is instinct & done without thinking, though this isn't true for all animals and some, like meerkats, wolves and chimps, need to be taught like us, by their parents/pack, to perform alot of actions & rely less on instinctual responses to survive.

If your saying about trees, they don't have nervous systems so don't have true instinctual responses, but they do perform complex sets of responses to external stimuli, like producing toxins after a herbivore eating a leaf causes a chemical cascade inside the plant. It could be considered instinct.

Discussing the rights has gotten away from me & I much prefer discussing this, so I'm going to ignore the second half of your question. Hope this helps?

[ReaverMage]

Being human is not the basis of rights, possessing a rational faculty is. If an animal or an alien were discovered which possessed a rational faculty, it would have rights.

Abortion is fine until a foetus is able to exist independently of the womb, at which point it becomes murder.

So even though it has no rational faculty it still has rights?

Also if we could keep a baby alive outside of the womb before it had even developed a nervous system would it still be murder to abort?

And what about people in comas?

[Darkademic]

So even though it has no rational faculty it still has rights?

Also if we could keep a baby alive outside of the womb before it had even developed a nervous system would it still be murder to abort?

And what about people in comas?

A baby has a rational faculty.

It is murder as soon as the baby is able to exist as an independent organism, rather than as part of the mother.

A person in a coma has rights as long as they have the potential to wake up, however nobody is obligated to keep them alive unless they made an contract/arrangement beforehand (e.g. health insurance). Rights are guarantees to an absence of force, they are not a claim to the time, effort or property of anyone else.

[Prophet]

It is murder as soon as the baby is able to exist as an independent organism, rather than as part of the mother.

Is this with medical intervention, or without?

If without:
Surely if the baby has a chance to survive, even if that means medical science has to help, it should have a right to take that chance?
You'd be killing something that could potentially survive. Also, where is the line drawn with regards to percentage of survival? Does a baby with a 49% chance to survive independant of the womb not have rights, but a baby with a 50% chance does? 100% chance could never be reached, so where is the cut off point?

If with:
Medicine is a field that constantly improves, meaning that a baby born today might have no chance to survive independantly, but a baby born 10 years from now might have overwhelmingly good odds. Are you suggesting that the baby born now has no rights, but the baby born in the future does?

If so, I put it to you that aborting the current baby would be moral, but aborting the future baby would be immoral.
This contradicts your stance on morality being objective.

Edited by Prophet, 11 May 2012 - 01:35 pm.

[Darkademic]

Is this with medical intervention, or without?

If without:
Surely if the baby has a chance to survive, even if that means medical science has to help, it should have a right to take that chance?
You'd be killing something that could potentially survive. Also, where is the line drawn with regards to percentage of survival? Does a baby with a 49% chance to survive independant of the womb not have rights, but a baby with a 50% chance does? 100% chance could never be reached, so where is the cut off point?

Without.

"Potential life" does not have rights, that would make all abortion immoral, and would in fact make contraception immoral, and oblige us to create as many children as physically possible.

[ReaverMage]

A baby has a rational faculty.

It is murder as soon as the baby is able to exist as an independent organism, rather than as part of the mother.

A person in a coma has rights as long as they have the potential to wake up, however nobody is obligated to keep them alive unless they made an contract/arrangement beforehand (e.g. health insurance). Rights are guarantees to an absence of force, they are not a claim to the time, effort or property of anyone else.

A foetus does not.

Again, how do we know when that cut off point is?

I'm not saying we're obliged to look after them but what you're saying is they have no rights whatsoever as they have only "potential" rational faculties.

[Darkademic]

A foetus does not.

Again, how do we know when that cut off point is?

I'm not saying we're obliged to look after them but what you're saying is they have no rights whatsoever as they have only "potential" rational faculties.

Philosophy deals with principles, and in principle only independent entities which possess a rational faculty have rights. Where the line is drawn is not a philosophical question, but a scientific one, and since I'm not a neuroscientist I don't have the answer.

[Prophet]

Without.

"Potential life" does not have rights, that would make all abortion immoral, and would in fact make contraception immoral, and oblige us to create as many children as physically possible.

The question remains; when does "potential life" become certain life? At what stage in the pregnancy does the fetus get rights?
Based on your previous arguments, I'm going to assume you believe the fetus is given rights as a human at the limit of viability, but I'll wait for you to confirm before I make a case against it.

PS: Do you consider yourself to be a liberal?

[Darkademic]

The question remains; when does "potential life" become certain life? At what stage in the pregnancy does the fetus get rights?
Based on your previous arguments, I'm going to assume you believe the fetus is given rights as a human at the limit of viability, but I'll wait for you to confirm before I make a case against it.

PS: Do you consider yourself to be a liberal?

See my response to ReaverMage.

It depends what you mean by liberal. If you mean a left-leaning liberal like the Labour or Liberal Democrat parties, then absolutely not. If you mean classical liberal (the philosophy committed to the ideal of limited government, constitutionalism, rule of law, due process, and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets), then perhaps almost, but more philosophically consistent. I am an Objectivist.

My philosophy is reasonably well explained here: http://www.importanc...anchesMain.html