From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Subject: Re: Rights. Was: Re: Children, Children
Organization: Eastman Kodak
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 17:35:10 GMT

In article <1992Apr3.205949.14658@NCoast.ORG> cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton) writes:
>As quoted from <1992Apr1.173435.6861@clpd.kodak.com> by black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)):
>
>Chris Morton:
>> cm> There's no contradiction there at all.  The ability to formulate those rights
>> cm> is an intrinsic human quality, probably the most important.  If you have to 
>> cm> BASE your case on the EXCEPTION, you don't HAVE one.
>> 
>> I was not suggesting a contradiction.  The point is that your criterion for
>> determining who has rights is leading to the conclusion that rights are
>> neither exclusively nor inclusively a human trait.  THE TIGHT COUPLING 
>> BETWEEN HUMANS AND RIGHTS DOES NOT EXIST.
>
>I see no evidence of that conclusion even in your material below.  Your 
>unsupported ASSERTION of a lack of a tight coupling is not dispositive of
>anything.

I've given many examples of humans who can't assert rights.  I've indicated
by the ET example the possibility of humans who can assert rights but
wouldn't have them, because they were not able to assert them in the way
required by the powers-that-be.

>> You haven't probed deeply enough yet.  WHY are humans formulating, expressing,
>> and demanding rights?  It's because they can experience sensations ... they feel
>> things ... they care what happens to themselves ... they suffer ... they feel
>> pain and discomfort along with pleasure and satisfaction.  ...in a word, because
>> they are sentient.  Without sentience, there is no impetus to assert rights 
>> because rights would be irrelevant.
>
>No, I've probed in places you didn't want to look.  Humans aren't formulating
>rights because of mere SENSATION.

I haven't said they are.  SENTIENCE is more than mere sensation.

>  They're doing so because of their capacity for THOUGHT.

Not just thought alone.  Pure thought without any sensory input may not
even exist - at least in our world.

>  If this were not true, amoeba would be formulating and stating
>their "rights", wouldn't they.  Without INTELLIGENCE there is no ABILITY to
>assert rights.  Now THAT would be true irrelevance.

You don't need to have the ability to assert rights in order to have them.

>> Humans' interests are a function of this sentience and their declared rights 
>> are these interests dressed up in formal declarations.  The only difference 
>> between humans and other sentients is that the others can express their 
>> interests only in nonverbal ways.  And this is not sufficient for denying 
>> that they have innate rights or for denying them legal rights.
>
>No it's not.  It's a function of their INTELLIGENCE (sapience?).  A scorpion 
>does not express interests.  It exhibits BEHAVIORS.  It knows neither interests
>nor rights.  You can claim otherwise, but you'll look foolish.

Are you confusing sentience with sensation.  In my dictionary, sentience is
"... feeling as distinguished from perception or thought; consciousness."
And consciousness involves an awareness of one's own identity and situation.
In other words, some intellectual activity is implied by the term "sentience."

>> Let me rephrase the original question:  Why is the specific human ability to 
>> express interests within a verbal system of rights a better criterion than a 
>> sentient's specific ability to express its own interests in nonverbal forms 
>> of behavior?  Both expressions are external mainfestations of the same
>> root motivation.
>
>Very simply because vocalization and exposition is PROOF of cognition.  Does
>the explosion of a landmine indicate express its property interest in the 
>square foot of land that it occupies?

Huh?  How does vocalization PROVE cognition?  Haven't you ever seen a machine
that could vocalize?  You're putting way too much stock in vocalization.

>> > Christopher Morton:
>> cm>Yes.  Do you have a better standard?  ANY law will ultimately be arbitrary,
>> cm>since all human motivation is arbitrary.
>>  
>> Robert Black:
>> rb> Your "standard" sounds like no standard at all.  Ultimately it comes down
>> rb> to might makes right.  And I don't agree that all human motivation is
>> rb> arbitrary.
>> 
>> Christopher Morton:
>> cm> Might determines your ability to assert and protect your rights.  The ability
>> cm> to formulate and discuss these rights will determine the extent to which they
>> cm> are disseminated.  You may not LIKE this, but that's not material.  I don't
>> cm> like mortality.  I don't pretend I'm exempt from it.
>> 
>> Might also assists your ability to withhold and suppress the legal rights of
>> others.  But the ABILITY TO APPLY FORCE TO GET YOUR WAY SAYS NOTHING ABOUT
>> WHO HAS INNATE RIGHTS.  It's just sometimes a useful aid in translating your
>> conception of innate rights into some political or legal form.
>
>My ABILITY TO FORMULATE AND STATE my rights, then act to defend them says it
>all.  The defense of my rights only determines the extent to which they will
>affect my interactions with others.

No.  Your ability to formulate, state, and defend your rights merely indicates
the amount of persuasion and power you can apply to get your way.  It helps 
you claim and maintain your rights, but does not rule out rights for those 
without that ability.


RB (black@serum.kodak.com)
These views are not necessarily the views of my employers.