Newsgroups: alt.polyamory
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 00:58:02 -0400 
From: Gerard Deckert <ad1x+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: The Nature of Rights (long)
	<1992Oct12.162700.21623@microsoft.com>

	Hi Fritz.  *Hug* right back to you.  We can disagree philosophically
without being enemies...

Excerpts from netnews.alt.polyamory: 12-Oct-92 Re: The Nature of Rights
(w.. Fritz Sands@microsoft.co (2943)

> Well, OK, if you insist.  This probably belongs on the politics or philosophy
> groups, but I don't read them.


	Since the discussion originally concerned the basis of consensuality, I
figured that to give a good justification of consensuality, I might as
well discuss rights in general...



>  If "rights" are an objective absolute then you ought to be
> able to generate an algorithm to determine if <x> is a good or a right.
> Is breathable air a good or a right?


	I agree that absolute rights would allow you to determine whether
something is a good or a right.  Air is not a product created by someone
- it is basically a resource that is free for the taking.  One has the
right to support and maintain one's life.  Those who pollute the air
beyond breathability are affecting other people, and must be accountable
for that.


> Also, can you make an objective
> definition of "rational" and "self interest"?

	Sure.  Rational means acting in a manner that is consistent with
reality.  It means recognizing that objects act in a certain way,
according to their nature, and cannot act any differently than what they
are.  If someone acts in their self-interest, they are attempting to
further or improve their life.  This person is acting to gain a value. 
It can be argued that someone who is irrationally greedy (to the point
of criminal actions), is _not_ acting in his own best interest...



> When someone does something to you that you do not like, you can choose
> your responses among the broad categories of submission, resistance,
> flight, and subversion.  This is true whether the other party is a single
> assailant or a squad of police.  In some situations, sometimes, you have
> the fifth option of persuasion.  None of this has *anything* to do with
> anything called "rights".

	The situation you are describing is an anarchy, not a society at all. 
In this anarchy, might makes right - justice is made at the point of a
gun.  In a rationally created society, the only purpose of gov't is to
protect the rights of the citizens.


> |   Also, animals are incapable of recognizing
> | and respecting rights (nor do they participate in a society), so the
> | concept of rights does not apply to them.

> Please define "society" in such a way as to make it not apply to the
> social structures of other primates.

	Animal 'societies' to date have been nothing more than a pecking order
for the members.  The pwerful members take the best mate, the most food,
the best tree, etc.  Their society is not based on the willing
participation of its members as equal individuals, for their mutual
benefit.  Animals can not and do not understand abstract concepts such
as property, justice, rights, etc.  Dolphins and primates are closest to
humans in terms of brain to body mass ratios.  It has been demonstrated
that they do not have higher reasoning or conceptualizing abilities. 
Until such time as they demonstrate otherwise, the entire concept of
rights cannot apply to them.

	Excerpts from netnews.alt.polyamory: 12-Oct-92 Re: The Nature of Rights
(w.. connor@vax.sonoma.edu (1594)

> I take this to mean that you
> get rights by virtue of your membership in a certain group, and they are the
> rights that the members of this group agree you are entitled to.


	Hi Greg - hug to you too.  This might seem like nit-picking, but there
is a point here that I would take issue with.  If rights were what
members agreed on them to be, they would still be subjective and not
defensible.  I maintain that the interaction _itself_ necessitates
specific and objective rights by the fact that these are rational people
interacting.  For example, if an individual produces something, members
if a rational society would recognize that the object is the property of
the individual, to be used and disposed of as he sees fit.  No one else
can claim this product.  This right and the others are unquestionable as
the way rational men's interactions are dictated (by the fact that they
are rational).  Morality derives from the observance of these rights - a
moral man understands and respects the rights that he and his fellow
citizens share.


	Excerpts from netnews.alt.polyamory: 12-Oct-92 Re: The Nature of Rights
(w.. John Clark@sdcc3.ucsd.ed (2494)

> The 'abolutist' view is that
> there exists 'rights' in vacu, of which we preceive only a mangled
> version via our limited understanding, ie. reason.


	Hello again John.  Hope you're doing well.  Rights don't exist in a
vacuum - they can only exist in the interaction of people in society.

	

> The 'absolutist' view also leads to a 'best course of action' since
> if one knows the absolute truth of a matter, then any deviation is
> 'error' and hence less than 'best'. This of course leads to 'this is
> the correct way to do things and you'd better do it or else suffer
the consequences'. 


	Hmmm.  You're hinting at a fascist state here, John.  If someone
threatens your life physically (and assuming you are a moral member of a
rational society), are you saying that he is not necessarily wrong in
doing this?  On what does it depend?


> ...since the absolute is 'pure reason' and devoid of any
> emotional subjectivity.

	...

	
> Alternatively, the absolute chaos which surrounds us does give us
> hope that not all existence is pure sterile reason. There is hope
> that there is a hell of a lot of fun to be had by taking part in
emotional subjectivity and letting go of the structures of reason.


	The use of reason in no way precludes emotion.  I take great joy in
life, and in my experiences.  I'm saddened by loss.  I am proud of my
abilites and accomplishments, and I love my friends and family, and I
see no irrationality in this.  (Pretty relevant .sig today, too...)  
	In fact, emotions are a direct response in regards to some sort of
conclusion - they are products of thought.  Consider:  you are sitting
in a classroom, when the instructor enters and begins handing out
blue-books.  You conclude that he is giving a surprise quiz, and are
nervous and, well, surprised.  However, if there were an impartial
observer in the classroom, he would not have the same reaction to the
essay books.  Your emotional response is a direct result of your
interpretation of the handing out of the blue-books.  Emotions are not
in control of us, nor are they tools of gaining knowledge - they are
reactions to interpretations.  The validity of your emotions is directly
related to the validity of your conclusions.  If you are miserable
because you have concluded you are worthless and unlovable, I would say
that you have misjudged yourself.
	You go on to argue for the right to have fun, but without any basis for
this right, or any others.  If your perceptions of your rights are
completely subjective, why should you have any reason to expect others
to respect them?  You're arguing for hedonism - pleasure for its own
sake.  I would say this is a hollow and shallow existence - you'll
disappear into your own navel...
	

	Well, this has really gone off from consensuality into deeper areas of
philosophy.  I'm not too worried about relevance - a firm grounding for
rights is necessary if one wants a defensible view of consensuality (or
wants defensible rights).  Erf.  This is long, and I've taken too much
time away from work.  See you all later...



						Gerry

--
******************************************
Today's random quote:
"Everything in excess!  To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites. 
Moderation is for monks."

					-Lazarus Long

******************************************