From: siobhan@microsoft.com (Siobhan Harper)
Subject: Re: The Nature of Rights (long)
Date: 13 Oct 92 20:30:40 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <weqZROm00VAu49_1pr@andrew.cmu.edu> Gerard Deckert <ad1x+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>	Hi Fritz.  *Hug* right back to you.  We can disagree philosophically
>without being enemies...

You are quite right, Gerard. I wrote a response to you that was a bit
snippy in tone; I'd like to apologize and try again, civilly.

>	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.

There are some very interesting experiments in quantum physics that cast
doubt on this statement. The concept of "determinacy" does not even hold
at the electron level; I genuinely don't understand how you can argue for
a determinate universe at a macro level when even an electron "makes de-
cisions" (a VERY anthropomorphic term, BTW) as to which slit it will go
through, depending on what other conditions exist at the time. If your
last statement above is true, then how do you account for individual var-
iation? Is that "aberrancy" by definition?

>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...

You are assuming quite a few things here, that do not seem at all ob-
vious to me. One is that you, as an external observer, can know what
another's best interest is. Another is that there is an objective stan-
dard, greed below which is "rational". Another is that the person whom
you are observing is _not_ acting in his own perceived self-interest,
which would seem to be mutually contradictory, taken with your statement
above that objects cannot act in any other way but according to their
nature. Or are you assuming that it is in the "nature" of some people
to act against their own interests? I'm afraid I can't follow the point
you are making, and yet it clearly is an important one.

>> 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.

Which citizens? All, or only a subset? What is the government supposed to
do if the rights of one subset actively infringe upon the rights of another?

>> |   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.

This is where I got really bitchy in my previous post, and for that,
I apologize. Yet it is quite clear that you have never read any of the
most basic primatology, nor studies of cognition in marine mammals, or
you would never make such a blatant dismissal of such proven instances
of transmission of culture, language (including class formation), tool
making + advance planning, mutuality, generosity, altruism, etc. Frankly,
primates and marine mammals have been demonstrating "otherwise" for years;
it's not _their_ fault you don't read the literature. If you did, you would
never make such an outrageous claim.

I think we've reached an impasse here; your belief that there is one,
true, determinable, objective Reality is disjoint with my way of per-
ceiving it. All that I've read and learned puts me much closer to Fritz'
view, as stated in _Thelma and Louise_: "Rights are what you settle for."
and yet, the issue clearly is an important one to you, and I owe you
respect and politeness, even though we disagree. I apologize for losing
sight of that earlier.

--Siobhan