From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Subject: Re: Rights. Was: Re: Children, Children
Organization: Eastman Kodak
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 17:01:44 GMT

In article <1992Apr3.122228.11776@NCoast.ORG> cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton) writes:
>As quoted from <1992Apr1.173304.6803@clpd.kodak.com> by black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)):
>> As quoted from <1992Mar25.202203.1221@clpd.kodak.com> by black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)):
>> 
>> **** split into 4 parts due to size ****
>> (1 of 4)

Well congratulations.  You have succeeded in greatly obscuring this entire
discussion with inconsistent use of terminology and persistent veering off
on tangents.  Admittedly it's been on ongoing process and admittedly you
had some help from me.

I've seen that rights are:  innate;  something that can't be easily removed;
held only by people who know they have them;  held by those who can verbalize
them;  held by those who can formulate, state, defend them;  derive from 
those who hold them;  are a human construct;  are a function of human
interaction;  derive from the ability to intellectualize sensations.

Maybe some or all of these are compatible.  Maybe it's all clear to you in
your mind, but I think you need to tighten up your theory.  Or at the very
least, your description of it.  Try starting with a summarized statement
that ties all these apparently conflicting claims about rights together
into a coherent cogent statement.

In the meantime, we can continue disputing all these individual points,
but the key problem hinges on your ASSUMPTION that only those who can
formulate and assert rights CAN have them, while also claiming that rights
are a "human construct."  If rights are a "HUMAN CONSTRUCT", then humans 
can construct them to include nonhumans.

>> 
>> > Christopher Morton:
>> cm>If you don't understand the difference between an entitlement and a RIGHT, then
>> cm>you don't understand rights.  Entitlements are easily removed.  Rights are not.
>>                                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> Robert Black:
>> rb> Under your definition that unfolds later, I think rights could be easily
>> rb> removed.
>> 
>> Christopher Morton:
>> cm> Not EASILY, at least not in a system like our own.
>> 
>> All you need to do is change a law.  These are different from the innate
>> rights that you mentioned elsewhere.  They're POLITICAL rights or LEGAL
>> rights, many of which are easily changed.  But that's not the important
>> issue.  
>
>No, you'd have to change the CONSTITUTION, which ISN'T so easy.  As a matter of
>fact, changing laws isn't THAT easy either.  Had your capital gains tax cut
>lately?

But they CAN be changed and under your scheme they are variable and not a 
function of what is DUE to you.  They represent whatever an individual
can demand and take at a given time.

>> You have said that there are INNATE rights.  And since only humans are
>> capable of stating them and codifying them into law (i.e. of approximating
>> them with LEGAL rights), then only humans have innate rights.  But this
>> misses the point. INNATE RIGHTS ARE HELD BY THOSE TO WHOM HAVING 
>> INNATE RIGHTS MATTERS, NOT JUST BY THOSE WHO CAN STATE THAT IT MATTERS.
>
>If you don't know and CAN'T know that you have them, they don't matter.

But you could HAVE innate rights and NOT KNOW it.

>> Christopher Morton:
>> cm>    Of course humans can object
>> cm> and in an organized fashion.  You can't object to a violation of your rights
>> cm> if you don't know you HAVE any.
>> 
>> So what?  You can have rights (innate or legal) and not know it.  You can have
>> rights in one region but not in another.  You can have rights taken away by 
>> legislative or judicial decree.  All this can happen without your even knowing 
>> about it, let alone expressing anything.  THE ABILITY TO OBJECT TO A RIGHTS 
>> VIOLATION IS NOT A REQUIREMENT FOR HAVING RIGHTS.
>
>Of course it is.  If you are INCAPABLE of knowing that your rights EXIST, much
>less are being violated, you don't have any.

Babies, children, senile, retarded, comatose people don't know they have
rights.  These are not all "defective" (to use your word) cases.  In many
cases they are normal states that all people pass through.  KNOWING is NOT 
the criteria.

>> > Christopher Morton:
>> cm>I don't base my conception of rights primarily on "natural" rights.  I base
>> cm>them primarily on a social contract.  Humans can contract.  Wombats cannot.
>> 
>> Robert Black:
>> rb> But which humans are making the contract?  Some dominant group that decides
>> rb> who can do what?  This sounds less like a theory of HUMAN RIGHTS and more
>> rb> like a theory of DOMINANT GROUP RIGHTS with hopefully some consideration
>> rb> taken for the others.
>> 
>> Christopher Morton:
>> cm> I use OUR system as a base, because I think it works best, and provides the
>> cm> most safeguards to the most PEOPLE.  You COULD of course apply your criticism
>> cm> to a Nazi Germany or a North Korea, but then I've already expressed my distaste
>> cm> for such societies.
>> 
>> These types of rights are just a function of the political system.  THIS HAS
>> NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER ANIMALS CAN OR DO HAVE RIGHTS.
>
>JUST a function of the political system?  Political systems are a function of
>HUMANITY, you know, the criterion on which rests the existence of rights?

No.  This is not what you've said elsewhere.  It's not humanity PER SE,
according to you.  It's the ability of SOME humans to formulate, state,
and fight for rights which confers RIGHTS, automatically in some mysterious 
way, on the CLASS of ALL humans.  Since some humans can state the case for
other humans, there is no reason why they can't state the case for nonhumans
also.

>> Robert Black:
>> rb> What if some highly intelligent extraterrestrial group landed and excluded
>> rb> humans totally just as you would exclude nonhumans?  What if a group of AI
>> rb> robots defined their own contract and left us out?  
>> >
>> Christopher Morton:
>> cm> I've already addressed this.  We'd kill them... or at least make life difficult
>> cm> for them while trying.
>> 
>> That's IRRELEVANT.  THE ABILITY TO KILL AN OPPRESSOR HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH 
>> WHETHER OR NOT ANIMALS HAVE RIGHTS.   The point is that under your definitions,
>> the ETs have rights and we don't because we can't communicate any rights to 
>> them using whatever communication methods they use.  Unless you define rights 
>> in terms of something better than "ability to formulate rights [in a way that's
>> understandable to the dominant group]", then our ability to formulate rights to 
>> ourselves counts for nothing in this example.
>
>It's not irrelevant at all.  We have the ability to formulate our rights,     
>assert them, and if necessary, kill to protect them.  The best you'll ever get
>out of a non-human animal is the killing part.

This does not contradict my above statement.  THE ABILITY TO KILL AN OPPRESSOR
HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT ANIMALS HAVE RIGHTS.

>> > Christopher Morton:
>> cm>Since humans can discuss and formulate their rights, they can also discuss and
>> cm>agree upon what the innate rights of humans AS humans should be.  .....
>>  
>> Robert Black:
>> rb> Some humans can't discuss and formulate their rights.  Are they still
>> rb> included?  Do we assume that other humans decided to include them?  Then
>> rb> what is to stop some humans from including nonhumans within the rights
>> rb> system?  What's to stop these humans from discussing and agreeing on what the 
>> rb> "innate" rights of other sentient creatures are?
>> 
>> Christopher Morton:
>> cm> If you have to base your case on the equation of the DEFECTIVE human and the
>> cm> normal animal, you don't have a case.  A retarded human is still a human.  You
>> cm> can't base your whole argument on a gross exception and retain any credibility.
>> 
>> The case isn't based just on that, but it does show that individuals can have
>> rights without meeting your criteria.  Other cases show that individuals can
>> meet your criteria but not have rights.
>
>The case at least in THAT example is based SOLELY on that.  You have to search
>for the defective example in order to make your case apply to a normal one.
>It doesn't work.  It can't work.

"That example" of the retarded person was originally yours.  I haven't limited
my claims so restrictively.

>> You started out with the interesting idea of innate rights, but then 
>> immediately corrupted that concept by introducing the contractarianism.  A
>> better approach is to derive the theory of rights from innate qualities.
>> That leads more smoothly into the discussion of interests and motivation, 
>> which you introduce later.
>
>Remember, the rights of HUMANS are a HUMAN construct.  You can't measure rights
>on a scale, you can't use a caliper on them.  To borrow a Marxist term, they
>are a product of the dialectic.  I'm sure you don't like that, but it doesn't
>make it untrue.

If rights are a human construct determined by a dialectical process, then
there is no reason why humans need to leave out all nonhumans.

>> > Christopher Morton:
>> cm>     .....Do you suggest that other KNOWN forms of life can?
>>  
>> Robert Black:
>> rb> Does this mean that if some currently unknown form of life, who communicates
>> rb> nonverbally in a way we can't, takes over and excludes us, that then we
>> rb> should suddenly lose all our rights merely because we can't formulate our
>> rb> rights in their terms using their methods?  Above you said that rights can`t
>> rb> easily be taken away, but it sounds to me like they could be.
>> 
>> Christopher Morton:
>> cm> See the above.  We'd doubtless do our damnedest to to get their attention, most
>> cm> likely by killing as many of them as we could.
>> 
>> Again that's IRRELEVANT.  What's relevant (in your terms) is that humans can 
>> formulate their rights to other humans in this example, but not to the other 
>> life forms.  Do humans have rights or not?  If you ask the humans in the
>> example, they would say yes, because their ability to state their rights
>> satisfies your criterion.  If you ask the other life forms, they would say no,
>> because in their view humans can't state their rights.
>
>It's not irrelevant at all.  Not only do the humans have rights, they can
>write them on the fuselage of the missile that they fire at you in defense of
>them.

So what?  We're talking about RIGHTS here, not military power.


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