Classics and the Western Canon discussion
Interim Readings
>
Declaration of the Rights of Man
Nemo wrote: "I've never quite understood the equality of all men. Equal in what exactly?"Equal in their humanity. This is, if I understand it correctly, primarily of Christian origin.
In Christian anthropology the answer to who the human being is is answered quite definitely: man is created in the image of God. Or, as John Paul II put it, "both man and woman are human beings to an equal degree, both created in God's image...Man is a person, and woman equally so, since both were created in the image and likeness of a personal God." (Mulieris Dignitatem: Apostolic Letter Of The Supreme Pontiff John Paul II On The Dignity & Vocation Of Women On The Occasion Of The Marian Year) I am sure there are other texts that go into this Christian understanding of the human person in much more detail. The entire concept of 'Catholic Social Teaching' is based on this definition of the human being.
What I find lacking with secular declarations such as the one we're discussing, is that they do not define 'who' the human being is. What is personhood? Without clearly defining this relativism will always creep in and subjugate entire populations at the whims of whoever is in power.
Nemo wrote: "I've never quite understood the equality of all men. Equal in what exactly?What exactly is objectionable about slavery?
If slavery is the buying and selling of people as property, isn't the mode..."
Athletes can decline any position offered them at any time without breaking any law (though they may owe civil penalties for breach of contract). That's what makes them free and not slaves.
David wrote: "Patrice wrote: "granted one can find anything in the Bible."That, and contributions from the enlightenment were the only points I wished to make. There is no need to defend any translations of th..."
John Adams was no deist--he believed in miracles, providence, and regular church attendance. He started life a Congregationalist, and probably slid into Unitarianism. He did not write the Treaty of Tripoli, though he was president when it was submitted to the Senate (not when it was negotiated, however). Indeed, the original text was in Arabic, and it was written by American and Tripolitan negotiators. The famous sentence in it stating that the US Government is not founded on the Christian religion served to reassure the Tripolitans that the US would not take a crusading attitude towards Islamic powers, as European countries sometimes did. It referred only to the US Government, which was held to be a new invention. It did not refer to state governments, some of which supported established churches at the time, nor to American society in general.
Roger wrote: "Nemo wrote: "I've never quite understood the equality of all men. Equal in what exactly?What exactly is objectionable about slavery?
If slavery is the buying and selling of people as property, i..."
Slavery was enforced by law back then, but not any more. I guess that's the difference between selling atheletes now and selling slaves then? It doesn't explain why slavery is wrong.
Kerstin wrote: "Nemo wrote: "I've never quite understood the equality of all men. Equal in what exactly?"Equal in their humanity. This is, if I understand it correctly, primarily of Christian origin..."
So to say all human beings are equal is simply saying all human beings are equally human? How is that different from saying all living beings are equally living beings? It doesn't keep humans from killing and enslaving other creatures.
A perspective as stated by Jan Patocka (Czech philosopher) ( On the duty to resist injustice): "No society , no matter how technologically advanced, can function without a moral basis, a conviction, which is not a matter of opportunity, circumstances or anticipated benefits. However, morality is not here for the society to function, but simply because it makes a human being human."
Yes, to me it is respect for one another…providing some dignity to life….and as discussed above, one also has to be mindful not to cause undue harm to others if possible. Alas, there will be always disagreements but to handle things with some respect seems an underlying key. Alas, in every word, there is a need to further define…it seems.
The Declaration says that the equality of mankind is self-evident. I suppose that means that one knows it's true even though one can't prove it, and that it's pointless to argue with anyone who disagrees.
Nemo wrote: "I've never quite understood the equality of all men. Equal in what exactly?that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.Nemo Wrote: "What exactly is objectionable about slavery?
If we were the legal property of another person and used for compelled labor or commercial sex acts through the use of force, fraud, or coercion, I am sure we could think of some objections. Those appearing unsure on the issue might also shed further light on the question by explaining why or why not they would like to own slaves for themselves.
Nemo Wrote: If slavery is the buying and selling of people as property, isn't the modern practice of buying and selling players among sports franchises a form of slavery?"
No. those are called jobs. Attempts to further the case that it is a form of slavery beyond an errant and misleading use of the phrase "buying and selling players" would quickly expose its deficiencies
Patrice wrote: "of course the 64,000 dollar question (i remember that show too) is what is justice? what is morality? everyone has their own definition."Well, everyone starts with their own definition. The key to societies that work is that the definitions of a large majority of the people merge. This is what happened from the early years of this country until the last thirty years or so. Oh, sure, there were outliers and times of extreme difference, but gradually even the most extreme differences (slavery is bad, slavery is necessary; my religion is totally right and your religion is totally wrong) began to merge into a generally agreed definition of justice and morality where slavery is bad and where tolerance of opposing religious beliefs is, if not good, at least appropriate.
But I feel that sense of a merged sense of justice and morality breaking down, and what's worse I don't feel any sense that people want their definitions to merge. They don't seem to want a unified society, they don't want to seek a common ground they can build on together, each side is convinced that they are right and the others are wrong, and they don't want to have a serious dialogue seeking common ground.
We have forgotten Aristotle's wisdom about moderation, and if we aren't careful we will learn the truth of "united we stand, divided we fall."
Roger wrote: "The Declaration says that the equality of mankind is self-evident. I suppose that means that one knows it's true even though one can't prove it, and that it's pointless to argue with anyone who dis..."That's an interesting point. What do you do about people who say that the equality of mankind is NOT self-evident, because if it were self-evident then every society one earth would have been based on that principle, and we know from history that quite the opposite is true; most societies up to the enlightenment very much believed that it was NOT self-evident, but that classes, castes, slavery, were the normative forms of societal organization. People in India for millennia were NOT deemed to be created equal, but some were of higher and some of lower castes. In Egypt the Pharaoh was most certainly not created equal with his subjects. In Medieval Europe Jews were definitely not created equal with Christians. In the society that the French Revolution was revolting against, and in most Renaissance societies, there were the nobility and elite, and there were the common people, and they were not created equal.
So is it really self-evident? And if it is, why was it not self-evident to humans for thousands of years?
Roger wrote: "The Declaration says that the equality of mankind is self-evident. I suppose that means that one knows it's true even though one can't prove it, and that it's pointless to argue with anyone who disagrees..."I suppose it shouldn't be difficult to explain in what aspect are all men equal, if it is self-evident?
Neither Plato nor Aristotle believe the equality of all men. Personally I can't accept anything as self-evident, if I don't know what it actually means. I'm honestly curious how other people see it, and what I'm missing here.
"Self-evidence" is philosophical debatable and Parliament at the time probably thought there was quite a lot of other things about it that were wrong.Of course the claimant has the burden of proof, but If one asserts they are neither true nor self-evident what can we say of their opposites or other ideas in between?
We should also keep in mind that It is a declaration. "We hold these truths. . . " where hold means "regard" or even "legally decide". Is the document claiming these truths are self-evident, or declaring them important enough to regard them as self-evident truths with legal ramifications.
Originally Jefferson wrote, "we hold these truths as sacred and undeniable. It was Franklin that changed it to "we hold these truths to be self-evident"
Nemo wrote: "I suppose it shouldn't be difficult to explain in what aspect are all men equal, if it is self-evident?."I'll take a crack at it. First, it doesn't mean equal in innate ability. Obviously some people are stronger than others, some are more artistic, etc.
But, at the moment when we are born, we have no class, no caste, no limitation of rights. Our first breath is the same whether we are black or white or Asian of Hispanic. We are neither rich nor poor. We are simply a baby. Caste, class, differences of treatment because of race, wealth, all those are imposed on that baby by society, not by his or her innate being. In that way, I think, we are created equal in that if you switch a baby from a rich family with one from poor family, or a high caste to a low caste, the baby is still the same baby, but now society imposes very different futures on the two babies than society was prepared to impose on them the moment they were born.
Inequality, in other words, is in society, not in the newborn baby, and what societal rights or obligations are imposed on the baby are imposed by society, not by nature. Nature does not say "this baby has more rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness than that baby." Society does that. Society, not nature, makes them unequal.
David wrote: "We should also keep in mind that It is a declaration. "We hold these truths. . . " where hold means "regard" or even "legally decide". Is the document claiming these truths are self-evident, or declaring them important enough to regard them as self-evident truths with legal ramifications."That's a very interesting point. Not saying that they are by some innate reality beyond human creation, but saying that we will treat them as such. Interesting point.
Everyman wrote: "Inequality, in other words, is in society, not in the newborn baby, and what societal rights or obligations are imposed on the baby are imposed by society, not by nature. .."Are you saying that there is no such thing as "natural right"? That all rights and obligations are social constructs with no connections to the innate qualities of men?
Or, are you saying that, although there are natural rights, the rights and obligations imposed by society on man are at odds with what nature bestows on him?
Consider, for example, what Jefferson says of the motivation behind the document in a letter to General Henry Lee (May 8, 1825).When forced, therefore, to resort to arms for redress, an appeal to the tribunal of the world was deemed proper for our justification. This was the object of the Declaration of Independence. Not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of, not merely to say things which had never been said before; but to place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent, and to justify ourselves in the independent stand we are compelled to take. Neither aiming at originality of principle or sentiment, nor yet copied from any particular and previous writing, it was intended to be an expression of the American mind, and to give to that expression the proper tone and spirit called for by the occasion. All its authority rests then on the harmonizing sentiments of the day, whether expressed in conversation, in letters, printed essays, or in the elementary books of public right, as Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Sidney, &c.
As one writer eloquently indicates, it was not a “declaration of independence”— for as a declaration of independence, by a people who already considered themselves free of British yoke, it would have been redundant— so much as it was a “declaration by independents”— an exhaustive compilation of reasons for America’s newfound independence. The Declaration of Independence was about dissolving, not building, connections; it performed no action but merely rationalized and publicized, “The Declaration was the publication of the resolution for independence, not the assertion of independence itself.” Focus on the “self-evident truths” was a radical interpretation of the text in order to address and contest nineteenth-century inequalities.
Holowchak, M. Andrew. Thomas Jefferson: Uncovering His Unique Philosophy and Vision (Kindle Locations 2558-2564). Prometheus Books. Kindle Edition.
In its most generic sense, the equality of all people signifies that no person is by nature an authority over any other and that each person is not only capable of but responsible for forging his own path in life. Thus, it can be taken to mean roughly that everyone in America is approximately on “square one”— no one has a privileged starting position over any other person. In short, inequalities that might arise are due to differences in capacities and ambition, or differences due to happenstance. . .
. . .“Equality” can be cashed out in two different senses: equality of opportunity and moral equality. Equality of opportunity recognizes the differences between persons— for example, talents, prior social status, education, wealth— and seeks to level the playing field, as it were, inasmuch as it can be leveled. Moral equality recognizes that each human, considered as a moral equal, is deserving of equal status in personhood and citizenship.
Holowchak, M. Andrew. Thomas Jefferson: Uncovering His Unique Philosophy and Vision (Kindle Locations 2573-2577). Prometheus Books. Kindle Edition.
Nemo wrote: "Are you saying that there is no such thing as "natural right"? That all rights and obligations are social constructs with no connections to the innate qualities of men?Or, are you saying that the rights and obligations imposed by society on man are at odds with what nature bestows on him?..."
I'm wondering why it can't be both. We are born into this world as equals with a "natural" right to equality. Our rights, obligations, restrictions, privileges, etc. etc. all of which are social constructs and all of which vary depending on time and place, should reflect that innate equality i.e. should be connected to the innate equality of all people.
However, the social constructs are currently at odds with the innate equality of all people. We are born as equals, but we have yet to be born into a level playing field. Our rights, obligations, restrictions, privileges, etc. etc. are socially constructed and vary depending on our race, class, gender, ethnicity, time, place, etc.
As we progress toward a just society (if that is even possible), the social constructs of our rights and obligations should more closely reflect our innate equality.
Tamara wrote: "We are born into this world as equals with a "natural" right to equality. ..., the social constructs of our rights and obligations should more closely reflect our innate equality. ."I agree that our rights and obligations should reflect our innate quality, but I'm not convinced that the innate qualities of all men are equal.
Nemo wrote: "Everyman wrote: "Inequality, in other words, is in society, not in the newborn baby, and what societal rights or obligations are imposed on the baby are imposed by society, not by nature. .."Are ..."
How can one have a natural right that isn't a societal construct? The concept of a natural right doesn't exist until humans either create or recognize (if you accept Plato's Forms) that it exists. Do rats have natural rights? Do bacteria? I have no idea.
I do think one thing may be relevant: some social scientists claim that even infants have a sense of fairness. If so, and I'm not convinced by the studies I've seen, maybe there is something to the innate rights concept. But even then, of course, is the problem that fairness itself is a human construct. What is fair is what we say is fair. What is fair differs in different societies. Perhaps there is an absolute standard of fairness (Plato again) which societies grapple for but none fully understands (all societies seeing through a glass darkly). But as a practical matter, does it matter whether societies understand an absolute concept of fairness differently, or whether they develop different standards of fairness independently?
Perhaps the equality of man is self-evident only for those living in a decently free and open-minded society. Clearly if you're raised in a society that celebrates pederasty, cannibalism, or the torture of captives, then it becomes hard to see that these things are wrong, though nowadays everyone agrees on that. Similarly, if you are raised in a society that agrees that those born a slave, a helot, or an outcaste are rightly kept in that state, then you'll have a hard time seeing that that's wrong. But once you open your mind to the possibility that all are morally equal at birth, it's hard to find reason to believe anything else.
Roger wrote: "Perhaps the equality of man is self-evident only for those living in a decently free and open-minded society. Clearly if you're raised in a society that celebrates pederasty, cannibalism, or the to..."If I understand you correctly, you're saying that those who don't believe in the equality of all men were/are influenced by their culture. If so, how then can you be sure that the view you hold now is not influenced by the culture, and therefore just as close-minded as theirs?
Again, I don't know what is meant by "morally equal", and am seeking an explanation, not a proof nor a debate.
Patrice wrote: " if she believed in free will? she said, no, of course not, you must do what the government tells you to do. "Of course she is not pre-determined to do what the government tells her to do, she has a choice to disobey and bear the consequence. The Stoics would say you always have free choice of will, but you have no control of the consequence of your choice.
Patrice wrote: "but she did not see it that way."I understand. It was just my philosophical quibble. ;)
Nemo wrote: "Roger wrote: "Perhaps the equality of man is self-evident only for those living in a decently free and open-minded society. Clearly if you're raised in a society that celebrates pederasty, cannibal..."We all start out as equally helpless and useless babies. Perhaps the burden of proof should be on whoever thinks we should be treated differently.
Roger wrote: "We all start out as equally helpless and useless babies. Perhaps the burden of proof should be on whoever thinks we should be treated differently. ..."Fair enough. I'll present my reason first, so people can shoot it down.
Animals start as helpless and useless babies just like humans. If we treat animals differently from humans because of their innate qualities, I think it is reasonable to treat people differently if their innate qualities are different.
Nemo wrote: "Roger wrote: "We all start out as equally helpless and useless babies. Perhaps the burden of proof should be on whoever thinks we should be treated differently. ..."Fair enough. I'll present my r..."
How do you know the innate qualities of a baby?
For Nemo and Roger,I have posted this before but I believe it both strongly acknowledges Nemo's recognition of individual differences, even in babies, and properly explains how those differences are not what equal under the law is all about.
From John Adams to John Taylor, 19 April 1814,” Founders Online, National Archives, last modified March 30, 2017, http://founders.archives.gov/document...
Individual differences create a natural aristocracy to replace the artificial aristocracy that the founders wanted to avoid.
The equality of all people signifies that no person is by nature an authority over any other and that each person is not only capable of but responsible for forging his own path in life.
Here is more thought in favor of equality being self-evident, or at least derivable through reason:One would start with great confidence that he could convince any sane child that the simpler propositions of Euclid are true; but, nevertheless, he would fail, utterly, with one who should deny the definitions and axioms. The principles of Jefferson are the definitions and axioms of free society.
And yet they are denied and evaded, with no small show of success.
One dashingly calls them "glittering generalities"; another bluntly calls them "self evident lies"; and still others insidiously argue that they apply only to "superior races."
These expressions, differing in form, are identical in object and effect--the supplanting the principles of free government, and restoring those of classification, caste, and legitimacy. They would delight a convocation of crowned heads, plotting against the people. They are the van-guard--the miners, and sappers--of returning despotism.
We must repulse them, or they will subjugate us.
This is a world of compensations; and he who would be no slave, must consent to have no slave. Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves. . .
Abraham Lincoln, Letter to Henry L. Pierce, and others, April 6, 1859
http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/l...
Roger wrote: "..How do you know the innate qualities of a baby? ..."
Good question. How do we know the innate qualities of any individual? To the extent that anything can be known, I suppose we know through personal interaction, observation and reason.
However, that is a separate question from whether their qualities are different, and therefore should be treated differently. I think Aristotle would call it proportional equality.
David wrote: "... The principles of Jefferson are the definitions and axioms of free society... who would be no slave, must consent to have no slave. Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves. . ...."Jefferson didn't define "equality", nor "liberty", nor "right" in the Declaration. Nothing is clearly defined. I don't know how anyone can accept anything as axiom if he doesn't understand its meaning. I certainly can't.
How ironic that Jefferson owns slaves himself to the end of his life. I'm sure he can provide a good rationale for it.
Nemo wrote: "Roger wrote: "..How do you know the innate qualities of a baby? ..."
Good question. How do we know the innate qualities of any individual? To the extent that anything can be known, I suppose we k..."
We know that a baby is different from an animal due to its genetic heritage, so that is sufficient grounds for treating babies differently from animal young--that was a question earlier.
Clearly we should treat even human babies differently, according to their characteristics, giving them care and upbringing suited to their needs, which may differ.
This is an interesting question--why do we feel that all persons are in some sense equal? Is there logic behind it, or just a gut feeling, i.e. self-evidence? Is it just the product of a long cultural history of preaching equality before God, so that even those who doubt the theology accept the consequence? Or maybe it's obvious to everyone not brought up in a society where the false contrary is drummed into everyone from childhood.
Certainly it seems to me that if you are going to treat people differently you need a sufficient reason to do so, and "We need slaves" or "They must have done wrong in a previous life" are not convincing reasons.
Roger wrote: "...We know that a baby is different from an animal due to its genetic heritage, so that is sufficient grounds for treating babies differently from animal young...."That's a slippery position to hold, viz. treating living things differently based on their genetic differences. To be consistent, you'd have to concede that genetic differences (including race and gender) are sufficient grounds for treating people differently.
But, that's not what you're saying, if I understand you correctly, You're saying that genetic differences are observable and concrete facts. If we're to treat people differently, we need to have concrete evidence that their qualities are different. That sounds reasonable to me.
I also find this argument of those who reject the idea of "equality" of all men reasonable: rights and obligations of men should reflect their personal qualities. Because the personal qualities of men are different, their rights and obligations should be correspondingly different.
Note: I'm not arguing from a Judeo-Christian perspective. I'm only looking at this from the perspective of "natural" law, and trying to find out what we can establish by reason alone.
Nemo wrote: "How ironic that Jefferson owns slaves himself to the end of his life. "Yes, that's been noted many times. I wonder whether he saw the irony in it himself, or just assumed that the self-evident truths only applied to Europeans and those descended from them.
I don't see why fundamental rights--life, liberty, and so forth--should depend on one's qualities, as long as one has the basic human qualities needed to make use of them.
Roger wrote: "I don't see why fundamental rights--life, liberty, and so forth--should depend on one's qualities, as long as one has the basic human qualities needed to make use of them."Well, I can think of some obvious examples. Children should not have the same "liberty" as adults. The insane should not have "liberty" to access weapons of mass destruction, etc.
Hardly any "liberty" worth speaking of and fighting for is strictly private and does not affect other people.
Patrice wrote: "we treat animals differently according to culture. we don't eat horse meat in the US, why? china eats dogs. I guess we like horses and dogs more than cows?"I was reading John Locke's Two Treatises of Government, one of the main inspirations for "unalienable rights". He reminded me how our "rights" to life necessitate the death of other creatures. It stands to reason that, if right is a matter of life and death, it should be carefully thought out, sufficiently debated and defined as clearly as possible.
Nemo wrote: "I also find this argument of those who reject the idea of "equality" of all men reasonable: rights and obligations of men should reflect their personal qualities. Because the personal qualities of men are different, their rights and obligations should be correspondingly different..."The issue is we cannot know the personal qualities and/or abilities of any human being until we have given the person time to develop. We know the potential of an animal, but we cannot possibly know the potential of a human being.
Granted, once we are born into this world, we come with different interests, different abilities, etc. etc. which may or may not be allowed to flourish based on our culture and socialization. But we cannot judge the potential qualities and/or abilities of a baby. So we have an obligation to provide the infant with a level playing field, which will allow him/her to develop to full potential.
It is unreasonable to assume society is in a position to judge beforehand which baby is going grow up to be the next Nobel Peace Prize winner and which baby will end up a mass murderer. So we have to treat them as equals and provide them with the same opportunities to life, liberty, etc. unless and/or until their behavior is such that society has to step in and deny them those liberties.
Nemo wrote: "Roger wrote: "I don't see why fundamental rights--life, liberty, and so forth--should depend on one's qualities, as long as one has the basic human qualities needed to make use of them."Well, I c..."
The examples you cite (children and madmen) are of people who lack the basic human qualities (experience, judgment, sanity) required to make full use of liberty. And they should still have the freedoms that are safe for them to have.
Tamara wrote: "Nemo wrote: "I also find this argument of those who reject the idea of "equality" of all men reasonable: rights and obligations of men should reflect their personal qualities. Because the personal ..."But what if we came up with a genetic test that could tell us for sure that this embryo would develop into a great scientist, while that other one would never be more than a ditch digger? I still would find the idea of giving them utterly different upbringing to be repellant, though I'm not sure I could justify it logically. Maybe it's because there is still a lot of common humanity between them, and each has to learn to talk and run and dress himself and have empathy and self-discipline. While at some point they would get different education to match their varying abilities, they should start together because of their common humanity.
Its beginning to smell a lot like eugenics in here. Where are Socrates' guardians when we need them?It seems too much is being made of the natural variance of individual talents and virtues in this discussion at the expense and confusion of the equal rights the population is born into. The ditchdigger and the nobel prize winner both have a right to live as they see fit at a level expressed by their own abilities and happenstance within the limits of the equal rights of others and not as the property of another. They both have the right to vote in elections, they both have the right to run for public office, they can both have the right to own property, etc.
Everyman wrote: "Nemo wrote: "How ironic that Jefferson owns slaves himself to the end of his life. "Yes, that's been noted many times. I wonder whether he saw the irony in it himself, or just assumed that the se..."
One consensus is that he waited until his death to free his slaves, and did not insist on the abolition of slavery during the formation of the government in order to maintain its stability through its infancy until it was strong enough to do so.
Jefferson’s point is that liberty needs vitality, and true vitality is a matter of action in the direction of human intellectual and moral progress. Rebellious action for its own sake is something Jefferson never advocated and thus could not have championed. Moreover, Jefferson often viewed political inaction as preferable to action. Jefferson [had a] foursquare commitment to kairos— things happening at the opportune moment. It was critical for Jefferson for actions to be at the right time, otherwise mistimed actions could result in more ill than good. For illustration, Jefferson refused to act on the issue of slavery in his days of retirement because of his belief that to act then would be to act before the time was ripe for appropriate action. Action on slavery at the wrong time might result in more harm— that is, separation of the union— than good.
Holowchak, M. Andrew. Thomas Jefferson: Uncovering His Unique Philosophy and Vision (Kindle Locations 1970-1977). Prometheus Books. Kindle Edition.
Tamara wrote: "Nemo wrote: "I also find this argument of those who reject the idea of "equality" of all men reasonable: rights and obligations of men should reflect their personal qualities. Because the personal ..."I'm not arguing that we should judge the *potential* qualities/abilities of humans and animals (whether that can be done is an interesting question, but not my concern here). I'm saying that our rights and obligations should correspond to the qualities that we do have and can be determined.
For example, equal employment opportunity, I take this to mean that we should not discriminate against people based on their race and gender etc., for those characteristics are irrelevant to the job and do not affect their performance. However, we do discriminate based on those qualities that are relevant, such as education and experience etc., and those people that do not qualify are denied the opportunity.
Roger wrote: "...The examples you cite (children and madmen) are of people who lack the basic human qualities (experience, judgment, sanity) required to make full use of liberty. And they should still have the freedoms that are safe for them to have..."Children and madmen are examples of the extremes, i.e., lack of experience and judgment. I tend to think that there is a wide spectrum of human qualities, some are more experienced than others, some demonstrate more sound judgment than others. Each should have the freedom, right and obligation that are aporopriate to them.
Nemo wrote: "I'm saying that our rights and obligations should correspond to the qualities that we do have and can be determined..."Ok. I guess i didn't understand what you had said earlier.
If I understand you correctly now, what you are suggesting is that once a person's abilities/aptitude/qualities etc. etc. have been determined, their rights and obligations should correspond accordingly. In other words, a genius would have more rights and obligations than someone of average or below average intelligence.
If I am correct in understanding you, then my question is how would you determine which rights and/or obligations should be allocated to whom? And who makes the determination? And how would you handle all the possible variables? For example, person X maybe a genius according to his IQ test, but he has also demonstrated cruelty to humans and animals. On your scale of rights and/or obligations, which ones should he be allocated?
With all the possible variables in each one of us, I don't know how
you would even begin to implement such a system. It doesn't strike me as feasible--or in the least bit desirable.
Classics and the Western Canon
Books mentioned in this topic
Second Treatise of Government (other topics)Second Treatise of Government (other topics)
Mulieris Dignitatem: Apostolic Letter Of The Supreme Pontiff John Paul II On The Dignity & Vocation Of Women On The Occasion Of The Marian Year (other topics)
Citizens: A Chronicle of the French Revolution (other topics)
*with an innocent look*
Let's pretend that I'm an anthropologist from Mars, could someone please explain to me what is meant by "equality" of all men, and why slavery is wrong?