Classics and the Western Canon discussion
Interim Readings
>
Declaration of the Rights of Man
Nemo wrote: "Pardon me for thinking out loud here. :) I suppose I'm thinking more or less of a merit-based system, which is not as extravagant or difficult as you might think, for in reality the system is already in place in many areas of our civil life..."
Can you give an example of where in our civil life this merit-based system has been implemented?
The example you cited above (#125) is inapplicable. An employer has the right to deny you employment in his/her company if you do not meet the required qualifications. This is not tantamount to denying you freedom or liberty.
You have the right to apply for a position in his company. He has the right to deny you a position because you are not qualified. However, he does not have the right to restrict your freedom or liberty from doing things that are lawful.
Tamara wrote: "...You have the right to apply for a position in his company. He has the right to deny you a position because you are not qualified. However, he does not have the right to restrict your freedom or liberty from doing things that are lawful. ...""Right" is another concept that is not clearly defined. I freely admit that I don't know what people actually mean by "right". I know by reflection that I have free choice of will, but "right" is not "self-evident" to my sense, nor my reason.
I can re-phrase your paragraph above in this way: You have the free choice of will to apply for a job. The employer has the free choice of will to deny you. He has no power to limit your free choice of will, but he has the power by law to deny your access to the job opportunity. By law, you're not entitled to that job. In other words, you don't have the right to that job.
Nemo wrote: "I can re-phrase your paragraph above in this way: You have the free choice of will to apply for a job. The employer has the free choice of will to deny you. He has no power to limit your free choice of will..."Ok. I think I can follow your logic there.
But I'm still wondering where in our civil life the merit-based system you mentioned in #128 is implemented. Can you give an example?
Tamara wrote: "Nemo wrote: "I can re-phrase your paragraph above in this way: You have the free choice of will to apply for a job. The employer has the free choice of will to deny you. He has no power to limit yo..."It's hard to have a productive discussion when we don't even have a consensus on the meaning of "right", "equality", etc.
I was trying to explain in msg130 why I think employment is an applicable example of a merit-based system, viz. the right to a job is dependent on the quality of the applicant.
Nemo wrote: "Children should not have the same "liberty" as adults. The insane should not have "liberty" to access weapons of mass destruction, etc."That doesn't mean they aren't born with the right to liberty; it just means that they can lose it for temporary periods. Though children do have most liberties, don't they? Just not certain rights (such as the right to drive). But they have, or should have, the liberties of free speech, pursuit of happiness, etc.
Nemo wrote: "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. ."Race and gender are immutable characteristics (if we don't get into gender reassignment, which I'm not going to for the sake of this discussion), whereas education, experience, etc. are acquired characteristics which are not innate. Very different things.
Nemo wrote: "It's hard to have a productive discussion when we don't even have a consensus on the meaning of "right", "equality", etc.."Hard, but not impossible for people who really want to discuss and not simply dispute. The alternative is not to discuss at all, since we will never come to a complete consensus on these definitions. The best we can do is say "for the sake of this discussion we will define the terms as," and even that's usually not very satisfactory.
Everyman wrote: ".....whereas education, experience, etc. are acquired characteristics which are not innate. Very different things. "They are not innate qualities in the sense of existing at birth, but innate in the sense that they are part of who we are, and we acquire these qualities because of the qualities/potentials that we possess from birth.
Everyman wrote: "Nemo wrote: "It's hard to have a productive discussion when we don't even have a consensus on the meaning of "right", "equality", etc.."Hard, but not impossible for people who really want to disc..."
I agree heartily with what you said earlier in this thread about having serious dialogue and seeking common ground. As the Olympian said, "The important thing in the Olympic Games is not to win, but to take part; the important thing in Life is not triumph, but the struggle; the essential thing is not to have conquered but to have fought well".
Nemo wrote: "It's hard to have a productive discussion when we don't even have a consensus on the meaning of "right", "equality", etc."There is no need to be so philosophically abstruse here. A "right" is simply a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way. Equal should be a pretty simple concept as well. when you understand what equal means you can understand a basic axiom like:
1. Things which are equal to the same thing are equal to each other.Now before anyone feigns it clever to make the argument more difficult than it is by claiming that people are not numbers and that Joe is not equal to Sally in the same way that 1 is equal to 1 we need to remember to think nominally. No two people are mathematically identical but they are nominally identical. Therefore while person A and person B may exhibit different properties they are are both nominally equal to human beings and therefore nominally equal to each other. The rights that this nominal equality entails are declared, by human convention, in the documents.
Nemo wrote: "[education, experience, etc.] we acquire these qualities because of the qualities/potentials that we possess from birth.."I don't see that. My experience of bicycling through Britain when I was 17 were not a product of the qualities/potentials I possessed at birth. Many people had basically the same qualities/potentials I had, but didn't have that experience.
Unless you believe that everything we do is fated, that there is no free will but that our lives are destined to go in only one direction from the moment of our birth. Which is a logically defensible position, I agree, though I don't agree with it.
But if we do have free will, then the education/experiences we have are a product of that free will, not of our birth characteristics.
David wrote: "Therefore while person A and person B may exhibit different properties they are are both nominally equal to human beings and therefore nominally equal to each other. "I think you need to add, if it isn't implicit, that equality and identicality are not the same things. Things can be equal that are not identical. At least, maybe numbers can't, but humans can.
Everyman wrote: "My experience of bicycling through Britain when I was 17 were not a product of the qualities/potentials I possessed at birth. Many people had basically the same qualities/potentials I had, but didn't have that experience. ."People can if they choose to. But, plants cannot, because they are incapable of motion. and fishes cannot either, because they are not bipedal, and cannot ride the bicycle. Your potentials/qualities at birth enable you to do many things, even if you never choose to do them.
Nemo wrote: "Your potentials/qualities at birth enable you to do many things, even if you never choose to do them. ."True. But different choices will lead to different education and experiences, which makes them relevant to employment, the issue this discussion arose from, whereas my age, gender, and race are things I can't make different choices about, which is why it is wrong to use them as employment criteria.
Everyman wrote: "Nemo wrote: "Your potentials/qualities at birth enable you to do many things, even if you never choose to do them. ."True. But different choices will lead to different education and experiences, ..."
I'm not sure I follow you.
Some people are born with an aptitude for math, others are not. They didn't choose to be born that way, but that doesn't mean that the latter type should have the same right to a job that requires proficiency in math, if he can't demonstrate the same level of proficiency as the former.
This is related to Tamara's question earlier. I don't think people with a high IQ should automatically have more rights and obligations than others. Intelligence is just one of many amazing qualities that humans possess. I've been told that I have above average intelligence, but below average emotional intelligence. What it means to me is that I'm more suited to certain type of jobs and responsibilities, and less suited to others. It's unreasonable for me to make equal claims on both.
Nemo wrote: "Some people are born with an aptitude for math, others are not. They didn't choose to be born that way, but that doesn't mean that the latter type should have the same right to a job that requires proficiency in math, if he can't demonstrate the same level of proficiency as the former."I agree, but there's the big if.
If person A is born with an aptitude for math but doesn't like it and goes off an studies something useless like philosophy, and person B is born without an aptitude for math but commits herself to learn it, works hard, and becomes proficient, she should get the job over A despite the difference in natural aptitude.
And I've known people with high intelligence who are intellectual dilettantes who flit from subject to subject never mastering anything and spending more time daydreaming than working. Someone else with lower intelligence (of course, as measured by vastly imperfect human created tools which measure only what the test designers want them to measure) who are more focused and committed to their work often make much better employees. Again, it's what you do with your aptitude that counts more than the aptitude itself.
Everyman wrote: "..Again, it's what you do with your aptitude that counts more than the aptitude itself..."I have no major objection to that. As long as one can demonstrate his or her qualifications, it doesn't matter whether it is 99% hard work or 99% talent. Neither talent, nor the lack of talent, should be discriminated against.
David wrote: "..Therefore while person A and person B may exhibit different properties they are are both nominally equal to human beings and therefore nominally equal to each other. .."This kind of logic reminds me of a TV story. A con artist swindled some rich people into investing their fortune in a sophisticated computer, the next big thing, but, when the product was finally delivered, it turned out to be an abacus. (Though the abacus and the modern computer exhibit different properties, they are both nominally equal to "computer", and therefore they are equal to each other.)
There is definitely a need to be philosophically precise here.
Nemo wrote: "There is definitely a need to be philosophically precise here."There seems to be some insistence to conflate the issue of rights declared by virtue of being born into this world with the addition of the limits and opportunities from an individual's virtue, talents, and happenstance that go beyond the scope of basic human rights.
As far as computational devices go, while they are not human beings and do not have rights, there is still enough in common that we can find some universal rules that apply to both. It is this kind of universality we are after. For example, while they may be composed of different materials, neither a computer nor an abacus should be exposed long to flame or other similar damaging abuses; while both operate differently, neither should be used while driving, and while one is more complex than the other, both should come with a manual or some training for people who are expected to use them for the first time.
It is contrary to the intention of declaring basic human rights to apply them with partiality to anything more precise than all human beings. It breaks the definition of human rights in a similar manner to saying, "All bachelors are unmarried but this one is married." Insistence that basic human rights are dependent on specific human properties prepares the ground for making an unjust or prejudicial distinction in the treatment of different categories of people. It also dehumanizes the affected persons, which of course is the delusional conviction all too often held with bigoted opinion.
David wrote: "Insistence that basic human rights are dependent on specific human properties prepares the ground for making an unjust or prejudicial distinction in the treatment of different categories of people. It also dehumanizes the affected persons, which of course is the delusional conviction all too often held with bigoted opinion...."Very well put, David. Thank you.
David wrote: "Nemo wrote: "There is definitely a need to be philosophically precise here."There seems to be some insistence to conflate the issue of rights declared by virtue of being born into this world with..."
As i see it, there are two philosophical issues here: First, the distinction between species vs. individual (or genus vs. species). Second, the distinction between "being" and "right", which is related to the "is-ought" problem famously pointed out by Hume.
To put it in somewhat more practical terms, it means the following:
First, just because one is a human being, doesn't mean that he has the right to anything, not even the right to be a human being as opposed to an ameoba.
Second, even if we grant that you can derive "right" from "being", it follows that individuals have different rights from other individuals, simply by virtue of being different, even though they might share the rights common to humanity.
I'm more interested in discussing the rights of the individuals, because we are particular individuals, not abstract universals.
Nemo wrote: "I'm more interested in discussing the rights of the individuals, because we are particular individuals, not abstract universals."Universal here is not meant in the abstract sense of the Socratic Universal, or Form, but is meant in the concrete sense as applying to the set of all human beings.
There seems to be some contradictory assertions here. On one hand it is being suggested that we discuss the particular rights that particular individuals should have but on the other hand it is claimed that nobody is entitled to any rights.
Tell us then what are some rights that some particular individuals have or should have over other particular individuals by virtue of just being born into this world despite the claim that just because one is a human being [or a particular individual], doesn't mean that he has the right to anything, not even the right to be a human being as opposed to an amoeba.
David wrote: "Tell us then ..."Who are "us"?
As I realized earlier, it's hard to have a fruitful discussion when there is no consensus on the basic meaning of "right" and "equality". Frankly, I'm not sure that it is worth the effort.
(Let's do a show of hands. All for continuing the discussion?)
Nemo wrote: "Who are "us"?"The same us you are requesting a show of hands from, of course. I may be large and contain multitudes but how many multiple personalities do you think I have? :)
Nemo wrote: "First, just because one is a human being, doesn't mean that he has the right to anything, not even the right to be a human being as opposed to an ameoba.."That, of course, is an assumption, not a conclusion.
It's important to recognize that rights are created by us. In one sense you're right, in that a human being who, if it were possible, was born in the middle of the forest with no other human beings within 100 miles would have no rights. But humans are born into a society, not into a void, and that society can, and most societies do, endow them with rights at the moment of their birth (many societies endow them with rights at the moment of their conception; in some societies, I know in the past and maybe still today, for example, a child is considered one year old at the time of their birth.)
This understanding of the creation of rights by society is perhaps best exemplified by the vote of New Zealand's parliament granting a river the rights of a human being.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-wa...
And while that may be the extreme, various laws in this country grant to many animals certain inalienable rights, such as the right to be free from cruelty, and courts are beginning in divorces to treat family pets not as property, which is the past legal relationship, but to give them the right to have their welfare made paramount, just as the rights of the children are paramount to those of the parents.
Everyman wrote: ".. society can, and most societies do, endow them with rights ..."If a single human being doesn't have "rights", and therefore has no "right" to bestow --for you can't give what you don't have, how can a group of human beings have any "rights" to bestow? Zero multiplied many times is still zero.
Even if we grant that society can bestow "rights", just as it bestows titles and medals on people, those "rights" are definitely not inalienable, for they can be stripped away any time, in the same way titles and medals can be stripped away, sort of like the ending scene in Lethal Weapon 2, "Diplomatic Immunity!" He shoots the diplomat, "Just been revoked!"
We are inherently social creatures which is one of the reasons we have been able to accomplish so much as a species. To become social and begin living in groups we had to implicitly accept that the other members or our family and tribe have a right to exist and along with this a right to some type of property. Certainly this didn't really extend to women and children or humans outside our tribe but we had to start somewhere.Once our tribe expanded to individuals that we may not know personally and thus not "feel" their implicit right to life we had to codify these rights in laws. We accept this right to life but in the past it has been possible by kings, dictators, etc to easily and without reason take away that right.
To live in a society we have to accept a human's right to life as axiomatic or that type of society cannot exist for too long. See for example communist Russia or the socialist Venezuela right now.
From this right to life it follows logically the right to seek out that which allows that life to continue. This includes food and the ability to produce that food which can be used to conclude that an individual has the right to property.
The protection of these rights is why we pass laws and accept governance. If an individual violates the rights of another there needs to be a mediator to determine the recourse. By accepting governance we bestow certain rights on those governing to remove or inhibit the rights of some to protect the majority.
This is just my opinion on our rights and how they can be arrived at logically.
Everyman wrote: "...and courts are beginning in divorces to treat family pets not as property, which is the past legal relationship, but to give them the right to have their welfare made paramount"A good friend of mine got the desert banded gecko in her divorce. The judge said that was a first for her. But visitation rights were granted for the dogs.
John wrote: "We are inherently social creatures which is one of the reasons we have been able to accomplish so much as a species. To become social and begin living in groups we had to implicitly accept that the..."John, I don't know if you read Locke's Second Treatise of Government. but you just summarized his views very nicely.
His whole argument is built on the idea of "right to life" of an individual in a "state of nature", i.e., apart from society, and he argues that any government that doesn't protect the natural right of the individual has no reason for its existence. In other words, the society has no more right to exist than an individual does. But, the question is, does the individual have the right to exist?
The thing that stuck me the most is that a human's right to life necessitates the death of other living beings. In other words, the assertion of the right of one negates the right of another. I suspect Locke realized this difficulty and could only justify it by calling those beings, whose right to life are denied, "inferior creatures".
I find it ironic that the idea of natural right introduces inequality at its inception, if not implies it by definition.
Nemo wrote: "If a single human being doesn't have "rights", and therefore has no "right" to bestow --for you can't give what you don't have, how can a group of human beings have any "rights" to bestow? ."Society bestows rights all the time. Children in America have a right to education, even though at one time nobody had any education to bestow. American women have the right to an abortion, a right, by the way, granted by men (who completely lack the ability to use or own the right) since men were the majority gender in the ruling creating that right.
There are natural rights, which should be respected by all persons in all others, and by all governments. Such are the rights to life and liberty, which people have by there very nature as human persons. In contrast are legal rights, which are granted by the state. Examples are the right to free education or free health care.
Everyman wrote: "..Society bestows rights all the time...."The examples you gave suggest to me that society *recognizes*, rather than creates or bestows, right.
As I see it, the rights to housing, food, medical care, education are all derived from the recognition that human beings are physical and rational beings, whose subsistence requires these things, and it is only right and just that all human beings be given access to them.
I've never thought of "right" as "entitlement", as if nature or society owes us anything. I think of "right" in the context of justice, that it is just and fair to treat people, animals and even things in nature in certain ways, to give each his due. The New Zealand river case is very interesting and suggestive. It immediately reminded me of Xerxes' whipping of Hellespont. Rights and obligations always go together. :)
The "right" to abortion is perhaps derived from the recognition that a human being has the free choice of will to do with his body as he pleases. Men in society recognize that women have the same free choice as they. (I should add, however, that choice and right are different things. Just because we can choose to do something doesn't mean it is right.)
Roger wrote: "There are natural rights, which should be respected by all persons in all others, and by all governments. Such are the rights to life and liberty, "You can make that a fundamental assumption to build a philosophy on. But can you prove that it's true? Or logically argue for it to be true?
And if I have a natural right to life, how come tigers, vipers, and many viruses won't respect it? If it's a natural right, shouldn't nature respect it?
Nemo wrote: "The examples you gave suggest to me that society *recognizes*, rather than creates or bestows, right.."An interesting distinction. I think it may be a distinction without a difference, but I need to think about that.
Nemo wrote: "As I see it, the rights to housing, food, medical care, education are all derived from the recognition that human beings are physical and rational beings, whose subsistence requires these things, and it is only right and just that all human beings be given access to them.."'Of these rights are so obvious, how come almost no society up to the last century or two has recognized them as such? What pre-Enlightenment society recognized a basic right to get fed even if you had the ability to work for your food but chose not to? Or to housing?
Everyman wrote: "Nemo wrote: "As I see it, the rights to housing, food, medical care, education are all derived from the recognition that human beings are physical and rational beings, whose subsistence requires th..."Huh? I never claimed that "rights" are "obvious". If you're addressing those questions to me, and expect an answer, please be more specific.
Nemo wrote: "Everyman wrote: "Nemo wrote: "As I see it, the rights to housing, food, medical care, education are all derived from the recognition that human beings are physical and rational beings, whose subsis..."Well, if the rights aren't obvious, then what are they?
You said "As I see it, the rights to housing, food, medical care, education are all derived from the recognition that human beings are physical and rational beings, whose subsistence requires these things, and it is only right and just that all human beings be given access to them."
When you said it was "only right and just" I assumed that you meant to say that these rights are somehow obvious, that they're something we all automatically accept.
But if they're not obvious, than how do you get to claiming that they're "only right and just"?
Everyman wrote: "Nemo wrote: "Everyman wrote: "Nemo wrote: "As I see it, the rights to housing, food, medical care, education are all derived from the recognition that human beings are physical and rational beings,..."Which pre-Enlightenment society denied its people access to food, shelter, and medical care when required?
Patrice wrote: "how do you jive the right to property and the right of others to your property? seems to me there is a contradiction there."If you're asking me, I never said there is "right" to property.
Patrice wrote: "really? in a way that makes us all slaves doesn't it? who has a right to your wages?""We brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out." I don't see how that makes us all slaves.
Everyman wrote: "Roger wrote: "There are natural rights, which should be respected by all persons in all others, and by all governments. Such are the rights to life and liberty, "You can make that a fundamental a..."
I'm not sure I can prove the existence of natural rights, though I suspect denial of them will lead to conclusions that none of us would be willing to accept.
A natural right is different form a law of natural law. All nature will respect a law of natural. Rational beings behaving correctly according to their reason will respect a natural right.
Patrice wrote: "nemo, we all need to work in order to live. if we have no right to what we earn, if the government takes it from us, we are slaves to the government. when we die, if we have property rights, we can..."Even with property right, government can still take it away from you by law, e.g, taxes.
I don't see how property right prevents slavery, as you seem to suggest. Come to think of it, it is quite the contrary: chattel slavery would not exist without property right.
As long as people are given access to/usage of things necessary for their subsistence, they don't need ownership of properties.
Nemo wrote: "Which pre-Enlightenment society denied its people access to food, shelter, and medical care when required? "They didn't actively deny them, perhaps, but they didn't see them as rights. If you didn't work, you either didn't eat or relied on private charity. There was no public charity that I'm aware of in ancient Babylonia, Egypt, India, Greece, etc. etc. Families may well have taken care of each other, but governments, no.
Everyman wrote: "Nemo wrote: "Which pre-Enlightenment society denied its people access to food, shelter, and medical care when required? "They didn't actively deny them, perhaps, but they didn't see them as right..."
Giving people access to food and shelter is not the same thing as giving them access to the fruits of other people's labor. If someone doesn't work when he is able to, he doesn't have the right to eat. That's why it is called charity, because it's not based on right.
Is there a natural right to own property? This is a little less of an automatic "Yes" than life and liberty. Locke thought there was, arguing that when you make anything you mix something of yourself with the raw materials and so it becomes rightfully yours. That doesn't account for how one could come to own raw materials, though, or unimproved real estate.
Nemo wrote: "John wrote: "We are inherently social creatures which is one of the reasons we have been able to accomplish so much as a species. To become social and begin living in groups we had to implicitly ac..."I have not yet read Locke's work but I will have to put in on my list.
I do not think that rights are in any way natural or inalienable outside of established society. Nor do I think that there is a dilemma in regards to the death of other creatures to continue our survival. To make this point though I need to bring in the idea of morality. I would define morality, divorced from any religious meaning, as any action that does not violate the rights of another individual. On the other side, any action which does violate rights would be considered immoral.
However, this question of morality, of right versus wrong, can only exist where there exists a choice between actions and one of these choices would be considered "moral" i.e., does not violate the rights of another. If presented with a "choice" between actions which would be considered immoral I would argue that the very idea of right verses wrong, immoral versus moral must be discarded. Let me illustrate with an example.
Suppose that there exists a planet on which two people live. Each person consumes resources at the rate of 1 unit per day. However, the planet can only renew its resources at the rate of 1.5 units per day and no method exists to make this better. Only three outcomes exist for this scenario. First, both can consume until they die, second, person one kills person two, or third, person two kills person one. Even though rights are being violated I do not see in this scenario that we could pass a moral or immoral judgment.
Our survival as a species requires that we take the life of other organisms. While we may decide to give some form of rights to lower organisms, the need for survival trumps that without the label of those actions being right or wrong, they just are. I guess what I am trying to say is that acts of survival are morally neutral.
We could certainly argue about the manner of death. We do have a choice in how we take the life of another and unnecessary cruelty is wrong.
Roger wrote: "Is there a natural right to own property? This is a little less of an automatic "Yes" than life and liberty. Locke thought there was, arguing that when you make anything you mix something of yourse..."I wouldn't say that there is a "natural" right to anything but I think that the right to property is easy to arrive at from the right to our own life.
Children do not understand ownership, children usually are selfish, they have not learned the concept of others or altruism.
In the ancient world, stealing was not considered wrong per se, and piracy was a perfectly respectable profession, if you could get away with it. Even murder was OK if it was confined to outsiders.
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)
Ok. I guess i didn't understand what you had said earlier...."
Pardon me for thinking out loud here. :)
I suppose I'm thinking more or less of a merit-based system, which is not as extravagant or difficult as you might think, for in reality the system is already in place in many areas of our civil life.