From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Sun May 12 2002 - 09:26:54 MDT
Samantha wrote
> I think rights grow out of the nature and needs of
> human beings and aren't an artificial construct.
Then in some sense, doesn't this place the burden on
you of showing that they actually exist? This smacks
to me of a rather empirical claim. If you and another
natural rights advocate disagree, then you can expect
a resolution to the dispute as more about the human
genome is discovered?
One bit of contrary evidence to that arises, in all
places, from the study of deafness. When humans are
raised without culture, they're hardly human at all.
Therefore, culture is an essential part of being human,
yet we know from history that what seem like natural
rights to some cultures appear very alien and almost
inhuman to others. I would think that this too goes
against your claim.
> I spent some time saying then what I thought natural rights are
> and that they truly are natural - based on the nature of the
> entities involved.
Sorry, I don't remember. Maybe it wasn't with me.
>> Sorry, to get too academic on you. I digressed to make it
>> abundantly clear that I also know what it means for someone
>> to approve of something. So, again, these are the only two
>> things I understand:
>>
>> (a) legal rights
>> (b) what someone approves of, or believes to be good
>> for society
>
> I am not sure if you don't actually understand more except the
> more hasn't made it past your particular set of rational cesnsors.
In the sense that you mean, I "understand" Santa Claus, God, and
perhaps even "natural rights", although that's a lot murkier than
God and Santa Claus, but, yes, a lot fails to get by my rational
cesnsors.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:00 MST