Replies

Beavus, since you have so many questions, perhaps you should read Dr. Spitzer's book.
The concept of rights is an ancient one, which (like a fresh reading of the Declaration of Independence) may seem subversive to the current "powers that be" who would rather reduce the definition of "rights" to one of bread and circuses.

In one of my posts to realpatriot71, I explained (using my paraphrase of Dr. Spitzers' analogy and words to summarize a very complex history of thought) that the unique quality of humans - at least as far as we know - is that our species is the only one which yearns for and seems to "know' that there is an Ideal Love, Beauty, Truth, Justice, Knowledge. As I said, even a 4 year old seems to "know" the concept of "That's not fair!" even if he's never experienced justice. And no other species has members who have these sorts of discussions.

I agree that and understanding of the definition of rights is very important. Without the protection of rights, a community is at the mercy of the powerful, however power is expressed in that community.
Rights can be broken into 2 categories, inalienable or intrinsic (those necessary to continue being a human being, such as life, and liberty and which can only be infringed, not given away or taken away) and extrinsic rights that may be more of an agreement of the community and may be changed, or bargained with, because these "rights" do not effect whether or not the human lives and lives free.

Any being that is human - whose genetic heritage (parent) is human, must be assumed to be a human. History is full of the injustice that results when some humans are deemed not "human." The last 30 years are particularly illustrative of this fact. "Pro-choice" advocates speak of "abortion rights" and "right to die" and "quality of life" and the "intent" of the parents. For thirty years, the legal definition of human is "mother chooses to keep him alive." And now, the discussion and acts have moved into the realm of "greater good" or 'for the good of the people in power" and legislatures such as New Jersey are writing laws that will allow the *intentional* creation of human beings for the *intention* of killing the organism and harvesting his or her parts.

Because of the razzle-dazzle of media and power-seekers, any discussion - even in a forum such as this- we have to go back to the ABC's of ethics before we can get to the question at hand.

Great points. I agree that we have to go back to the ABC's, although putting it that way makes it sound easy. When I say that people who use the word "rights" don't know what they are talking about, I don't mean to be insulting. The answer may be simple, but simple answers are not always easily discovered.

our species is the only one which yearns for and seems to "know' that there is an Ideal Love, Beauty, Truth, Justice, Knowledge

This is the most fascinating point. It seems like it could be simplified though. If I understand correctly, it means that rights only apply to things that can idealize values--i.e. that can abstract out the essential concepts of those things they value.

This is actually more than one quality. A thing must be able to conceptualize, and hold values.

Although it seems to describe essentually unique human qualities, when it comes to rights, it still seems lacking. For example, imagine you (who can conceptualize and hold values) are living alone on an uncharted desert island. What are your rights? The question seems incongruous in such a situation.