This is the problem with your incoherent definition of what a human is. You can’t define when it occurs or deosn’t occur in any individual case. Not to mention that there will be no agreement on what a rational mind encompasses.
Stick to the basics. Human life begins at conception and all rights originate at that point. Simple, clear, irrefutable.
Again, proof for that ?
What does “proof” mean?
/sarcasm
I. Ryan,
Do you mind explaining to me what do you mean by mean ?
for the last time, i have not been defining humans. i’ve been defining moral agents. what is your major malfunction?
And I’ve been asking (ok really only once or twice) whether the past or the future defines that moral agency. For example, you are unable to assert your rights while you are sleeping or while you are unconscious. We agree, however, that simply being alseep does not deprive you of your rights. So is it the fact that you were able to assert your rights before you fell asleep the reason you don’t temporarily lose your rights, or the fact that it’s presumed you will be able to when you awake?
I will try to puzzle this with you. in that spirit would you redraft your query so as to mention rationality and/or moral agency ?
note: there are theories out there, im just not too well versed in them (yet?). ‘interest’ theory of moral agency might be what you have in mind, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights/#2.2
No matter how we define rationality, we can observe occasions when an individual is incapable of being rational. Comas and unconsciousness are examples. When in these states, one is incapable of making rational choices, or indeed any choices, regarding the real world. There are many non-nefarious ways one could end up in such a state. One could over-dose. A doctor could induce a coma for treatment. One could fall and sustain minor head trauma. One could be in a boxing match. In each of these situaltions, the unconscious person temporarity ceases to be a moral agent in any meaningful sense - no rational choices can be made, as the person is unaware of any choices.
Personally, I think this person, though temporarily without reason, still possesses rights. If you agree, as i think you do, I wonder is it because this person was a moral agent before temporarily losing his reason, or because it’s assumed the loss is temporary, and he will regain the use of his senses?
the problem is ‘capable’ is doing double duty.
is a car thats driving forwards capable of driving backwards? well surely in the moment with it going forwards, with its gear stick being in such a position and wheels turning one way, it can only go forward, and it cant go backwards. do we say that the car is incapable of going in reverse? there is a sense in which we would and one in which we wouldnt. i think we both need to inquire into this curiousity.
Babies do not have the same brain functions as adults. Simple, clear, irrefutable.
And not all adults have the same brain functions. I’d be willing to bet you that in some of the most primitive societies that are adults who are less capable of logical thought than children that live in western societies. So, the question is, when people go there and butcher them en masse is it fair game?
I don’t know. Do they have the intelligence to grant consent to be killed? A baby obviously does not.
Please define the exact moment something becomes a human and therefore has rights. Also, please describe exactly how you will know in every case when this moment has happened.
If you don’t know now, how would you determine if they had the capacity to grant consent after they were dead?
I understand what you are saying. You are saying that not all humans have rights.That rights are granted by some other event that occurs unrelated to whether or not you are human. In your line of thinking then dogs and cats conceivably can have more rights than babies. If the whole criteria for rights is simply an understanding of right and wrong and the ability to choose one over the other then most dogs qualify and many other animals qualify but newborn babies do not.
This is why according to your definition of who has rights then this can come and go depending on your mental status. So Jack’s critique of what happens when your sleeping is very relevant. So is it just the possiblity of having this rational thinking or do you have to be actively exercising it in order to be qualified as having rights? If an indigent person that nobody knows is killed in the street has anyone’s rights been violated? How will you prove the dead guy met your criteria of rationality? How will anyone else prove that at the moment of death that he was a rational thinker with rights?
Is that not what you are saying?
Your theory of when rights begin/stop/are interrupted is the only major malfunction here.
They have the same brain functions they are just not as developed. So if someone has more developed brain function than you does that mean you no longer possess rights? Is there a heirarchy of rights based on brain development? Please explain what the heirarchy is and how you know when you have crossed over each stage or when someone else has.
Being in primitive conditions is completely irrelevant to logic. Look at the average western boobus cheese burger voter. Not exactly a tower of reason. Knowledge != Reason as Paul Krugman so often shows us on his NYT blog.
LibertyStudent, I think this largely misses the point. My point wasn’t that primitives are incapable of logic but that they’ve not cultivated this capability. If Spidey is attempting to make the point that killing children is fair game because, after all, they can’t complain, that’s OK. But, I don’t know how true this is. As somebody who has quite a few younger siblings I can tell you that my six year old brother would certainly be able to object to all sorts of ill treatment towards him. In fact, I think that most children above very young ages can show some sort of disagreement towards physical abuse. Now, the problem is that they often can’t communicate this verbally (although, they can certainly show the same through body language) but if this is so where do we draw the line? I can’t communicate with Chinese people and vice versa I don’t think for a second this makes it fair game for us to kill one another wantonly.
A right is a “legal claim”. So, as soon as one can make a legal claim. It could be 5 years old, or it could be 14. We probably need courts and child psychologists to help us out here. Even U.S. courts do not treat minors the same as adults. However, I do not agree with how the state thinks 18 or 21 is somehow magical. The question is, at what age, in a free society, would children choose to leave their home? This would probably be a pretty good bench-mark…
Of course you can communicate with Chinese people. Just because you do not speak the same language does not mean you cannot communicate…