No, your initial point was nothing more than that baby’s cannot inform their potential aggressor that they would prefer not to be killed. In any case, I would argue that when a child flinches after being struck or more importantly actively (as opposed to reactively in the previous example) backs away or begins to cry after being abused they are communicating that they wish you to stop such actions. All they lack is the ability to communicate their preference to you on such actions.
The same goes for a Chinese person. They can’t literally tell you that they wish you to stop hitting them or to put the gun down. What they can do is make various gestures that imply they wish you to stop these actions. Of course, this opens up a whole new can of worms in that depending on your culture various signals may mean different things. The fact of the matter is that there is no way for you to know their preferences.
Same thing with animals. So is it wrong to kill an animal or take its property? I know when an animal does not like what I am doing to it by how it responds.
And again, at what point is it OK to have sex with someone, kill someone, or hurt someone?
But we’re not talking about animals because you don’t believe any animals have rights. On the other hand, you believe some humans have rights but others, children and the mentally retarded, don’t. So my point is not about what conditions are necessary for one to have rights, but given your criteria why are the groups you believe to be excluded, indeed excluded. IOW, I’m talking to you entirely on your own grounds here because I believe your position to be fundamentally contradictory.
As for your last question, that depends on a number of issues that can’t really be determined a priori but must be judged by experience. And even then, it can never be known for certain. For example, for it to be OK to hurt somebody they must have some conception of what it means to hurt and consent to it, with the burden of proof being on the potential “aggressor” to prove that they do consent.
I Think the part that is missing from this discussion and may be confusing many people is that this is in relation to what the government can or should do in regards to law. As I strongly support liberty and find most of the people here to be refreshingly intelligent I really really really hope that the people here speaking about molesting and killing children or otherwise do not find this to be morally acceptable. I believe the point is that the government is not the authority on values or morals therefore should have a limited ability to make laws regarding such. So for all those confused and quite frankly disturbed, while it may not be illegal to do such things society should step in and oppose such ills. The problem is that being a member of society if i were faced with a parent molesting a child there is likely to be a death or at least some violent intervention. However with liberty logic I would also be guilty of murder and my defense of it being morally wrong would be shut down in a court of law(unless the Court uses judgment and is regulated by the community not government standards) However I am fairly new in this line of thought so do not have all the answers on how to end my little conundrum. In the end molesting children is wrong no matter how you want to put intelligent arguments on the orgins of morality
But, using your logic, they would have rights. So now, we are talking about animals.
And you believe they do but for some reason that animals do not…
Well that is the only way this discussion will be resolved, because it is about rights.
Because they either do not have the mental capacity to make rational decisions or they cannot communicate, at all.
Great. I am waiting for you to show it.
And I believe the exact same thing. So I don’t know why you even asked the question as to when the arbitrary line is that someone can make a legal claim.
Well, animals cannot ever know this. So is it ever OK to kill animals? Of course, you will not answer this.
Well, which is it, is it the mental capacity to make decisions or the inability to communicate? Presumably it has to be one or the other.
In any case, your discussion of animals is entirely irrelevant, we’re not talking about my views here, but yours. You don’t believe that animals have possess rights presumably because they lack some characteristics that humans possess. Now, given what you’ve already said (that you’re not talking about the ability to communicate, which only leaves your criteria of rational capacity left) it’s coherent for you to exclude animals from possessing rights.
Children, on the other hand, can demonstrate that they don’t wish to be hurt. Actions taken by small children (once again, as opposed to reactions) such as backing away, crying or whatever else are a clear sign that a given child simply does not wish to be hurt.
It’s OK to kill animals in the sense that you’re not violating any rights. Morally, however, it’s disgusting.
If you woke me up, then I wouldn’t be sleeping. Let me help you. Two people are sleeping A and B, one is a child and one is an adult. Without waking them how can you tell they have rational capacity you require for rights?
Every place does not have courts. By your own defintion, only every place with 3 people or more has teh ability to have courts. If people can not agree on a third party to arbitrate then there are no courts and therefore no rights, by your logic. I don’t think you even uncerstand what you are saying.
For general purposes one might define corrupt as not being impartial. I can certainly imagine one might agree to a court and then later discover the court was corrupted by a bribe or something. Are you rights still to be determined by a corrupt judge?
I don’t need anyone to put forward to determine what rights are and when they have been violated. Rights are intrinsic to the person and universal. Courts and legal processes are for determining facts and dealing with restitution not for determining what rights exist.
But with your logic, then the holocaust was not a violation of anybody’s rights because the courts having given all power over to Hitler, his determination that they had no rights was legitimate.
This is your arguement Spidey because you do not base rights on anything to do with being human. Your basis of rights is on going to court based on some rational ability test that you have not defined. If a dog communicates that it does not like your attempt to kill it then by your logic the dog is equal to an adult human and superior to a human child.
That’s a broad sweeping generalization. You’re assuming a low level of technology equals low developed cognitive capacity. It’s simply not true.
That is why nearly every culture develops non-verbal ways of communicating non-aggression, whether a handshake or an open palm, arms outstretched sideways, bowing or an invitation to sit together.
Anyway, we’re off topic. I simply don’t lke the western trend to front running and confirmation bias based on a perceived cultural and technological superiority.
LibertyStudent, whether and the the extent to which “primitives” are capable of reasoning is largely beyond the point. Although, I’d agree with you that they are, for the sake of the argument there’s not much of a difference between them and small children over in the Western world when it comes to the point Spidey is attemtping to make.
I think this is the crux of the problem, is that you do not understand that you are arguing against yourself. See, I am arguing for parent’s rights. You are arguing for children’s and animal’s rights. For example, at what point can someone consent to having sex in your world? Or when can an animal consent to being “tortured”? Again, do you know of some magical being that has this information and you are hiding it from us? If not, then stop with this nonsense that it is not the courts that decide this stuff.
The question as demonstrated by this example is how can you know whether a sleeping person meets your test for having rights? If someone is murdered in their sleep how can you be sure they met your rational test when they were sleeping. Your philosophy requires some sort of demonstration or action in order for the person to have rights followed by some court being required to be in agreement.