The right to abandon & neglect children

Economics Political Theory
81

You are not grasping - purposefully I would guess - the distinction between a difference in kind, and a difference in degree. I tried to explain this in my last post using examples of self-awareness, etc. Scientifically, one can make an iron clad case that corn and humans exhibit a difference of kind and NOT of degree in the context of what makes us human, and thus leads to natural rights. I am not talking about ‘LIFE’ - a virus is alive, after all. I am talking about HUMANITY and what allegedly sets us apart from all the other living beings. If you cannot accept or understand this distinction, then we have nothing to discuss.

unowned

adjective
having no owner

Thought that would have been rather obvious.

82

Let me try to be clear about this so there is no misunderstanding.

Natural rights doctrine notes that we -and we alone - have these rights due to our humanity, the implication being that ‘humanity’ is a distinct category - i.e. that we exhibit a fundamental difference in kind from all other creatures.

So obviously, the question of what exactly is the fundamental distinction between humanity and other creatures presents itself. What is is that is ‘human’? Is this simply due to the taxonomic nomenclature created by Carl Linnaeus, which separates humans into our own genus (Homo) distinct from the other primates??? Obviously not, especially since Linnaeus himself noted that the only reason he thus separated humans out from other primates was out of fear of running afoul of the religious authorities. TH Huxley, among others, made compelling arguments that humans belong in the same genus as primates, and should be separated out at the species boundary only.

So what does this mean for the natural rights arg? We seem to assume that the thing that makes us distinctly human - the difference in KIND - is the thing that results in our having natural rights. But based on the scientific evidence, there is no ready answer to ‘what is the unique differentiator which expresses this difference in kind?’ Comparing what we now know about chimps, especially, blurs this once-seemingly-clear boundary.

For example, many philosophers - from Plato to Hegel - have held that we are fundamentally distinct due to reason, intellect, understanding, etc. But there is overwhelming evidence now that many animals reason to some degree or other, particularly primates. So this is a difference in degree, which in fact was the view of both David Hume and Darwin.

We used to think self-awareness was the differentiator. Turns out, this is wrong - chimps are also self aware. Again, difference in degree.

Then we thought - ability to communicate via a true language was the differentiator. Turns out chimps can learn a substantial amount of Amslan and use it effectively. About as much as a 2 year old child - we’re not talking real complex communication, but linguists have been astounded that chimps could accomplish as much as they did. So we can’t discount them on that criteria - it’s again a difference in degree, not kind.

Social organization and culture - same issue. Differences in degree.

Mortimer Adler encapsulated the latest philsophical thinking by laying out 4 definitive criteria (see his The Difference of Manand the Difference it Makes for more) - and each of these ‘confident assertions’ has since been destroyed by scientific advances in understanding chimps, especially.

So - if we have these rights by virtue of our humanity, and if we reject the ‘Creator-given’ and ‘soul’-based arguments (which I do), but we can’t really come up with a definition of ‘human’ that excludes chimps (aside from a DNA argument - but who claims natural rights spring from DNA???), what makes us so damned sure that chimps are not also deserving of these rights?

83

Yea and you can basically keep going w/ this and break everything down to atoms and ask why this arrangement of atoms deserves rights and this one doesnt. I think more complex animals should have some rights, like the right not to be tortured for the sake of torturing. However, I guess I’ll have to be a mean old racist or species-ist and side w/ humans (as best as that can be defined).

I still dont understand the difference between self-owned and unowned and how that might work itself out.

84

Well, at least you have clarified that you do not even grasp the basic logic of my argument, since it has nothing to do with ‘atoms’, nor are you able to provide any definition of ‘human’ though you feel free to use this term - which you cannot define - as the basis of your argument - there is really nothing more for you and I to debate in that case.

You might consider that Aristotle demonstrated that, absent the ability or willingness to define the terms used in an argument, that argument was impossible to be taken seriously, because it was - by definition - meaningless.

So in all seriousness, if you are going to use an argument of the form ‘because we are human and they are not’ you really must give some thought to the question: what do I mean when I use the word 'human?

85

I have heard two arguments with regards to the rights of animals.

1)In order to have rights you must exert and be aware of them. You may have proved already that animals meet that criteria, not sure but that’s one. I was made aware of this argument as a case for killing someone who was brain dead. For if they cannot utilize their rights how can have them? However, I’m not sure if this is true. I supposed it depends on the steps you take to build the case for natural rights.

  1. Extra-Species warfare. Animals do not respect our rights in the sense that we do within our species (excluding the state). Therefore we should not respect theirs.
86

Children do not respect our rights either. If 2 year olds had fangs and claws, we’d be in trouble. :wink:

That’s what I am getting at, really - if children are to be treated to a trustee-type status, why not chimps? So I don’t buy #2.

As to #1, I think we are at the fuzzy edges of this thing and I am trying to get clarification. I am not an animals rights advocate. I am merely noting that the oft-heard slam dunk ‘we’re human and they’re not and so we get rights and are precious but we can kill them or torture them as we please’ is an absolutely unsupportable argument once you actually try to explain what that actually means and come to an understanding of just how uncomfortably close the chimp and human species are.

And as you astutely noted - what about the brain dead? What about the retarded person with the intelligence of a 2 year old - or 3, or 4, 5, 6 - who will never be able to assert their rights, or even be aware of them in a serious way? For all intents and purposes, they are equivalent to a chimp, unless you pull out the trusty old ‘only humans have souls, ya damned unbeliever!’ which of course cannot be proven and therefore does not belong in the argument. Can we then kill mentally retarded people like we do chimps? Use them in experiments like chimps?

87

http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/faq/human.htm

How do you define “human”?

A variety of traits are considered important to the biological and cultural definition of human. Some researchers deem language, art, and consciousness as the most important traits, while others point to the origin of two-legged walking (bipedality) as the starting point of the human lineage. The traits unique to human beings arose at different times over a long period. Some important human characteristics are listed below; it’s important to keep in mind that these characteristics are in comparison to other primates, the closest genetic relatives to our species:

  • Habitual bipedality
  • Large brain size (compared with body size)
  • Expanded planning and problem solving abilities
  • Language
  • Art and other forms of symbolic expression
  • Complex cultural learning dependent on symbolic information
  • Dependence on technology for survival
  • Varied diet, including domesticated plants and animals
  • Functional hairlessness
  • Worldwide geographic distribution and adaptation to diverse climates and habitats
  • Greater social complexity

These are just some of the traits that make us human. What other characteristics can you think of? The Smithsonian is planning a new exhibition - - “What Does It Mean To Be Human?” - - which will explore the defining characteristics of human beings as a unique and astonishing part of the natural world.

End of paste job.

What Im saying is that is if someone TRULY questions whether or not there’s a difference between what we call ‘humans’ and what we call ‘chimps’, then you could just continue down the line of species and on and on until you get down to the very substance everything is made of. However, it’s obviously a good exercise to think about what it is that makes us human.

88

Children have the potential to respect our rights because they’re not forever children. As far a deformed people, we do know they came from undeformed people at least at some point. I know this isnt a satisfactory answer, but I’m just adding some comments. I’ve found that my posts tend to irritate people. My deal is that my posts are neccessarily pieces of a completely thought out, strongly held position. I have my positions, ideas and beliefs, but I just generally engage in conversation and hope that the conversation serves to enlighten me. I’m the perpetual student and readily admit I’m not of as much use to others as I’d like to be. My ego is quite low and at times that gives people the wrong impression. I try to be child-like in many ways simply because that’s my natural disposition.

89

pairunoyd, I don’t mean to beat up on you - it’s simply that if someone cannot define the terms they are using yet expresses that they are going to use them anyway, it drives me a little crazy. This is a very risky approach to reality, IMO - it generally means one is drawing conclusions not based on reason or fact or provable evidence, but on emotion and unexamined assumptions, and this path generally leads directly away from truth and unforgiving reality.

I think that when one finds oneself in this position, it’s time to engage in some deep thinking about that subject. It’s time to examine the unexamined. This is, I would argue, the child-like approach - question everything, especially those biases you have that came from who knows where. That’s what kids do in the quest to honestly understand.

The last thing one should do in such a case - if one’s goal is to truly understand the issues under debate (and to truly know oneself) - is to forge ahead based on unacknowledged internal bias and non-reason. This is much more of an adult approach, in fact - we think we know it all, and do not want to show our ignorance for fear of ridicule, etc. In fact, I’d argue that this mindset is one of the primary reasons that libertarians and anarchists have such a hard time reaching most people.

That’s all I’m saying. I hope I did not cause you undue distress.

90

OK, good. Now a couple things jump out:

  1. Note all the qualifiers: ‘Expanded’, ‘Greater’, ‘Large’ - these are relative measures. Expanded, greater, large - compared to what?? Doesn’t this seem like cheating? In other words, isn’t it clear from these relative qualifiers that whoever wrote this list was aware of potential criticism and attempting to pre-empt their critics primarily? Also, relativity ALWAYS implies difference in degree. Chimps are problem solvers - we are better problem solvers. Difference in degree, not kind. So those bullets with relative qualifiers do not advance the ‘difference in kind’ argument at all.

  2. Which of these comes together to give us natural rights? Is it the position of natural rights proponents that we have these rights because we have distributed ourselves over the earth? Or because of our ‘functional hairlessness’? Or because we are omnivores? Or because we habitually walk on two legs? Clearly not.

All in all, this list seems largely to be a compendium of someone’s biases. It’s almost like cheating - they seem to me to have made the list in the way they did to rule out other species and specifically primates pre-emptively.

And yet, even in this case, if you look at what we now know about chimps and bonobos, they qualify for many of the bullets on the list. And if we consider brain dead or retarded humans, they do not qualify for some of the bullets. So we’re still in the grey area it seems.

I think at a minimum, based on what we do know and what we do not, chimps deserve something approaching a trustee status unless and until someone can conclusively prove that humans are fundamentally different in kind - i.e. reminiscent of ‘first of all, do no harm’. And all the research shows that things are going the other way, so that seems unlikely to say the least. It’s an interesting situation.

91

Do chimps have feedback loops for the tools they use? Can they advance their knowledge based on what they learn and improve their artifices? Can they project plans in the long-term and execute them? Are they capable of acting on the basis of abstract principles (and can they formulate high abstractions) and guiding their activities on such principles? Can they conceptually integrate what they perceive? These are, loosely, what Nozick identifies as criteria of rationality, and some which I have added. If a chimp could exhibit all of these, I’d see no reason to not give it rights, or at least allow it to enter into a trustee sort of relationship.

92

Well, I wrote out a long response, complete with examples backing up my ‘yes or at worst probably’ answers to thew questions above, and then lost it. :frowning:

Let me just say this: at one point in the not so distant past, my position was that this line of questioning was absurd, like, no doubt, many of you. But as I have read, thought and learned more about this world, and about liberty and rights, and about the necessity of using unbiased reasoning, and of examining unexamined assumptions - questioning everything - to arrive at truth, I have found that my former position was logically untenable.

We all have a bias here, as in so many areas. We must set that aside if we hope to apply reason and arrive at truth. I thought this quote summed it up nicely:

“We humans commonly react with astonishment upon discovering that chimpanzees can do something we consider special to humankind. Any evidence of intelligence overlap provokes the greatest scepticism, as the uniqueness of that quality in us is our most cherished illusion. But is this defensive reaction anything more than a visible indicator of our anthropocentric view of the world? Would it not be more extraordinary if a species having broad genetic overlap with us did not perform acts or feel emotions or have thoughts akin to ours?”

BTW, for the record, I am no animal rights activist, per se, and none of this should be interpreted to mean that I think all animals have rights - that is an absurdity, in my view. At least, that’s my position at this point in time. :wink:

93

How does one establish ownership? After all, the parents did create the child. The child is also under the control of the parents until he reaches a point when he can be considered a self-owner. If the child is unowned, then anyone who comes along could homestead the child. The child is going to be owned by someone, that is, under someone’s control. Why create new terms for something that is obvious? After all when someone asks “whose child is this,” you don’t hear “he is neither self-owned nor other-owned but an unowned potential self-owner.”

"But the fundamental flaw in the theory of animal rights is more basic and far-reaching. For the assertion of human rights is not properly a simple emotive one; individuals possess rights not because we “feel” that they should, but because of a rational inquiry into the nature of man and the universe. In short, man has rights because they are natural rights. They are grounded in the nature of man: the individual man’s capacity for conscious choice, the necessity for him to use his mind and energy to adopt goals and values, to find out about the world, to pursue his ends in order to survive and prosper, his capacity and need to communicate and interact with other human beings and to participate in the division of labor. In short, man is a rational and social animal. No other animals or beings possess this ability to reason, to make conscious choices, to transform their environment in order to prosper, or to collaborate consciously in society and the division of labor.

Thus, while natural rights, as we have been emphasizing, are absolute, there is one sense in which they are relative: they are relative to the species man. A rights-ethic for mankind is precisely that: for all men, regardless of race, creed, color, or sex, but for the species man alone. The Biblical story was insightful to the effect that man was “given” — or, in natural law, we may say “has” — dominion over all the species of the earth. Natural law is necessarily species-bound." ( http://mises.org/daily/2581 )

However I’m quite sure that owning a chimp would be a complex situation to say the least. Not so much in property titles and such, but the relationship one would have with a chimp. Ethically, I find some experiments, killing, disposal, etc troubling as well. However I don’t think I could go so far as to say it is unethical. Then again, what about artificial selection? Would it necessarily be a bad thing to attempt to speed up evolution and try to breed a new human-like species?

94

The parents did create the child, but only in the sense that some slob flicking a butt out the window creates a wildfire. Despite the fact that he started the process, he can hardly be said to own it, and it’s hardly under his control. He is, however, responsible for it.

In a similar fashion, when a child is created, it grows and develops in ways not very predictable and not controllable, short of odd sci-fi interventions or killing, by the parents. A human being is a sentient being. There are periods, such as in the womb or in early infancy, or during sleep or coma, when this sentience lapses, but a human is a sentient being in essence; in other words, humans are naturally sentient, and only lack this quality in special limiting circumstances.

Insofar as a child cannot be property, and yet is dependent upon more powerful and rational agents for its survival until adulthood, it is logical and just that those most directly resposible for the dependency tend to it. As a man could rightly be charged for a fire he caused, so parents ought be charged with the care and maintenance of the child whose dependency they caused.

95

First, good links - thanks. Am reading them as I have time and finding them clarifying.

Well, but from the first essay you posted:

“Thus, it is the concept of objective link between claimants and a claimed resource that determines property ownership. First use is merely what constitutes the objective link in the case of previously unowned resources. In this case, the only objective link to the thing is that between the first user — the appropriator — and the thing.”

But the logic of your statement then requires that a child be a ‘thing’ or a ‘resource’ to which an objective link can therefore be established. I don’t think this is the case. Even in the case of a chimp, I do not think this is the case. At best, it is arguable whether either a child or a chimp is a resource or thing, whereas in the case of a non-sentient piece of land, say, it is not arguable.

The more I read and think about this - and that process is far from complete - the more it seems a ‘special’ category (e.g. trusteeship) may be justifiable for very special cases. But the criteria for determining such cases would need to be very clear and concrete and establishing that in itself would be difficult to acheve.

Thorny questions, to be sure, and again perhaps a good argument for a special category - neither other-owned nor self-owned. And that, I suppose, is my point - that it’s not a slam dunk case either way, so proceeding as if it were is not justifiable (first of all, do no harm). Again, it seems to me that, until the matter can be completely and objectively worked out, there should be some sort of moratorium on chimp killings and experiments (and yet, what is the agency which can accomplish that without violating other ethical rules? Certainly not a coercive State!). That is, if a rock solid argument cannot be made that chimps are indeed things or resources, they should be off limits to exploitation which involves harm or damage. I don’t see how any other position at this point is ethical.

96

An excellent point - and yet, chimps are demonstrably rational and social animals as well. They have the capacity for conscious choice, and they pursue their ends to survive and prosper, and so forth. Not to the same degree, but again we’re back to a difference in degree vs a difference in kind. For the vast, even overwhelming majority, of animals, the difference in kind is easily demonstrable, and so the question really is primate-specific.

For chimps and bonobos, and potentially for orangutans and in some cases even gorillas (i.e. for the great apes - our closest relatives in the animal kingdom), these alleged ‘human traits’ are characteristics which they do seem to share, to a degree. It’s just not as simple as asserting that man is simply man and therefore natural rights accrue to us, and all other beings are under man’s dominion and subject to whatever treatment we choose to mete out to them.

97

What about infants and the mentally challenged? Do they have those things?

98

Infants definitely have the necessary potential for it (and thus will acquire them in brief time.) My question is whether chimps have in fact developed such traits.

99

A severely retarded person may be roughly equivalent to a chimp for the purposes of discussion - perhaps the same argument would apply to either? Seems reasonable.

100

But you also need to consider that ‘kind produces after it’s kind’. So even though a particular human has very limited capacities, they were produced by humans that more closely approximate our definition. In other words, humans don’t give birth to non-humans, so an off-spring of a human would be human and at the very least this residual human-ness inherits the same rights as other humans, though the full exercise of those right may be less actualized than that of his procreators.