Re: Euphemisms and More (was What really killed T. Rex?)

From: Chris Cogan (ccogan@telepath.com)
Date: Sun Oct 15 2000 - 01:53:22 EDT

  • Next message: Stephen E. Jones: "Re: Jonathan Wells' new book Icons of Evolution: The Cambrian Explosion"

    At 02:18 PM 10/14/2000, you wrote:

    >Dear Chris
    >
    > >If the alleged rights of one "human being" can be used to
    > > totally deny the rights of another human being, the concept
    > > of rights itself is reduced to logical nonsense -- . . . .
    >
    >It's a violation of human rights to require child support payments? <G>

    Chris
    In some cases. <G>

    >(some) People with Alzheimer's and ALS are the mental and/or physical
    >equivalent of the unborn. OK to kill them?

    Chris
    If they are living *inside* your body and you don't want them there.

    >It's your use of "totally" which causes the problem. Compare a 9 month
    >pregnancy with the old 2 year military draft. Pregnancy worse than boot
    >camp?

    Chris
    Military conscription *is* a form of slavery. But, it has nothing to do
    with which is worse. It has to do with the basic requirements for civilized
    social living. Abortion, in many cases, may be *immoral*, but that doesn't
    mean it should be *illegal*.

    bill
    >Personally, I deny the concept of human rights and subscribe to social
    >contract theory.

    Chris
    But, without a concept of rights, there can't be any real contracts at all.
    The idea of rights, if only in an implicit form, is a necessary basis for
    the concept of a contract.

    This does not mean, of course, that we cannot have something like a social
    contract as a means of contributing to the protection and recognition of
    rights.

    Rights derive from the recognition that it is contrary to one's interests
    to initiate the use of force against other people (something that most
    people do not recognize in their political activities, even if they do in
    their personal interactions with others), that one undermines one's *own*
    life when one decides that one is "above" the "law" of civilized social
    living. It produces alienation from other human beings, from the "human
    family," that will not be made up by the expected gains made by violating
    rights. The ultimate costs to one's happiness and well-being are almost
    inherently greater than whatever one might gain by such means.

    The right winger who seeks to make abortion illegal and the liberal who
    seeks to tax everyone to pay for abortions are both acting on a double
    standard. Each is implicitly claiming the right to be free to use force
    against others, but reject the idea that *they* should be subjected to the
    use of force (as is indicated by their reaction when you try to *stop* them
    from using force). They want the "freedom" to take away the freedom of
    others, and as such, basically reduce their position to the
    self-contradictoriness of holding a double standard, one for themselves and
    one for others.

    The only way that I know of to eliminate the double standard without
    renouncing the initiatory use of force is to reject the idea of principled
    social living altogether. This is no help, of course, since human needs do
    not depend on one's beliefs. But, it does eliminate the double standard.

    The objectivity of human needs, in this area as in any other, is why the
    claims that naturalism leads inevitably to moral and social problems is
    bull-drivel. Morality depends on the objectivity of human needs, not on the
    whims of some ill-defined and generally nonexistent supreme being, or on
    the whims of "society," or on the whims of the individual. Some forms of
    naturalistic belief *do* lead to moral and social problems, but this hardly
    makes naturalism as such the cause of such problems. Naturalism, as such,
    is only a basic metaphysical position. Christianity, on the other hand,
    always causes problems because it rests on the rejection of cognitive
    objectivity and rational epistemology in favor of faith, which leads to a
    failure to properly recognize and accept one's objective needs and thus to
    acting destructively. Often, a person will be prevented from acting
    horribly by an *implicit* recognition of the reality of one's needs, but
    this is unreliable.

    Far from being the *cause* of moral and social problems, naturalism (at
    least methodological naturalism) is a *necessary* aspect of most fully
    solving them.



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Oct 15 2000 - 01:58:19 EDT