Seamus Grimes wrote:
<So you are saying that we are free beings - that we are free to do
good or evil? Many of course, at this stage find it difficult to
distinguish between the two or acknowledge any clear basis for
distinction. A common view is that we are free to do what we like.
This obviously goes against the idea of other people having rights
which we can infringe. But it raises the difficult issue of what
freedom is and what obliges us to respect the rights of others.>
Hmm...good and evil. I think most of us would agree, as Seamus says, that
there is no concrete 'good' or 'evil' in the sense of being things
independent of (prior to) human thought and action. What is important is
that humans can judge debate and decide whether actions are
harmful/evil/lacking in compassion. The question is what we do with that
judgement and whether there can be any universal or consistent idea of what
the criteria are for such judgements.
To connect this to the original comments about given, incremental rights, I
would suggest that these cannot form the basis for any universal idea of
rights, because of their relationship with dominant power flows.
Seamus again:
<The problem would seem to be how to define the nature of human
dignity - the nature of our humanity - which accords us the right to
be treated by other humans in a dignified way.>
Yes. And I believe that some discussion based on the idea of 'flourishing'
is a good starting point. However, if one bases this entirely on humanity,
we are still left with the problem of the rights of non-human things.
Paul Treanor's remark about the rights of chainsaws is a little bit of a
joke (I hope): there must be some point at which rights extend no further-
a chainsaw cannot 'flourish' naturally as part of an ecosystem, community
or society, it needs human intervention even to exist!
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|