David,
Thanks very much for taking the time to respond. I find the equality
approach interesting and have some more thoughts. I'd be interested in
others' thought too.
At 12:21 06/09/1999 -1000, you wrote:
>> But, with equality-of-life, where do civil rights come from? Surely from
>> some higher order ideas, assumptions and beliefs about the nature and value
>> of human beings and the nature of the world.
> Not from any of the sources you suggest. Civil rights (which are broader
>than equal protection and due process) come from the experience of people
>trying to live together and not killing each other. Our political history.
>
Still, civil rights and concepts of equal protection/due process will be
based on certain underlying assumptions and beliefs about these things,
where we are conscious of them or not. When we find them do they provide
some reasons for respecting the value of human life and guided on how to
treat it? If so what are these reasons and guides? May these be more
'solid' than any rights merely vested in law? I believe it is important to
identify our deepest reasons for stating/having certain concepts.
>> Civil rights, useful as they can be, are societally
>> agreed rights and can be changed by agreement (changes in law).
> No, one of the basic ideas in equal protection and due process is that
>they CAN NOT be changed. The US Supreme Court stated this position.
Well, the existence of the US Supreme Court may only be a blip on timeline
of human history and its authority and judgement on civil rights will
surely be replaced by other in time to come, regardless of what it now
states. Anyhow, I accept that *any* ethics concept will eventually be
subject to perversion by political processes, not just the equality approach.
>> (It also
>> does not seem to be a universal approach as civil rights as conceptualised
>> in the US may not be the same for many other countries and cultures.)
> Nothing is universal.
I disagree. For instance love, wisdom, relationships, the developmental
aspects of (human) life, vulnerability, (inter)dependency seem universal
concepts, over much of history, that everyone, no matter what culture they
came from, would value, recognise and apply in very similar ways. We could
seek to incorporate these in ethics approaches and THEN do everything that
follows from it, including organising law and our society accordingly.
True that civil rights (and remember that "civil
>rights" is much broader than the equal protection/due process concept) are
>culture bound, but then so it everything else. BUT, I contend, we will
>find that equal protection/due process will be found in any social system
>which survives for any length of time.
Well, I have my doubts; not as far as marginalised people, including people
with disabilities are concerned, surely. In many countries people with
disabilities' civil rights are completely ignored and to any practical
purpose, do hardly exist. It is not only perhaps that they are ignored but
more importantly and relevantly that they in some cases seem not even
conceptualised.
>
>> This
>> is different for sanctity of life as you cannot decide someone is accorded
>> any less s.o.l. than another person as the sanctity of life argument
>> pertains equally to all human beings
> No way. Why do you think that the purpose of war is to kill civilians?
I mean that the PRINCIPLE of sanctity of life is intended to all human
beings equally as I understand it as you seek to apply the principle of
eol, except that I cannot see at this point how you can make eol apply to
all human lives. Obviously war is not conducted in the name of sanctity of
life and sol is violated every day. Nevertheless as a principle it is
meant to apply to ALL human beings. For the same reason you state that
ignoring civil rights does not make them invalid, ignoring sanctity of life
does not make it invalid. It seems to me that civil rights, if based on our
political history, only apply to those societally deemed worthy of civil
rights at any given time in a country's history as well as decide in what
measure civil rights are accorded to anyone. In the US you have a good
measure of legally underpinned civil rights but it is directly based, it
seems to me while accepting your view that civil rights are broader than
law, on the shifting sand of court decisions (not denying their
importance)and political agreements, unless I misunderstand you. I do not
intend to defend sanctity of life as the only viable ethics but point
to a need for a coherent, strong ethics ( possibly arising from disability
perspectives) that speaks for the value of life and the meeting of
fundamental human needs for all, when the 'disability movement' addresses
end-of-life questions, rather than the current confusion.
>> With the quality of life argument, and particularly in its preference
>> utilitarian application human value can be expanded and contracted
>> depending on agreement who is a person and who is not.
> That agreement can only be made when due process/equal protection is
>respected and if it is, I have not found an agreement which rules out any
>type of human existence. Of course people kill others all the time.
>
Well, Singer suggests an agreement where people who are not persons can be
disposed of. Where do you start to apply the equality of life approach on
due process/equal protection? At conception? What when someone is in a
long-term coma or has locked-in syndrome or anencaphely? Civil rights are
pretty confused at this level or set an arbitrary 'personhood-timeline' of
so many weeks.At present from what I understand about the equality of life
approach it too of course will have to make decisions on where it begins
and stops. From what beliefs and assumptions will these be made? Some of
the resulting agreements may well decide to rule out certain types of human
existence.
>> Further how can the equality of protection and due process be a
>> whole-of-life attitude as sol and qol can? - "One does not live by
>> protection and due process alone...".
> Want to bet? Equal protection/due process does cover all of life.
Life is about development and growth and other things mentioned above, in
my view. They constitute fundamental human needs. Protection and due
process (valuable as they are)are not fundamental human needs but have to
be exercised according to the measure in which the fundamental needs are
being met in any society.
>
>> And an approach taking into account
>> the good for a person's ('person' not used in a Singeresque sense here)
>> whole life seems necessary in arguing for equal value of each
>> (marginalised) human being's life. This is because a person who has not
>> been valued by many others over their lifetime is not likely to suddenly
>> receive the equal protection and due process at some point in their
>> lives where they need this, even if mandated by law.
> What you say is correct, but violation of due process/equal protection
>does not negate their correctness. In a realistic view we expect to see
>due process/equal protection violated because that is how people behave.
>We must rely upon due process/equal protection to fight that violation.
We must also relie on measures to as best as possible meet the fundamental
human needs.
>
>> Ronald Dworkin
>> apparently said that not only do we live in the shadow of our deaths but
>> we also die in the shadow of our lives. He may have meant this more in the
>> sense of how we lead our lives ourselves but for very vulnerable people
>> with disabilities this may mean that they live and die acccording to how
>> their whole lives are being lived for them by others.
> Because Dworkin waxes poetic is not relevant for this discussion. BUT if
>he means what you infer, then it supports my positions.
Yes, agreed, on the score of needing protection/due process it does but,
again it also supports my position; ie we need to have an ethics that
addresses that shadow of our lives not only to minimise the need for an
equality approach (AND strengthen its effectiveness when needed) but to
better meet our fundamental human needs.
>
>
>David
>
Regards,
Erik Leipoldt
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
