The obvious question is: If rights are inherent, then why doesn't everybody have them? There are plenty of examples in history of the world where large groups of people do not have any rights. Besides the fact that what are 'inherent rights' is disputable.

So, yes, rights are given out by man to other man. But if we can all agree on some very basic rights that should be undeniable to every person, then there will be no problem.

For instance... if a mutation started taking place in some human beings that enabled them to see into the ultraviolet range of the spectrum, they would then recognize the ultraviolet world, and be able to percieve things that unmutated people couldn't. But the ultraviolet spectrum itself was ALWAYS there. They didn't create it or decide upon it. It just took a leap of understanding to find it. Just as the laws of physics were always there, it just took understanding to find them.

Stingray: those people HAD rights, they were simply not allowed to exercise them, or didn't recognize that they had them. Same way as slavery used to be considered normal and natural, but now we (well, most of us) know it's wrong. Leaps in perception.

[ August 24, 2001: Message edited by: First of Two ]

At any rate, it seems obvious enough (dare I say, self-evident enough?) that rights do not exist in a vacuum. A person alone has no rights, or perhaps they have every right. Whatever rights we claim arise out of our social interactions, the degrees to which we are willing to give and take.

So is there such a thing as a universal human right? Or, rather, do our rights exist when we're not looking at them? Probably not.

Nor is it quantum mechanics.

Ethics is philosophy and philosophy is subjective.

If something is disputed, or is capable of being disputed, then as a basis for ethics, it should be thrown out. That is, if you want to find a code of ethics based on absolutes and that nobody can disagree on. You can find anybody to disagree on any point of morality and/or ethics.

So, what should logically be done is throw everybody's moralities/beliefs/systems out (not to be insulting, but to come to some sort of meaningful conclusion).

quote:

---

Originally posted by First of Two:
And when it's [the argument of self-evidence] not being used for that reason [as a pejorative], then what is it?

---

Then, it's just a clumsy admission that you can't justify whatever it is you're asserting. All you're going on is emotional intuition. Rather than have the good grace to admit that an assumption has been made, though, one hides it in a suposedly respectable cloak.

Anyway, to start discussing rights...

You don't want to be murdered or killed for nothing or very little, so you want the right to exist. If you want it, you can accept that it probably is a desire of all human beings (minus the mentally whacked).

You want to practice your religion (or lack thereof) without interference, and not be persecuted or prosecuted for it. So does everybody else. Thus, freedom of conscience.

You don't want to be enslaved. Neither does anybody else. Thus, a right to liberty.

quote:

---

Thus, the right to self-defense.

---

I think we've hit very quickly on what is known as "The Fact-Value Problem." Yes, it's a fact that most life-forms have a self-preservation instinct. There's no logical way to get from that to "all life is precious and should be preserved."

quote:

---

several million projected casualties of a mainland invasion.

---

Perfectly logical, makes complete sense in and of itself. Thus, it becomes an axiom.

A person is allowed to have free control over their own lives and actions so long as such actions do not interfere with the right of other people to do the same.

Where this comes from, whether its inherent or whatever, is rather academic (and pointless unless people recognize it in others).

Basically, I go with karma. Don't cut me off and I won't cut you off. But instead of relying on a cosmic force to keep you from driving like an asshole, there is a simple mutual agreement between the two of us and anybody else who subcribes to this ethical code. If everybody followed it, we'd all be in much better shape. Though most people don't, I hold out hope that eventually this will become the dominant philosophy of homo sapiens.

There are complexities and other such things to this, that I do not feel like elaborating on. But basically these are like Asimov's Three Laws Of Robotics. Underpinning all of these and serving as the unifying force of all of these is the idea that the scientific method is (so-far) the only valid method of obtaining and ascertaining real data and finding truth.