The Geek Forum
Main Forums => Political Opinions => Topic started by: Joe Sixpack on January 08, 2008, 12:08:07 PM
-
So maybe I listen to too much NPR (and Jonathan Coulton's song "Todd the T1000") but I have been hearing this phrase 'right to exist' - as in 'Israel's right to exist', or the song's titular robot not recognizing a human's 'right to exist' - and it has kind of stuck out to me.
What does it mean to have a right to exist?
When we think of the natural world, individual animals and even whole species don't have a right to exist unless they are fit enough to survive. We seem to accept this. When it comes to animals that aren't fit enough to survive in a world modified by human activity, however, this concept of 'right to exist' seems to kick in for them. Perhaps that is guilt on our part, or some genetically ingrained sense of justice (we feel it is not fair that a dumb salamander has to compete with our tool-using acumen). Whatever the reason, the idea that animals only have a right to exist when it's not our fault that they don't seems to be the majority opinion.
Furthermore, what does the concept of a 'right to exist' say about things that don't exist? Are zombies and snuff films and God *rimshot* having their rights violated, by definition? If so, what is the recourse for that? If there is none, and I don't see how there could be, what does that say about the sanctity of the Right to Exist in the first place?
I will end this little diatribe with a quote from the greatest piece of televised art that has ever existed - Futurama.
Leela: "In my dream Fry said he hid a gift for me in his locker. If it's true then he must still exist in some form."
Farnsworth: "Of course he still exists: As a frozen corpse in outer space!
...
Oh, I made myself sad."
-
Right to exist can be seen as an irreducible cornerstone assumption for any system of ethics. If no one or nothing has that right, then what's there to protect?
concur re: Futurama. Will now scurry off to find update on status of upcomming new episodes.
-
There are lots of things I don't have a right to, but still try to bring to fruition, along with every other human being. The idea that people struggle for their rights and nothing else doesn't hold much water.
Bender's Big Score is out already. It starts out a little jerky but comes out quite good, in the vein of the Jurasisic Bark,The Sting, or Luck of the Fryish episodes.
-
I don't want to watch the DVD. Perversely, I want them to chop it up into the familiar 24-minute pieces and air it with commercials on Comedy Central, just like they said they would a few weeks ago. Looks like those plans have changed again, and CC will be airing the movie some time this quarter. Bummer -- I just don't think I would enjoy a feature-lenght Futurama, although I by no means deny its right to exist.
-
"Right" to life is an axiom made up to be modified slightly as to concur with our (human) wishes, in my opinion. I think the true state is a privilege to life.
-
I tend to agree, but do you not feel that it is a short step from "Privelege to Exist" to "Might makes Right"?
If you have no rights, only priveleges, and the only way of hanging onto those priveleges is through the strength to keep them, what virtues exist other than strength?
Yes, that is a paraphrase of Mr. Han from Enter the Dragon.
-
Well, the entire idea of "rights" and "privileges", etc., is partly what separates us from the animals; and no, I don't think these made up ideas should be abandoned entirely. They DO serve the purpose we made them up for; but since we're kinda stupid anyway, of course there will be problems. I'm just pointing out that the idea of a right to... ANYthing is purely speculative and purely one-sided (human; as in 'not "God" or animal). We tend to adjust these parameters as we feel already; so I think the question would have to be, at this point, on an individual basis (who -specifically- lives/dies); instead of Is there a Right to Life.
Sort of, yes, but we made it up; so exactly who are we talking about specifically and what have they done good/bad; are they "worth" keeping, should they be executed/plug pulled/left to die/etc.
-
When the day comes when I can afford to build my dream house, I'm going to be damned sure the plans include an 'accusing parlor' and an 'angry dome.'
-
I have a Tantrum Pantry.
-
There is no such thing as the right to exist. I exist. It's not a right, I just do. No different then my coffee or my desk.
The idea or concept of "right" is a human fabrication and is soely related to a legal system. So I don't have the right to breath for example, but I do have the right to vote. The legal system does incorporate a series of "rights" which were created for the protection of life. For example, the legal clauses of the geneva convention are there to protect life. So in essence, dyin gis not illegal, but killing is.
People who use the phrase "I have the right to..." where it doesn't refer to a legal context may or may not have the right they claim. The other neat things about rights as that A - they change and B - they are geographic. So unless I am proven wrong, I say that nobody has the right to live. Creating such a right would be pointless. I could sue Jesus when my father dies of natural causes. He had the right to exist dammit! Of course, I would win because Jesus would not show up to defend himself, but my victory would be in vain because Jesus wouldn't compensate me either. Maybe if I prayed really really hard... :roll:
-
I could sue Jesus when my father dies of natural causes. He had the right to exist dammit! Of course, I would win because Jesus would not show up to defend himself, but my victory would be in vain because Jesus wouldn't compensate me either. Maybe if I prayed really really hard... :roll:
As an experienced legal professional (I've read many documents including the WoW EULA at least five times over, so I know my stuff) I would suggest you start by subpoenaing the Pope.
-
There is no such thing as the right to exist. I exist. It's not a right, I just do. No different then my coffee or my desk.
The idea or concept of "right" is a human fabrication
Fabrications, like cold corpses in space, exist.
A "right" is a concept, and as such, exists.
A system of ethics is a construct, and as such, exists.
A system of ethics cannot exist without the concept of "rights". You have to start with something. If you begin with the idea that there is no such thing as a right to exist, or a right to anything, then how do you proceed beyond that?
-
If you look at it from that angle, then the "right to exist" exist, but it's not a right in itself. It just exist. Existence itself is not a right is what I should have said.
I like the pope comment. +1
-
If you begin with the idea that there is no such thing as a right to exist, or a right to anything, then how do you proceed beyond that?
Be human about it. Make up the rights, and whether they apply or not.
-
If something has existed for a moment in time, doesn't that fullfil the right? When someone posits a right to exist and then fails to do so, it's fine because they didn't posit a right to exist for any period of time. So when I posit my rights, I am sure to delineate a begin time and an end time, which usually happens to be in perpetuity. Hell, it has worked for me so far....
-
Philosophy might not be my strong point, but there's a big difference between the "existence" of a concept and the "existence" of a corpse.
Other than that, of course rights are a fabrication of human culture. Somebody (or a species, or anything) has rights because a culture decides he/she/it has them. Some rights seem to me almost "natural", as i've been raised in a culture that regards them very high, some seem stupid. But that will change over time - probably less for "me" as an individual, but certainly for individuals of future generations.
I'm just glad our culture didn't decide that polio virus and the likes have rights, but i think we'll soon see people saying just that.
-
The polio virus' right to exist ends where mine begins.
-
The notion of "right to exist" really boils down to the most basic of property arguments. In essence, making the assumption that you "own" yourself.
-
Sure, in an atheist's eye.
For most people, the right to exist comes from God. When I argue that the right to exist is irreducible, that's what I'm talking about. If you want to create a system of ethics, you have to start with some basic assumption. If you believe in God, then that's it. If you do not, then you need a basic, abstract, unassailable concept to start with. Sort of, like, you know, God.
A right to exist is not a bad place to start, but if you question the right to exist, then you can't have a system of ethics, unless you make up something else, like... well, God. THEN you can say, well, God says I have the right to exist, but He didn't mention anything about YOU. So I will take your land and kill you.
By the way, along with the right to exist comes the right to protect yourself against those who say you don't have a right to exist. And if that right means your enemy must die, then so be it.
And the whole thing comes tumbling down like a house of cards, and you start over.
That's how ethical people live: they try, and try, and try again.
-
I think you may be right about that, but that doesn't that the God concept has to stay. Now that we have our edifice constructed (or when we get it), it seems to me that it can be self-supporting. We are now at least nominally capable of doing good things for their own sake, or because it makes us happy, etc... without the threat of damnation.
We needed unions in order to get 40 hour weeks and weekends, but that doesn't mean we still need unions in order to have those things.
-
Spoken like a non-exempt employee. 40 hour weeks and free weekends, yeah right :slap
Actually with my job change I've actually been much closer to the 40 with weekends off, so I can't complain too much.
-
I like the concept of unions quite a lot. The last one I was in, not so much.
-
I think you may be right about that, but that doesn't that the God concept has to stay.
I was obliquely stating that in fact the God concept has to go. Superstition is a shaky foundation for ethics.
-
I think maybe you do need it, at least at first. But like the UWA and Baptists, they just get in the way after a while.
-
I see no reason why kids couldn't be raised without the idea.
-
If, in an alternate universe, I had children of my own, I would raise them with a basic understanding of what religion was and then leave it up to them to decide if they want to pursue the matter further.
-
That's pretty much what were going to do with Ian. Give him the gifts of critical thought and information and then let him decide.
-
When he's old enough -
Demon-Haunted World by Carl Sagan
and
Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman by Richard Feynman as told to some other guy.
-
Carl Sagan was the man.
As far as the discussion on 'rights', rights are an intellectual creation that allow us to talk about ethical systems in more conscious/meaningful/useful terms. (I.e. "That ethical system is immoral because it violates Right X etc...) That statement doesn't explain why we would feel we have Right X or why Right X is more useful, etc.., and I point this out because there is evidence that human ethics are actually influenced by Human Evolution. (Perhaps in a related fashion, our conscious discussion of rights is influenced by subconscious ideas already inherent...)
Besides the fact that there's actual observable phenomenon (Similarities across cultures that weren't seemingly influenced by each other), think of it this way.
In terms of evolution, who is better off (generally speaking): a single person, or a group of people. I'd say the group of people, as they are better able to deal with larger threats and are also able to provide more resources. (This should be seen as common sense...) Any advantage that helps that group work better will be more likely to be passed on over things that do the opposite. (Co-operation vs Competition) That's not to say that all co-operation is good and all competition is bad, just that things which help the group succeed (and similarly help the individuals produce offspring) are more likely to be passed on.
Or, just looking at it from a family scale: who is more likely to survive, a family that cares for it's young or a family that doesn't? (Human family, where the baby isn't capable of taking care of itself...)
That's not to say that we should infer moral judgments based on these innate beliefs, since some people are naturally violent and we don't think THAT'S acceptable just because it's a natural tendency. This is all just to give us a better understanding our ethical systems.
Edit: Forgot to add this:
As far as Ivan's point about questioning the "Right to Exist", if the evolutionary foundation of ethics (i.e. they're innate parts of human nature) are to be believed, then it could be imagined that it would rarely come up.
You might think it odd if someone were to question whether there SHOULD be justice in the world or whether we SHOULD be interested in justice, for instance, since it's just an innate part of human nature and we take it for granted sometimes. (Not necessarily that there IS justice in the world, which is a separate issue.)
-
I have a Right to balance out my Left,
... else my world would come tumbling down and I couldn't get up.
That would suck as I am pretty sure that I DO NOT have a Right to LifeAlertTM
-
And the whole thing comes tumbling down like a house of cards, and you start over.
My brain every day. By the way, Bender's big score didn't live up to the futurama name for me. It sucks, I get to listen to all the people talk about that show now that it's on CC because they never watched it on [AS]. . .
-
Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman by Richard Feynman as told to some other guy.
QFT.
And everything else written by and about Mr. Feynman.
And our approach with Number One Son is as outlined above, as well. Not only with religion, but with everything, including music and art.
But not politics.
-
Kudos to Ivan for showing excellent taste over the last couple of days. It speaks well of your character.
-
Kudos to Ivan for showing excellent taste over the last couple of days. It speaks well of your character.
ivan is awesome by definition. (No joke, look it up.)