Quote:
Originally Posted by Radar
If you don't believe human beings have inalienable rights, yes....you are a monster. The good news is identifying the problem is half the battle. Now you can seek help to fix it.
|
Then I am a monster.
I believe in the civilising power of progress...through that progress we have identified a set of 'rights' which we currently deem inalienable...but they're not actually inherent in our humanity. I am a card carrying member of Amnesty International and campaign in my country on 'human rights': but I also recognise that these rights are an intellectual construct, a theoretical framework into which we place our understanding of ourselves. I like that intellectual construct, it is useful for us as a species, and allows us to transcend some of the less appealing aspects of our humanity.
In the identification and application of an agreed set of 'rights' we are able to transcend in large degree our animal selves.
But those rights are not inherent. If they are then they must also apply beyond our species to other animals. We are animals. Thinking, feeling, advanced animals.
[eta] in the centuries of philosophy to which you refer Radar, the concept of natural rights included within it an acceptance of inequality between the sexes. Tom Paine, whilst arguing for greater rights for all (including women) nonetheless drew a distinction. I'm paraphrasing now, because my copy of RoM is at my house and I'm down at mum's, but it goes something like this: Nature recognises no inequality except for that which exists between the sexes.
The rights of
man are not necessarily the rights of woman. To me, as a woman, the rights you speak of are profoundly alienable.