Re: Human Rights- A Challenge for the Forum
Posted: April 3rd, 2018, 8:41 am
Fooloso4 wrote: ↑March 31st, 2018, 10:27 am Dachshund:
You are barking up the wrong tree, and threatening to stomp away like a petulant child does not strengthen your position. If you would like to discuss Kantian morality start a thread. I have more than a passing familiarity with it and will discuss it in as much detail as is necessary. Those who support human rights are far more likely to appeal to some version of the golden rule - treating others as I would want them to treat me is about as egalitarian as it gets. It is an idea that can be found in many ancient cultures. They might cite something like commensurate punishment, an eye for an eye, which again is an egalitarian notion. They might point to Greek democracy. Or they may simply think it self-evident. Equality does not originate with Kant and it is not a western idea. The ancient Chinese philosopher Mozi, for example, advocated "impartiality", an extreme version of egalitarianism that ever the most egalitarian minded today might balk at.
When Kant says that human being should be treated as ends in themselves and not means it is diametrically opposed to your Hobbesian position that dignity is worth, and worth determined by the judgment of others of your value to them; and that a person cannot be said to have any worth until they become moral agents, that is, responsible for what they do, because until someone is capable of acting responsibly he is of no worth to me or others. You have said nothing about this or whether your own view differs from that of Hobbes, or whether you agree with Hobbes analysis of human nature and mechanistic science of nature, or some alternative. If you are going to deny human rights based on the notion of equality then you must defend what you think is the correct alternative.
It is also important to discuss the relationship between political rights and moral rights.
Foolosoph4,
Here are two standard dictionary definitions of the term "egalitarian"
1. (adjective) believing in or based on the principle that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities.
2. (noun) a person who advocates or supports the principle of equality for all people.
Here, in addition, is how the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy defines egalitarianism:
"Egalitarianism is a trend of thought in political philosophy. An egalitarian favours equality of some sort. People should get the same, or be treated the same, or be treated as equals, should treat one another as equals, or enjoy an equality of social status of some sort. Egalitarian political doctrines tend to rest on a background idea that all human persons are equal in fundamental WORTH OR MORAL STATUS..
The dominant human rights discourse in the West since the end of the SEcond World War, is, as I have said grounded on the egalitarian notion that all men and women possess an equal inherent fundamental WORTH OR MORAL STATUS which it refers to ( after Kant) as DIGNITY. Contemporary moral philosophers working in the field of human rights theory DO agree, BTW that the dominant, contemporary paradigm for analysing the notion of human dignity ( and how it relates to human rights as proclaimed in legal instruments like the current UNUDHR, etc.) is predominantly based on KANT's ethical theory.
You however, conveniently plead ignorance of this fact... Never mind, there is more than one way to skin a slippery, evasive cat like you my friend.
Before I proceed, I will, however, need you to clearly and unequivocally confirm - (if it is the case) - that you are indeed a proponent and advocate of egalitarianism as it is defined above ( in the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy and the standard dictionary I provided from the internet) in respect of your political stance/philosophy.
Just reply with a : "Yes, I am[/i]", or, a "No, I am not[/i]" That will be quite sufficient, thank you.
If you respond in the affirmative, it will be my pleasure to systematically annihilate your position and expose you for the fool that you indeed are.
As for my own stance, it has nothing to do with Hobbes, so you can forget all about that. I am rather, a committed, traditional political conservative and admirer of the political/moral philosophy of the great 18th -century Whig reformer, Edmund Burke. Like Burke, I view any form of political/ moral egalitarianism as pure (and potentially very harmful) stupidity of the most vulgar kind.
Please do not refer again to my pointing out that the infants in the photo posted earlier on this thread are not responsible moral agents, and thereby lack human dignity; this is true, - strictly speaking - but I think in retrospect the argument I presented was too legalistic and ought have been more philosophical ( this being a philosophy form). I will, therefore, return to discuss infants and children in due course; for now I will simply state that they (the photographed infants) absolutely do not possess equal measures of human dignity ( either latent or explicit).
Regards
Dachshund