The March Philosophy Book of the Month is Final Notice by Van Fleisher. Discuss Final Notice now.

The April Philosophy Book of the Month is The Unbound Soul by Richard L. Haight. Discuss The Unbound Soul Now

The May Philosophy Book of the Month is Misreading Judas by Robert Wahler.

On the "rights" of Nature

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
Post Reply
GE Morton
Posts: 1085
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: On the "rights" of Nature

Post by GE Morton » May 1st, 2019, 7:41 pm

Isaac3 wrote:
May 1st, 2019, 4:25 pm
You keep mentioning the "historical facts" which determine if a right can be correctly imputed, but then you say that the facts in question are whether the act (or to obtaining of property) occured without "harming" another moral agent. The occurrence of "harm" to a moral agent is not something to which the status of "fact" can be assigned in the way you are doing. It is at best a widely agreed upon subjective judgement, at times, not even widely agreed on.
No, it is not a "widely agreed upon subjective judgment." There is no disagreement (that I've ever heard about) that killing someone, beating her, breaking her leg, raping her, robbing or cheating her are harms to her. A "harm" is an event that reduces someone's welfare. The term is well-defined and in most cases whether an act by a moral agent reduces another's welfare is empirically verifiable. There is nothing subjective about it.

That doesn't mean that the truth or falsity of all claims of harm are determinable. As with most other empirical claims (e.g., "There is life on Mars") sometimes the facts are currently unobtainable, and so the truth of the claim cannot be determined. But in most cases they are readily available. Nor does it mean that people cannot make claims of "harms" that are indeed subjective, i.e., claims in which no measurable loss of welfare is evident (e.g., offenses to someone's sensibilities or tastes). The definition of "rights" disregards such "harms".

User avatar
Isaac3
New Trial Member
Posts: 3
Joined: May 1st, 2019, 3:32 pm

Re: On the "rights" of Nature

Post by Isaac3 » May 2nd, 2019, 11:42 am

GE Morton wrote:
May 1st, 2019, 7:41 pm
There is no disagreement (that I've ever heard about) that killing someone, beating her, breaking her leg, raping her, robbing or cheating her are harms to her. A "harm" is an event that reduces someone's welfare.
But this is evidently not true. There exist cultures even now where beatings take place "for their own good", where what some people consider possessions are "robbed" by others who disagree, where "cheating" is considered the norm.

This is aside from any decision about long-term vs short-term harms.

Are you seriously suggesting that you've never heard anyone claiming to have delivered a 'righteous' beating, conduct a 'righteous' war, take what they think is 'righteously' theirs from someone else who disagrees?

I don't really understand where you are coming from with this idea that everyone universally agrees on what actions have harmed a person's welfare. Disagreement over that exact issue is pretty much the basis of all normative ethics.

GE Morton
Posts: 1085
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: On the "rights" of Nature

Post by GE Morton » May 2nd, 2019, 6:32 pm

Isaac3 wrote:
May 2nd, 2019, 11:42 am

There exist cultures even now where beatings take place "for their own good" . . .
That someone believes that beating someone is "for their own good" does not prevent it from being a harm to the person beaten. If the latter's welfare is reduced --- if he is less healthy or wealthy than prior to the beating --- the beating was a harm. The beater's rationale is irrelevant, even if the beating is justified.
. . . where what some people consider possessions are "robbed" by others who disagree, where "cheating" is considered the norm.
Disagreements over the ownership of something are questions of fact. They are not subjective. If those facts show that the legitimate owner's property was taken he was harmed. That is not subjective either.
Are you seriously suggesting that you've never heard anyone claiming to have delivered a 'righteous' beating, conduct a 'righteous' war, take what they think is 'righteously' theirs from someone else who disagrees?
You seem to be assuming that the rational or justification for an act bears on whether it counts as a harm. It doesn't.

Harm:

"1. injury, damage, or problems caused by something that you do"

https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dic ... can/harm_1

If you inflict injury, damage, losses on another moral agent you have harmed him, regardless of whether the act was "righteous" or not.

GE Morton
Posts: 1085
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: On the "rights" of Nature

Post by GE Morton » May 2nd, 2019, 6:36 pm

PS: Some harms are justifiable. E.g., injuries inflicted in self-defense, damages awarded for negligence, etc. But they are still harms.

User avatar
TheSageOfMainStreet
New Trial Member
Posts: 5
Joined: May 2nd, 2019, 5:50 pm

Nothing in Nature Is Where It Belongs Unless Man Put It There

Post by TheSageOfMainStreet » May 2nd, 2019, 7:34 pm

Intellectual_Savnot wrote:
April 16th, 2019, 1:04 pm
I think this is highly agreeable until we reach the argument that:
We must preserve and respect nature (if we are being responsible humans)
This binding to responsibility could create a virtual right held by nature to be respected
Even though there are currently no rights held by nature, we are bound by responsibility to act as if natural bodies and entities have rights
At that point, why not just give them the rights as to make more coherent the rationale of our actions?

Personifying living objects is primitive and superstitious. Believing that nature is supernatural is a contradiction. Bitterly and vindictively, these escapist misfits have nothing but contempt for human aspirations, which, if blocked by their authoritarian irrationalism, would lead to attacks of man upon man instead of man exploiting nature in partnership with his fellow man. The Greens shouldn't be dismissed as fools; they are viciously anti-social and must be put down forcibly.

Unfortunately, we still retain this ignorant awe of nature that we had as children. Seeing that, these aggressive and power-hungry Naturists exploit such long-lasting illusions as a prelude to exploiting us through political tyranny.

User avatar
TheSageOfMainStreet
New Trial Member
Posts: 5
Joined: May 2nd, 2019, 5:50 pm

To Those Sitting Pretty, Nature Is a Pretty Sight That Must Not Be Violated by Plebeian Use

Post by TheSageOfMainStreet » May 2nd, 2019, 7:50 pm

Felix wrote:
April 23rd, 2019, 6:36 pm
(quoting Aldo Leopold) "A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise."

G.E. Morton: Well, that thesis (as suggested in the OP) leads to endless absurdities.
Only if you don't apply common sense to it. I presume he is talking about the broader planetary biosphere.
G.E. Morton: No biotic community is stable. They are dynamic, evolving systems, which are unstable by definition.
Actually the reverse is true: no biotic community is unstable because biological order (homeostasis) is required for communities to form and evolve.
G.E. Morton: Ethics (moral rightness and wrongness) applies only to the acts of moral agents that affect other moral agents.
I think that such a radically anthropocentric conception of ethics is a symptom of pathology - whatever the corrolary for sociopath is... speciopath?
Your imaginary moral forces are extremely anti-human. Deifying nature is a declaration of war on mankind. We have the right to exploit it as much as our intelligence enables us, not only for use but even for pleasure. It has no moral authority over us. Behind the scenes, what sponsors this retrogressive religion of human sacrifice is the frightened understanding that the uninhibited exploitation of nature is the main cause of class mobility.

User avatar
Isaac3
New Trial Member
Posts: 3
Joined: May 1st, 2019, 3:32 pm

Re: On the "rights" of Nature

Post by Isaac3 » May 3rd, 2019, 2:31 am

GE Morton wrote:
May 2nd, 2019, 6:32 pm
If the latter's welfare is reduced --- if he is less healthy or wealthy than prior to the beating --- the beating was a harm. The beater's rationale is irrelevant, even if the beating is justified.
Firstly, some people believe that beating a child, for example, when they've misbehaved will actually increase their welfare in the long-term. Don't forget your original claim was that we have a 'right' to anything obtained or done without 'harm'. So a police officer does not have the 'right' to take back a stolen watch if he used any injurious force in apprehending the thief? You don't even have the 'right' to your coffee because it was farmed in such a way as to damage the welfare of the farmer?

Health, welfare and wealth are all subjective terms. Are you healthier after a run even though you are in pain? Is wealth only measurable in material property? What about communally owned property? What about non-assigned natural resources?

Also, are you seriously suggesting that our common understanding of 'harm' is sufficiently described by injury and wealth. If I killed your life-partner have I done you no harm because I haven't injured you or reduced your wealth? But if we are to admit that I have done you harm, then our notion of harm includes psychological well-being, and as soon as it does, it becomes subjective.
GE Morton wrote:
May 2nd, 2019, 6:32 pm
Disagreements over the ownership of something are questions of fact. They are not subjective. If those facts show that the legitimate owner's property was taken he was harmed. That is not subjective either.
Right, so we don't have the 'right' to any of our land because it was taken by force in war? Or are you suggesting that who owns what land is all just a "matter of fact"? Who owned the Americas at the time of Columbus? And who owns it now, by 'right'? And how did we, purely on the basis of fact, get from the former to the latter position?
GE Morton wrote:
May 2nd, 2019, 6:32 pm
You seem to be assuming that the rational or justification for an act bears on whether it counts as a harm. It doesn't.

Harm:

"1. injury, damage, or problems caused by something that you do"

If you inflict injury, damage, losses on another moral agent you have harmed him, regardless of whether the act was "righteous" or not.
You're forgetting your own argument. We're not simply arriving at a working definition of 'harm'. If you want to limit the meaning of the word 'harm' to just physical injury and loss, then fine, but you cannot then also argue (as you have) that this limited definition captures exactly what we mean when we say that something was obtained 'righteously', that someone has a 'right' to it.

It seems widely agreed on that each sovereign state has a 'right' to their land despite the fact that it was obtain in bloody war. It is widely agreed upon that I do have a 'right' to items you freely give me, despite the fact that you have suffered a material loss in wealth doing so, but equally I don't have a 'right' to those same goods if I conned you into giving them to me, even though there has been no greater material loss, and no physical injury.

'Right', as we commonly, and legally, use the term, has entirely to do with justification. It is about whether someone is justified in their expectation of a thing, it is now, and always has been, entirely subjective.

GE Morton
Posts: 1085
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: On the "rights" of Nature

Post by GE Morton » May 4th, 2019, 11:23 pm

Isaac3 wrote:
May 3rd, 2019, 2:31 am

Firstly, some people believe that beating a child, for example, when they've misbehaved will actually increase their welfare in the long-term.
Couple of problems there. First we need to define "beating." I take a "beating" to mean a physical attack that leaves bruises, abrasions, lacerations, broken bones, lost teeth, etc. A swat on the rear doesn't count. I doubt that many believe beating a child (in that sense) yields any increase in his welfare, short- or long-term. But even if some do believe that it benefits the child in the long term, that belief is speculative and dubious, while there is no doubt that it harms the child in the short term.
Don't forget your original claim was that we have a 'right' to anything obtained or done without 'harm'. So a police officer does not have the 'right' to take back a stolen watch if he used any injurious force in apprehending the thief?
Force used to retrieve stolen property may harm the thief, but that harm is justifiable. Force employed to right a previous wrong is always justifiable, provided it inflicts no more harm than necessary to right the wrong. The thief's loss of the stolen property does not count as a harm to him, however. He may not count goods not legitimately acquired by him as contributors to his welfare.
You don't even have the 'right' to your coffee because it was farmed in such a way as to damage the welfare of the farmer?
Now, why would a farmer farm in such a way as to damage his own welfare? Are you suggesting he is a slave, working under duress?

But I think your point is that persons who knowingly accept benefits of an immoral act share guilt for that act. I agree that they do, but there are practical limits on what beneficiaries can be expected to know, and what efforts they are obliged to exert to learn the provenance of every item they buy.
Health, welfare and wealth are all subjective terms.
No, they are not. They are somewhat vague, but that is not the same as subjective. There are no "subjective terms." There are only subjective/objective propositions. A proposition is objective if its truth conditions are public, verifiable by any suitably situated person. It is subjective if its truth conditions are private, verifiable only by the speaker.

"Welfare" is the key term there. I define it as a measure of the extent to which an agent's interests and desires are satisfied. Since those are idiosyncratic, "welfare" is always relative to agents (what I would count as an improvement in my welfare may not be so counted by you). But that does not make it "subjective." A proposition asserting that x improves P's welfare can be verified (or disconfirmed) by anyone; the proposition is objective.
Are you healthier after a run even though you are in pain?
I have no idea. That the health effects of some behaviors is unknown does not make the term "subjective." To say a person is healthy is to say that he is free of injuries, diseases, and disabilities, physical or "mental." The meaning of the term is not controversial. What may be controversial is what effects various activities and external factors may have on health.
Is wealth only measurable in material property?
Yes. By definition. Applying the term to anything else is metaphorical.

"WEALTH:
1 : abundance of valuable material possessions or resources
2 : abundant supply : PROFUSION
3a : all property that has a money value or an exchangeable value
b : all material objects that have economic utility
especially : the stock of useful goods having economic value in existence at any one time
national wealth

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wealth
What about communally owned property?
Not sure of the point of that question, but every member of the owning community owns a share of such property. It contributes to his welfare.
What about non-assigned natural resources?
Not sure what you mean by a "non-assigned" resource. Do you mean an unknown/undiscovered one, which therefore benefits no one?
Also, are you seriously suggesting that our common understanding of 'harm' is sufficiently described by injury and wealth. If I killed your life-partner have I done you no harm because I haven't injured you or reduced your wealth? But if we are to admit that I have done you harm, then our notion of harm includes psychological well-being, and as soon as it does, it becomes subjective.
No, it doesn't. (See distinction between relative and subjective, above). That a person suffers emotional/psychological distress is an objective fact, verifiable by anyone who knows that person (and by physicians and other professionals). It can be easily inferred from changes in his behavior and demeanor. While what may induce that stress is relative to agents, and how it may be compensated (via lawsuits for emotional distress or loss of consortium) is notoriously arbitrary, the presence of the condition is quite objective. A person's welfare is clearly reduced by such a loss.
Right, so we don't have the 'right' to any of our land because it was taken by force in war? Or are you suggesting that who owns what land is all just a "matter of fact"? Who owned the Americas at the time of Columbus? And who owns it now, by 'right'? And how did we, purely on the basis of fact, get from the former to the latter position?
That issue has been debated often on this forum. In general, we can claim rights to land to the extent title can be traced without encountering a forcible dispossession (ideally, to the first possessor). As for who owned the Americas, no one owned most of it; it was res nullius. In some cases, of course, natives were forcibly dispossessed. If their descendents are still around they are entitled to compensation (which has been awarded in some cases).
You're forgetting your own argument. We're not simply arriving at a working definition of 'harm'. If you want to limit the meaning of the word 'harm' to just physical injury and loss, then fine, but you cannot then also argue (as you have) that this limited definition captures exactly what we mean when we say that something was obtained 'righteously', that someone has a 'right' to it.
Why not? What do you think we mean when we say that something was obtained righteously? I take it to mean exactly that: that it was obtained without inflicting harm or loss on anyone else. If you think it means something more, or something else, please explain.
It seems widely agreed on that each sovereign state has a 'right' to their land despite the fact that it was obtain in bloody war.
Well, I'm not sure how widely agreed upon that claim is. Or even whether states have any rights to any land. Claiming sovereignty over a territory is not the same as claiming title to it.
It is widely agreed upon that I do have a 'right' to items you freely give me, despite the fact that you have suffered a material loss in wealth doing so . . .
I may have suffered a loss of wealth, but not a loss of welfare. Giving gifts does not reduce the giver's welfare; it usually enhances it. The giver gains something in return, which he considers more valuable that what he has given up. Losses of wealth represent losses of welfare only when they are imposed upon unwilling agents by external forces or events.
'Right', as we commonly, and legally, use the term, has entirely to do with justification. It is about whether someone is justified in their expectation of a thing, it is now, and always has been, entirely subjective.
That is inconsistent. If whatever considerations underlie that expectation are subjective, it cannot possibly justified. To say that an expectation is justified is just to say that it is based on facts. If it is not, it is unjustified prima facie.

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 8158
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: On the "rights" of Nature

Post by Greta » May 11th, 2019, 6:39 pm

Well, no. The rights of corporations, trade unions, States, and other groups of humans are not "nonhuman rights." To claim that a group of humans is "nonhuman" is asinine. Groups of humans have all the rights their members bring with them into the group. A corporation's rights are the rights of its members, nothing more or less.
To say that a corporation is human or worthy of human rights because it contains humans is ungrounded. By that "logic", then buildings and suburbs must be classified as human. That would be as asinine as suggesting that corporations are worthy of human rights because they are "human".

Corporations are abstract legal entities that contain property, plant and expendable human parts, the latter being rapidly replaced by machine intelligence.

As for the rights of nature, we are humans and we only grudgingly confer rights to each other, let alone other beings. Today, rights are directly proportional to money and popularity. Might is right again and the weak shall perish unaided and unmourned.

Many years ago I'd hoped that things were finally changing, that humanity would become wiser in its attitudes towards the rest of nature. This millennium those hopes have been utterly destroyed by the rise of anti-nature quasi-fascism.

GE Morton
Posts: 1085
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: On the "rights" of Nature

Post by GE Morton » May 11th, 2019, 11:23 pm

Greta wrote:
May 11th, 2019, 6:39 pm

To say that a corporation is human or worthy of human rights because it contains humans is ungrounded.
Whether or not someone has a right is not a matter of worthiness. It is a matter of objective fact. Rights are not honorifics, properties we may choose to bestow upon persons (or things) we like. "P has a right to x" is true when certain historical facts regarding P and x exist; false otherwise.
By that "logic", then buildings and suburbs must be classified as human . . . Corporations are abstract legal entities that contain property, plant and expendable human parts, the latter being rapidly replaced by machine intelligence.
No, they aren't. A corporation is a group of persons who have joined in pursuit of a common goal or purpose, nothing more or less. There is nothing "abstract" about them; they are as well defined and concrete as a nuclear family, a football team, a jazz band, or any other defined group of persons. Corporations don't "contain" property, plant, etc., though they may own those things, just as you may own your house. They have all the rights the persons who constitute them have, no more or less, including the rights to speak, offer their services to others, support or oppose various public policies, etc. A corporation exists whenever a group of people decide to form one, adopt a charter, and put up their money. Legal recognition is ontologically surperfluous; it would still exist whether the law recognized it or not.
As for the rights of nature, we are humans and we only grudgingly confer rights to each other, let alone other beings. Today, rights are directly proportional to money and popularity. Might is right again and the weak shall perish unaided and unmourned.
That may be true of legal rights, but those are arbitrary and often morally vacuous (they have moral substance only when they codify natural or common rights).

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 8158
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: On the "rights" of Nature

Post by Greta » May 12th, 2019, 7:46 am

GE Morton wrote:
May 11th, 2019, 11:23 pm
By that "logic", then buildings and suburbs must be classified as human . . . Corporations are abstract legal entities that contain property, plant and expendable human parts, the latter being rapidly replaced by machine intelligence.
No, they aren't. A corporation is a group of persons who have joined in pursuit of a common goal or purpose, nothing more or less. There is nothing "abstract" about them; they are as well defined and concrete as a nuclear family, a football team, a jazz band, or any other defined group of persons.
A dated response. You are confusing corporations with small business.

When one has experience working in and with corporations, it is very clear that they are very far from being "a group of persons who have joined in pursuit of a common goal or purpose". If that was true, then when those people died or left, then the corporation would not be able to function. In truth, all people in a corporation can be replaced and, like grandfather's axe (or you after seven years), the corporation remains substantially the same.

A corporation is an abstract structure - a legal structure that consists of aims, goals, plans, regulations, property, plant and resources. Some of those resources are, obviously, human resources. As noted above, the human portions of corporations are entirely expendable, and are currently being replaced by machine intelligence.

Corporations have zero claim to human rights. Each human currently being used by a corporation can claim human rights for themselves (if anyone bothers listening). There is no reason for the abstract legal structures governing the actions of temporary aggregations of people to be conferred more rights than actual, living sentient beings.

As things stand, corporations are rather good at gaining "rights" for themselves and need no defending by, or from, individuals. Consider a corporation's "right" to leave an inordinate share of the tax burden on the little people as it hides its profits in overseas tax shelters and behind dodgy accounting. If we wish to confer rights to parasites, perhaps we could rally for the rights of cockroaches too?

GE Morton
Posts: 1085
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: On the "rights" of Nature

Post by GE Morton » May 12th, 2019, 10:07 am

Greta wrote:
May 12th, 2019, 7:46 am

When one has experience working in and with corporations, it is very clear that they are very far from being "a group of persons who have joined in pursuit of a common goal or purpose". If that was true, then when those people died or left, then the corporation would not be able to function.
That is not true, Greta. Corporations are open groups, as are the other groups I mentioned (football teams, jazz bands, etc.), meaning members can leave and new members join at any time. The corporation at any given time consists of the persons who are members at that time. Moreover, as old members leave and new ones join the corporation changes, in its goals, business model, product mix, marketing strategies, and "corporate culture," according to the desires of its current members.
A corporation is an abstract structure - a legal structure that consists of aims, goals, plans, regulations, property, plant and resources. Some of those resources are, obviously, human resources. As noted above, the human portions of corporations are entirely expendable, and are currently being replaced by machine intelligence.
You're again confusing the assets of a corporation with its constituent components. It makes no more sense to say that a corporation "consists" of property, plant, and resources than to say that Greta "consists" of her house, bicycle, shoes, and lawnmower. And of course its "human resources" (employees) are expendable. They are employed as long as their services are needed, just as is the plumber you hire to fix a leak. You make no lifetime commitments to the mechanic you hire to fix your car, or the Uber driver you hire to take you to the airport.

Moreoever, no law that I know of specifies plans, property, resources of corporations. At the time most corporations are formed they have little, if any, of those. They are recognized by law if their members and their roles are identified. And, as I said, the corporation exists when the formative agreement among its founding members is signed, whether recognized by law or not, just as the Early Bird Gardening Club comes into existence when Annabelle, Betsy, and Clara choose a name, write up a charter and a set of by-laws, and chip in to build a greenhouse. Whether the government recognizes it is irrelevant.
Corporations have zero claim to human rights.
They have no rights other than those of their members. But they have all of those, since the members do not lose any rights by joining together. If the corporation consists of Alfie, Bruno, Chauncey, and Dudley, and all of them have (say) the right of free speech, then so does the group. The members may speak individually, or appoint someone to speak on their behalf as a group.
There is no reason for the abstract legal structures governing the actions of temporary aggregations of people to be conferred more rights than actual, living sentient beings.
:-) You've apparently overlooked the oxymoron there. Are not the people in a "temporary aggregation" also "actual, living, sentient beings"? Are you suggesting people lose their rights when they temporarily aggregate?
Consider a corporation's "right" to leave an inordinate share of the tax burden on the little people as it hides its profits in overseas tax shelters and behind dodgy accounting. If we wish to confer rights to parasites, perhaps we could rally for the rights of cockroaches too?
Corporations do not apportion taxes. Politicians do that. Corporations, like most other taxpayers, try to minimize their tax burdens (with more justification than many other taxpayers, given that they benefit little from the government services those taxes pay for).

And of course you're using the word "parasite" incorrectly. A parasite is a creature that subsists on nourishment supplied by others, while giving nothing in return. Corporations obviously give much in return --- namely, almost everything you use and consume.

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 8158
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: On the "rights" of Nature

Post by Greta » May 12th, 2019, 6:11 pm

GE Morton wrote:
May 12th, 2019, 10:07 am
Greta wrote:
May 12th, 2019, 7:46 am

When one has experience working in and with corporations, it is very clear that they are very far from being "a group of persons who have joined in pursuit of a common goal or purpose". If that was true, then when those people died or left, then the corporation would not be able to function.
That is not true, Greta. Corporations are open groups, as are the other groups I mentioned (football teams, jazz bands, etc.), meaning members can leave and new members join at any time. The corporation at any given time consists of the persons who are members at that time. Moreover, as old members leave and new ones join the corporation changes, in its goals, business model, product mix, marketing strategies, and "corporate culture," according to the desires of its current members.
The change in nature of things as they grow is the absolute key issue here. If you equate corporations that have assets in the tens or even hundreds of billions with a jazz quartet then you are wasting my time. Then microbes are the same as mammals, skyscrapers are the same as grass huts and planets are the same as pebbles :roll:

Why would you want to waste people's time with such an obviously wrong response? Are you gaming me, or do you really believe that what your first year economics level knowledge represents actual reality?

I have some time to debate, but not enough to play asinine games over the very obvious. By all means try again, but this time please at least try not to leave such gaping logical holes for others to clean up.

GE Morton
Posts: 1085
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: On the "rights" of Nature

Post by GE Morton » May 12th, 2019, 8:27 pm

Greta wrote:
May 12th, 2019, 6:11 pm

If you equate corporations that have assets in the tens or even hundreds of billions with a jazz quartet then you are wasting my time. Then microbes are the same as mammals, skyscrapers are the same as grass huts and planets are the same as pebbles
Sorry Greta, but with respect to the properties relevant to this discussion the parallels with football teams and jazz bands are exact. The issues in question, you may recall, are, What is a corporation (of what does it consist?), and, What rights does it have? What material assets those various groups have has utterly no bearing on the answers to those questions.

A jazz band consists of its players; a football team consists of it players and coaches; a corporation consists of its stockholders. What assets any of those groups have is irrelevant to that issue. Nor is it relevant to the question of what rights any of those groups have. A corporation consisting of two brothers and their wives, with assets of $10,000, has the same rights as one with 1 million stockholders and $100 billion in assets. They all have whatever rights their constituent members have.

That those groups differ from one another in various other ways does not cancel their similarities in the relevant respects. Your protest is contrived and disingenuous --- pointing to similarities or parallels between things is not to "equate" them.

The Left has for decades pursued a passionate campaign to de-humanize business corporations, to portray them as unnatural, amoral, artificial golems with unholy agendas, while stubbornly ignoring the obvious fact that they are nothing but groups of people --- 100% human people. But since few corporations subscribe to the collectivist dogmas of the Left, they are to be regarded as inhuman monsters.

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 8158
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: On the "rights" of Nature

Post by Greta » May 12th, 2019, 9:18 pm

Not good enough, sorry. You completely ignore emergence and conflicts of interest with taxpayers - the most critical aspects when considering the nature of large organisations as compared with small ones.

BTW, reducing this to left/right issue is incredibly asinine. If you want to be a patsy for the propagandists in today's current insane overheated political climate, be my guest, but don't try to drag others down to that level.

Post Reply