3 ms·
There’s no pure philosophical answer. It’s a political question. There may, at some point, be something that enough people are willing to fight to see elevated
by swatcoder 4y ago
There’s no pure philosophical answer. It’s a political question.
There may, at some point, be something that enough people are willing to fight to see elevated to a rights status that society is historically very reluctant and slow to share.
That’s it. Either those people will have their reasons and justifications, and to be sufficiently convincing in peaceful, those reasons will need to be exhaustive or those people will use some kind of authority or coercion to insist upon their view.
It’ll never be some single test or thing that convinces everyone. Some such thing may light the fuse of a movement, but it’ll be a very long, very slow burning wick.
- drewcoo 4y ago> It’s a political question. It's no more political than "do dogs have souls." People have different ideologies and they're the basis for approaches to the problem. Nothing can be proved in everyone's terms. And dogs might be sexist or racist or really dislike hats, but they can't tell how someone voted in the last election.
- swatcoder 4y agoSorry, what? Political just means it’s a socially invented question that gets both raised and resolved through interplays of power. Which, incidentally, was the same for the “Do dogs have souls” question. For political reasons, it became a pressing matter for the Catholic Church to make a pronouncement on. So they did. And their decree carried weight because they were a politically influential body. So yes, I guess it is no more political than than that. But it feels like that’s not what you were trying to say?
- yarg 4y ago> Political just means it’s a socially invented question Not necessarily; the question itself can be apolitical, with the answers being subject to the political lens of the individual.