3 ms·
My first inclination is to agree with the idea that all humans have a right to flourish because I would like everyone to have self-determined and self-acquired
by nis0s 2y ago
My first inclination is to agree with the idea that all humans have a right to flourish because I would like everyone to have self-determined and self-acquired means to actualization.
However, what’s the upper bound on demands made for flourishing if that aspect is codified as a right? I think a more tractable and practical approach in policymaking for determining a set of rights is to codify a set of “disablers” as opposed to a set of enablers.
The universality of such rights notwithstanding, I find it highly inappropriate that the government should be involved in enabling human flourishing outside of ensuring basic human rights. I find this inappropriate because I think actualization of the self is a highly private and individualized matter, whereas the domain of the government is to implement broad and pan-applicable policies. The caveat is that as society gets more complex, so do the basic human rights which need to be ensured to enable productive participation in that society. Everyone needs internet access to participate in a digital economy, for instance.
While I appreciate the thoughtfulness towards an approach to emotional moral philosophy, I think that an emphasis on using emotions as a guide for navigating morals and ethics precludes the judgment needed for seeking a moral truth which may counter an emotional truth. I guess I am unconvinced that there is any necessity at all in imposing emotional guides on morals and ethics, but I do like the list of the ten points that are mentioned—it’s easy enough to imagine how each of those can be stretched to some absurd scenario where governments say-so in those scenarios becomes Orwellian.
- genewitch 2y ago> The universality of such rights notwithstanding, I find it highly inappropriate that the government should be involved in enabling human flourishing outside of ensuring basic human rights. Which rights are "basic human rights?" Can you enumerate them? You typed a lot of words but you left this open for interpretation. Is it because there is no "universality" of rights? For example, clean water? Clean food? Access to clean medicine of verifiable quality and efficacy? Americans with disabilities act sort of rights? Privacy? Religion? Speech? Self defense? Against the government? Ability to bequeath property? Sexual congress? Suicide? To be left alone?
- vacuity 2y agoI say the right of any sentient agent is that it has a baseline of not deserving to suffer. Here, I like Peter Singer's presentation in "All Animals Are Equal". No one should be made to suffer or harmed in any way without an intervening harm of equal or greater significance to be prevented. If clean food can be gotten for everyone reasonably, then it is impermissible to be greedy or even lazy and not give out the food. If clean food is limited, distribute it such that suffering is minimized. Healthcare wasn't a thing in the time of the Mesopotamians, but now that we have healthcare, it should be provided in the way that minimizes suffering. Land property should not be restricted needlessly, but obviously having some private space is important, so land is still a more exhaustible resource. For acts like sex, suicide, and wanting to be left alone, there is a deep complexity as to informed and unpressured consent. All interaction and therefore anything relevant to rights-talk has a fundamental complexity around understanding another's circumstances and discrimination (as long as all agents are not treated exactly the same, this arises).
- nis0s 2y agoI think by “universal” we mean rights which can be conferred to another regardless of place or person. So I do think some rights are universal, but everything a society may call a right is not a universal right—having clean water and clean air, having medicine/healthcare, ability to commit suicide, freedom to sexual congress are not universal rights because they are things a person wants, but not things which prevent that person’s molestation, per se. Universal rights have the quality of preventing personal molestation from another. The way I think it’s best to think of someone(s) molesting another is direct interference in their life. But for animals with higher-level cognition, not getting killed or molested is a bit more complex, which is why these types of animals (who resolve their differences through speech) need group-level effects to safeguard their personal safety, like freedom to religion, freedom to speech, and freedom to bear arms, freedom to privacy, and so on. It’s a tough question, what right is universal and why, and it’s easy enough to draw justifications for why lack of sexual congress may be mentally molesting, and therefore an individual should be guaranteed means to procreation. But the problem with guaranteeing sexual congress for everyone is that it puts undue burden on the provider of such rights. There’s so inherent social or personal benefit in giving someone the right to procreate. But someone trying to procreate should not be actively prevented because doing so would impinge upon their freedom to privacy, at least that’s how I think about it.