AJ: If the person's sense of empathy really is severely offended by every single act of coercion...
If the person's sense of empathy really is severely offended by every single act of coercion...
Surely Bush and Obama thought they, if we go by their words, were and are being empathetic in their warring escapades and military empire around the world. They both were being empathetic and thus doing what is good for the people in their wire-tapping, gitmo, universal health care, abortion issues, racial issues, cap-n-trade global change issues, and all the other un-Constitutional and anti-natural rights issues for it's all because they are here to help the people - they are being empathetic and desire to merely help. Can't you people get it? They are here to help you - lol - they have big hearts...
Edit: I started another thread on empathy to not detract from the main point of this thread.
krazy kaju:Rights are not something that are given, they are something that arise from nature.
That's one definition.
krazy kaju:In order to be fully logically consistent, a defender of animal rights must argue for the creation of kangaroo courts, literally.
If and only if they define rights as arising from nature and they believe they are obligated to enforce those rights. Both assume something about the views of the person in question.
Why anarchy fails
wilderness: AJ: If the person's sense of empathy really is severely offended by every single act of coercion... Surely Bush and Obama thought they, if we go by their words, were and are being empathetic in their warring escapades and military empire around the world.
Surely Bush and Obama thought they, if we go by their words, were and are being empathetic in their warring escapades and military empire around the world.
My full quote was, "If the person's sense of empathy really is severely offended by every single act of coercion - even in the wild - then logically that person may indeed wish that they could put lions on trial, although they may see the practical infeasibility of that."
If Bush and Obama are truly motivated by their sense of empathy to do those things, then they are not being illogical. But they can of course lie, and what is a good idea for one person is not necessarily good for another. For Bush and Obama, personally, those actions were their attempts to gain the most personal benefit (in the broadest sense) out of the situation they felt they were in. Those actions were not to the world's benefit, sure, but that doesn't change that fact.
In other words, I'm not stating anything novel or shocking here, just pointing out that people forget that every action anyone ever does cannot but be that very action that they deem at that moment to be most likely to bring them the greatest personal benefit (in the broadest sense, including indirectly, spiritually, etc.). Even the deontologist follows deontology so as to gain the greatest personal benefit, so he is only interested in consequences in the very broadest sense. People are forgetting that quite often.
AJ: krazy kaju:Rights are not something that are given, they are something that arise from nature. That's one definition.
No that's the definition. given=for ; arise from nature=of
AJ: If and only if they define rights as arising from nature and they believe they are obligated to enforce those rights. Both assume something about the views of the person in question.
Education is always part of the equation or else a person is feral or mentally a baby still. Not education about rights - education in general.
AJ: wilderness: AJ: If the person's sense of empathy really is severely offended by every single act of coercion... Surely Bush and Obama thought they, if we go by their words, were and are being empathetic in their warring escapades and military empire around the world. My full quote was, "If the person's sense of empathy really is severely offended by every single act of coercion - even in the wild - then logically that person may indeed wish that they could put lions on trial, although they may see the practical infeasibility of that." If Bush and Obama are truly motivated by their sense of empathy to do those things, then they are not being illogical. But they can of course lie, and what is a godo idea for one person is not necessarily good for another. For Bush and Obama, personally, those actions were their attempts to gain the most personal benefit (in the broadest sense) out of the situation they felt they were in. In other words, I'm not stating anything novel here, just pointing out that people forget that every action anyone ever does cannot but be that very action that they deem at that moment to be most likely to bring them the greatest personal benefit (in the broadest sense, including indirectly, spiritually, etc.). Even the deontologist follows deotology so as to gain the greatest personal benefit. People are forgetting that quite often.
If Bush and Obama are truly motivated by their sense of empathy to do those things, then they are not being illogical. But they can of course lie, and what is a godo idea for one person is not necessarily good for another. For Bush and Obama, personally, those actions were their attempts to gain the most personal benefit (in the broadest sense) out of the situation they felt they were in. In other words, I'm not stating anything novel here, just pointing out that people forget that every action anyone ever does cannot but be that very action that they deem at that moment to be most likely to bring them the greatest personal benefit (in the broadest sense, including indirectly, spiritually, etc.). Even the deontologist follows deotology so as to gain the greatest personal benefit. People are forgetting that quite often.
moved to another thread...
wilderness: AJ: krazy kaju:Rights are not something that are given, they are something that arise from nature. That's one definition. No that's the definition. given=for ; arise from nature=of krazy kaju:In order to be fully logically consistent, a defender of animal rights must argue for the creation of kangaroo courts, literally. AJ: If and only if they define rights as arising from nature and they believe they are obligated to enforce those rights. Both assume something about the views of the person in question. Education is always part of the equation or else a person is feral or mentally a baby still. Not education about rights - education in general.
OK, but I'd like to point out that your assertions are tantamount to quite a strong statement: "Anyone who doesn't define a particular word in this particular way is mentally feral or a baby."
AJ: wilderness: Education is always part of the equation or else a person is feral or mentally a baby still. Not education about rights - education in general. OK, but I'd like to point out that your assertions are tantamount to quite a strong statement: "Anyone who doesn't define a particular word in this particular way is mentally feral or a baby."
wilderness: Education is always part of the equation or else a person is feral or mentally a baby still. Not education about rights - education in general.
wow, a bit off from what I said aren't you?
wilderness: AJ: OK, but I'd like to point out that your assertions are tantamount to quite a strong statement: "Anyone who doesn't define a particular word in this particular way is mentally feral or a baby." wow, a bit off from what I said aren't you?
AJ: OK, but I'd like to point out that your assertions are tantamount to quite a strong statement: "Anyone who doesn't define a particular word in this particular way is mentally feral or a baby."
Did I misread you? I couldn't see how to interpret you in any other way, in that context:
wilderness: AJ: If and only if they define rights as arising from nature and they believe they are obligated to enforce those rights. Both assume something about the views of the person in question. Education is always part of the equation or else a person is feral or mentally a baby still. Not education about rights - education in general.
Anyway, you clearly didn't mean what I thought you meant, so no contention from me.
AJ: Did I misread you? I couldn't see how to interpret you in any other way, in that context:
Yes you misread me. You made a statement about education that I stated a general outcome of extreme-ill education. As I stated, not about rights, but about education in general.
Then we're in agreement.
AJ: Then we're in agreement.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
I don't think animals have rights, but I would die defending them from other humans. Such as if I saw someone about to club a seal, I would gladly trade myself. Similarly if I saw someone hitting their dog, I would violate nap. The only reason this problem exists is that we can't freely associate, because if we could people that feel like me could band together.
twistedbydsign99:Such as if I saw someone about to club a seal, I would gladly trade myself
better not go to canada at seal clubbing season, eh?
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Vitor:All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
heh. I made an animal farm reference earlier today. :)
all animal farm references are equal, but some are more equal than others.
sorry, couldn't help it. its a sickness....
twistedbydsign99:Such as if I saw someone about to club a seal, I would gladly trade myself.
You value a seals life greater than your own?
twistedbydsign99:but I would die defending them from other humans.
Why only from humans? Why not from other seals, killer whales, diseases, starvation, etc?
Pablo:You value a seals life greater than your own?
I didn't mean to imply I would calmly trade, I would try to intervene up to and including my life.
Pablo:Why only from humans? Why not from other seals, killer whales, diseases, starvation, etc?
Even when it came down to humans it would be a case by case basis. I can't in general say that killing animals is bad and I can't in general say its good. I would take issue with someone killing for sport or massacre.
AJ:A believer in animal rights may be more nuanced as well, perhaps deciding that we should for practical reasons leave non-humans to fight amongst themselves, but should enforce laws against needless human cruelty to animals.
Doesn't an animal rights activist contradict himself by simultaneously stating that there is
1 no distinction between animals and humans (animals should have the same rights as humans) and
2 a distinction between animals and humans, because animals do not have to respect the rights of other animals (no lions on trial for murder)
If there's no distinction and animals deserve rights, the government should force them to respect each other's rights just as it does with people. Carnivores, I'm assuming, will get the death penalty, and we'll all have to be vegetarians.
If there is, however, a distinction, and animals for some reason are exempt from having to respect rights, well then why on earth should they have them?
Contradictions like this are evidence of irrationality--as if I need to say that in reference to animal rights advocates.
"We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude." - Thomas Jefferson
Typically they lean towards a blanket "no harm" position. But harm isn't always bad. Animals kill each other all the time in order to survive, to say they have rights is a contradiction.
It all depends on the definition of rights, which people appear not to agree upon much. I made a poll about this a while ago and got 100% disagreement on the defitition.
Daniel: This question is directed towards those who say that all animals have rights, but anyone is welcome to respond. If all animals have rights, why stop there? Why not argue that all eukaryota have rights? Why can't fungi, amoebozoa, plantae, chromalveolata, rhizaria, and excavata have rights?
This question is directed towards those who say that all animals have rights, but anyone is welcome to respond.
If all animals have rights, why stop there? Why not argue that all eukaryota have rights? Why can't fungi, amoebozoa, plantae, chromalveolata, rhizaria, and excavata have rights?
As someone still yet to form a solid opinion on the subject, I'm still not there even though some people tried explaining this in another thread. Either I'm too dumb to understand or I'm too sick and medicated IRL to think straight right now...
I'm still thinking about the origin of rights in the first place, not only what the origin of rights is, but why rights are derived from that origin. According to the responses I've gotten so far: Rights are "of" an individual rather than "for" (IOW given to?) an individual.
But the whys still excape me. The US founders (or at least Jefferson) believed that certain basic rights were given to man by God (their creator), yes? I fail to see why this only would apply to humans, and why rights cannot also be "given" to some animals based on a human society's specific moral values and the expectation that they adhere to the behavioral norms that society requires of them. This is a different "source" of rights than the founders, but if someone isn't religious that source doesn't mean much to them anyway, so it seems the ultimate source of rights would be human society itself.
I agree with the point that the OP is making, that if animals have rights, it would follow that all living things should also...which is obviously nonsense. But I get lost when applying the same test in reverse. If animals have no rights, why should humans? It's especially confusing when you consider humans that don't possess the only traits making humans different from animals (such as insane or mentally disabled people). Another complication is when rights are taken away from some people because they violated society's rules of behavior, i.e. a criminal loses their right to personal freedom and the pursuit of happiness. How can society take away rights that are granted by some higher authority?
I think I am defining rights (or at least the origin of rights) differently here, like I think AJ was trying to point out.
Good question.
My answer would be similar to someone else's answer given on the question: "If all humans have rights, why stop there? Why not argue that all animals have rights?" Someone answered that that is because humans have characteristics that animals do not such as free will and the ability to troll the internets.
Would the answer to your question then not be something along the lines of "because animals have characteristics that bacteria and plantae etc... do not have such as (insert biological terms here).
Also humans belong to the animalia kingdom, so why should humans have rights but not other biologically similar organisms? It seems to me more of a biological question than a philosophical one.
Ansury: I'm still thinking about the origin of rights in the first place, not only what the origin of rights is, but why rights are derived from that origin. According to the responses I've gotten so far: Rights are "of" an individual rather than "for" (IOW given to?) an individual.
I think you know it, glimpse it, and are on the right track. Yes, "for" denotes "given to".
I'll try to answer the "why". Bare with me.
Humans act, as opposed to, a human is potential. Thus I'm talking about the humans that are acting - in other words - humans that are living, not the humans that are not yet born and are dead.
I'm going to start at the basics, which actually can be the most intellectually challenging, and I'm still learning but who isn't. Aquinas would say to learn a person needs to start with '...logic and mathematics and then move through natural philosophy to ethics and politics and on, finally, to metaphysics.' The depth varies, but I find myself recently going back to logic. Recent books I've read are Aristotle's Ethics and less than 20 pages to go in Aquinas' "On Human Nature", but now I wait for a book to come in from interlibrary loan that is Aristotle's "On Interpretation" with Commentary by Aquinas. Thus I'm moving back to solidify the logic that expands into eventually ethics and politics, etc...
I'm sure gnats, bothersome things, will show up, but so be it. I'm game. We could private message the discussion and move it out of this thread if you would like.
Public discussion is fine, I think it's still on topic and the more brains involved, the better. It seems the "why" things should or should not have rights is the root of most of the rights controversy, and probably the root reason many people seem to disagree on the nature of rights. It's definitely the hardest part for me to get a handle on.
Ansury: Public discussion is fine, I think it's still on topic and the more brains involved, the better. It seems the "why" things should or should not have rights is the root of most of the rights controversy, and probably the root reason many people seem to disagree on the nature of rights. It's definitely the hardest part for me to get a handle on.
Do you know what a principle is? Or can you find out? It's a serious question that may lead into a good, easy explanation.
I suppose this was directed at me and the others who were debating in the other thread about the poor puppy who got his ears lopped off by his owner.
Just to throw it in, if you were looking for me to respond,
My point is largely that yes, humans share equal rights to animals in the sense that they possess no rights at all. I reject the entire concept of rights and was arguing on the basis that torturing a puppy is disgusting and only a disgustingly violent and unempathetic person could do such a thing. My point is that people who torture defenseless creatures for no purpose but to satisfy their own sicknesses are not people I want to see continue to live. If I saw a man doing this to a dog or a cat or to whatever, I would not have a problem taking the animal away and daring the torturer to try to stopping me.
existence is elsewhere
So anyone could beat you down and it wouldn't a violation of your rights? Got it. So, no one has rights and, therefore, it's a free-for-all? According to you, there is no theft, no rape, no murder?
Daniel: So anyone could beat you down and it wouldn't a violation of your rights? Got it. So, no one has rights and, therefore, it's a free-for-all? According to you, there is no theft, no rape, no murder?
I don't have any "rights" to violate, so no. I wouldn't like it and I would react, but I can't say it would be objectively immoral.
As for theft, rape, murder. Well, those things do exist, sure. There existence, however, does not make them objectively immoral. Do those things go against my values? Yes. But it doesn't mean my values are universal.
are you saying its objectively true that there is no objective morality, or are you saying its just your opinion? If its true then prove it.
twistedbydsign99: are you saying its objectively true that there is no objective morality, or are you saying its just your opinion? If its true then prove it.
I'm saying I can't see why it's true and it's really on the part of the people that do believe in an objective morality to prove its existence.
What is subjective is goal choice, and what is objective is the way one should go about obtaining them. There are certain universal goals/wants and therefore objective morality. All men prefer life for example. All men prefer to act in the best of their capacities is another. From those two universal goals you can prescribe ways in which all men should act.
twistedbydsign99: What is subjective is goal choice, and what is objective is the way one should go about obtaining them. There are certain universal goals/wants and therefore objective morality. All men prefer life for example. All men prefer to act in the best of their capacities is another. From those two universal goals you can prescribe ways in which all men should act.
That's not really the description I think most people think of when they think morality, certainly not objective morality.
Most people would probably say something more along the lines of, "morality is how one should treat people or shouldn't treat people."
I don't think too many people would define it as you do as an objective stance to live life. Just for the simple fact that many people have different goals in life and to say, "all men should strive to live" is quite a far jump from "all men should let other men live too."
Wilmot of Rochester:That's not really the description I think most people think of when they think morality, certainly not objective morality.
Most people don't take the time to think about what morality is or define it correctly.
Wilmot of Rochester:I don't think too many people would define it as you do as an objective stance to live life. Just for the simple fact that many people have different goals in life and to say, "all men should strive to live" is quite a far jump from "all men should let other men live too."
Its not a single jump, but maybe a few steps away, but you must start from solid foundation. Many have taken the journey to find a secular objective ethic to live by, I don't know of anyone who has succeeded 100%. But in an existence debate I only had to prove that one objective moral rule exists and I've done so.
OntologicalQuandary: Good question. My answer would be similar to someone else's answer given on the question: "If all humans have rights, why stop there? Why not argue that all animals have rights?" Someone answered that that is because humans have characteristics that animals do not such as free will and the ability to troll the internets. Would the answer to your question then not be something along the lines of "because animals have characteristics that bacteria and plantae etc... do not have such as (insert biological terms here). Also humans belong to the animalia kingdom, so why should humans have rights but not other biologically similar organisms? It seems to me more of a biological question than a philosophical one.
Humans have "rights" with humans. A lion does not care about human "rights". Lions have "rights" with lions. All species seem to have some type of social code to conduct with each other. There does seem to be more respect for life somewhat within ones own species, and almost a complete lack of concern for other species as a gereral rule of thumb. Hence why an ant colony isn't a dog eat dog free for all within the colony where every aunt marauders eachother, but if a termite was to enter; most likley all hell would break loose between ants and termites.
I think when rights are refered to it is with the implication and in the very definition that it is refering to human with human activity. To imply any type of civil relationship with other animals would require a different definiton (perhaps words such as domestication, conservation, etc).
Also, when the word "natural" (as in natural law)is used; there is no good argument one can make stating that humans naturaly give any other species equal footing. While there are cases for it in certain cultures, there is just very little precedent for that to work when looking at the whole of humanity.
My hunch is people tend to empathize with living thingsthat are closer to them.
We would care more about bacteria than a rock. Living vs non living. It is unremarkable if someone were to fly to Europa and find a rock, but if they found bacteria people would consider that the discovery of a life time.
We probably tend to sympathize more (perhaps almost exclusivly) with things with a vertabrae. I think even most of the animal rights activists stop at the Chordata phylum.
After that though I think it becomes a bit more interesting. While in general we would care about mammals and primates more (and if there were other homo genus' alive my hunch is they would be under human law) I think we also tend to value animals that serve a purpose for humans other than food (horse, dog, cat) and animals that tend to show greater intellect that we never hunted prolifically (probably because or intellect is the highest evolved trait in humans so we can have great empathy for the trait; in speed, stamina, etc we are unremarkable) such as dolphins.
I don't know of any formal studies but I don't think humans are unique to this type of empathy. People have probably seen those cute and fuzzy stories on the news about a gorilla raising a cat, etc.
But in the end, I think it is just empathy. I don't think the empathy is arbitrary with most people and there is probably actually some deep biological and even practicle reasons for the empathy (ex: horses were very useful to humans so we have been conditiond to respond negativly when seeing horse brutality).
Other interesting thoughts:
While there is good logic for biological classification it is still arbitrary
Humans are probably more concerned with Genus than species (if neaderthals were around we would probably see them as equals and breed with them)
While humans have the most evolved rational brain we are also have the highest evolved empathatic brains, empathy has been evolved for a reason
Empathy is probably the driving force behind many "rational" laws and or daily actions. Empathy is not objectivly a spurious or useless trait
There may be a false division or diachotomy with empathy/rational thinking.
there would almost certainly always be something protecting some animals in various cultures (perhaps for example the Hindu culture) which may trancend pure property rights
wilderness: Ansury: Public discussion is fine, I think it's still on topic and the more brains involved, the better. It seems the "why" things should or should not have rights is the root of most of the rights controversy, and probably the root reason many people seem to disagree on the nature of rights. It's definitely the hardest part for me to get a handle on. Do you know what a principle is? Or can you find out? It's a serious question that may lead into a good, easy explanation.
Well I guess I know the "laymans" definition, but let's see:
1. an accepted or professed rule of action or conduct: a person of good moral principles. 2. a fundamental, primary, or general law or truth from which others are derived: the principles of modern physics. 3. a fundamental doctrine or tenet; a distinctive ruling opinion: the principles of the Stoics. 4. principles, a personal or specific basis of conduct or management: to adhere to one's principles; a kindergarten run on modern principles. 5. guiding sense of the requirements and obligations of right conduct: a person of principle. 6. an adopted rule or method for application in action: a working principle for general use. 7. a rule or law exemplified in natural phenomena, the construction or operation of a machine, the working of a system, or the like: the principle of capillary attraction. 8. the method of formation, operation, or procedure exhibited in a given case: a community organized on the patriarchal principle. 9. a determining characteristic of something; essential quality.10. an originating or actuating agency or force: growth is the principle of life. 11. an actuating agency in the mind or character, as an instinct, faculty, or natural tendency: the principles of human behavior.
Arg, which definition?
I think the ones that fit closest to how I am defining it are #1, 4, 5, and 6. Basically something that is "accepted", an agreed upon "basis of conduct", a "requirement of right conduct", or "an adopted rule".
But the problem with these is that it can be argued that all four of these types of principles seem to also applicable to animals. In the example of a pet dog, a dog "accepts" that they aren't allowed to crap in the house and modify their behavior accordingly. It's a "requirement of right conduct" that they don't chew a visitor's face off, and so on. I admit that they may easily break many of these rules of behavior, which may cause them to lose their usual "rights" to freely roam in the house (or even continue living)--but I'm not seeing why unawareness of the possible consequences or unawareness of their own rights causes them to lose those rights. (A mentally disabled person, or even an ignorant person, that is unaware of their rights doesn't automatically lose them, either.)
I know I might be going in circles here, I feel like I wrote something similar before! Sorry. lol
So you're asserting that rights are principles, but I suspect you're using a different definition(s) of principles. Hmm, this may be a harder explanation to find than you think.
Ansury: 1. an accepted or professed rule of action or conduct: a person of good moral principles. 2. a fundamental, primary, or general law or truth from which others are derived: the principles of modern physics. 3. a fundamental doctrine or tenet; a distinctive ruling opinion: the principles of the Stoics. 4. principles, a personal or specific basis of conduct or management: to adhere to one's principles; a kindergarten run on modern principles. 5. guiding sense of the requirements and obligations of right conduct: a person of principle. 6. an adopted rule or method for application in action: a working principle for general use. 7. a rule or law exemplified in natural phenomena, the construction or operation of a machine, the working of a system, or the like: the principle of capillary attraction. 8. the method of formation, operation, or procedure exhibited in a given case: a community organized on the patriarchal principle. 9. a determining characteristic of something; essential quality.10. an originating or actuating agency or force: growth is the principle of life. 11. an actuating agency in the mind or character, as an instinct, faculty, or natural tendency: the principles of human behavior. Arg, which definition? I think the ones that fit closest to how I am defining it are #1, 4, 5, and 6. Basically something that is "accepted", an agreed upon "basis of conduct", a "requirement of right conduct", or "an adopted rule".
1. an accepted or professed rule of action or conduct: a person of good moral principles.
2. a fundamental, primary, or general law or truth from which others are derived: the principles of modern physics. 3. a fundamental doctrine or tenet; a distinctive ruling opinion: the principles of the Stoics. 4. principles, a personal or specific basis of conduct or management: to adhere to one's principles; a kindergarten run on modern principles. 5. guiding sense of the requirements and obligations of right conduct: a person of principle. 6. an adopted rule or method for application in action: a working principle for general use. 7. a rule or law exemplified in natural phenomena, the construction or operation of a machine, the working of a system, or the like: the principle of capillary attraction. 8. the method of formation, operation, or procedure exhibited in a given case: a community organized on the patriarchal principle. 9. a determining characteristic of something; essential quality.10. an originating or actuating agency or force: growth is the principle of life. 11. an actuating agency in the mind or character, as an instinct, faculty, or natural tendency: the principles of human behavior.
I can see each of those definitions being anchored in 9.
Ansury: But the problem with these is that it can be argued that all four of these types of principles seem to also applicable to animals. In the example of a pet dog, a dog "accepts" that they aren't allowed to crap in the house and modify their behavior accordingly. It's a "requirement of right conduct" that they don't chew a visitor's face off, and so on. I admit that they may easily break many of these rules of behavior, which may cause them to lose their usual "rights" to freely roam in the house (or even continue living)--but I'm not seeing why unawareness of the possible consequences or unawareness of their own rights causes them to lose those rights. (A mentally disabled person, or even an ignorant person, that is unaware of their rights doesn't automatically lose them, either.) I know I might be going in circles here, I feel like I wrote something similar before! Sorry. lol So you're asserting that rights are principles, but I suspect you're using a different definition(s) of principles. Hmm, this may be a harder explanation to find than you think.
Can a monkey intellectually apprehend, thus, realize, explain and discuss these principles as we are now?
wilderness: Can a monkey intellectually apprehend, thus, realize, explain and discuss these principles as we are now?
Well, obviously no, but neither can a (more than mildly) mentally disabled person, right?
I'm thinking back to this again: "I'm not seeing why unawareness of the possible consequences or unawareness of their own rights causes them to lose those rights."
Ansury: wilderness: Can a monkey intellectually apprehend, thus, realize, explain and discuss these principles as we are now? Well, obviously no,
Well, obviously no,
and that's the distinction in a nutshell... natural rights of human nature are of human nature for various reasons, but this is one if not the one that all the other reasons are premised upon.
Ansury: but neither can a (more than mildly) mentally disabled person, right?
but neither can a (more than mildly) mentally disabled person, right?
and that's why they have guardians... a mentally disabled person may not realize a natural right and violate such a right without realizing their own actions, but it is wise and empathetic to have guardians helping such a person. Wouldn't want anybody to think wrongly about a person that may not appear to be mentally disabled in any way and such a person seeing a mentally disabled person wondering into their yard for example may lead the owner to get defensive and I would hope nobody would want that to happen. For all the owner may know, the invader might be a threat it gets testy and hopefully such a situation would resolve itself peacefully.
I'm not trying to make a mirror example here obviously a mentally disabled person is not a dog. Dogs are kept on a leash, especially ones that don't listen to their human companion, and this is also wise. The dog could chase another person down, threaten that person, even if the dog was friendly the other person might not know that or be fearful of dogs, etc... It could get unnecessarily messy.
Ansury: I'm thinking back to this again: "I'm not seeing why unawareness of the possible consequences or unawareness of their own rights causes them to lose those rights."
Natural rights are based on what is. Life, liberty, and property is. So these are boundaries that a person can intellectually apprehend instead of a constant push back or implosion of such quiddities of human nature. Since they are, then they have a real presence, a real force in the world (not violent force, I'm referring to force of presence). They are and thus being, these quiddities have a presence. They don't go away. Thus if they constantly are in a position to push back since they can't disappear but pressure can be applied upon them, then possibly tragic outcomes can happen. Since they can be intellectually apprehended, it minimizes conflict to go with these quiddities than to go against them constantly flaring up a violent outcome. Violations of these natural quiddities (life, liberty, and property) of human nature either can lead to suicide or somebody going postal (or war) - an implosion or explosion event. Of course we can realize the potential danger in a cougar and that is to know/apprehend the nature of a cougar. Yet the cougar can't intellectually apprehend as we can, as you note above. If they could, then that would be swell, but they can't. We on the other hand can realize the natures of things and can try to scientifically realize these natures and live accordingly.