[Vision2020] Unalienable Rights: Historic Precedence

[Tbertruss at aol.com]

Wayne et. al.

Wayne, you dodged my central question!?  Do you believe in "unalienable 
Rights?"  Even one "unalienable Right?"

Ethical systems have many theoretical problems, as do many fields of human 
thought, but this does not stop us from using these imperfect systems!  The 
concept of "unalienable Rights" is fraught with numerous theoretical problems 
but... Let me explain why I think we still can use this concept in a manner with 
enough precision and practical use to be of value, even if it does not meet the 
tests of ultimate philosophical consistency, empirical evidence, and freedom 
from ambiguity or vagueness.

Of course I know you think this concept impossible to define well enough to 
give a good answer, but ... let's put it in specific terms that can be 
answered, perhaps.  

Is there any sort of treatment of another human being that you would condemn 
under all circumstances based on some sort of moral or ethical principle?  For 
example, I reject the death penalty when there are other means of protecting 
society from a dangerous person.  Keep in mind this does not mean I reject 
killing in self defense or in war in some cases.  But on this one issue I 
believe, without exception, that the death penalty is wrong, when carried out under 
controlled circumstances that amount in my mind to cold blooded murder!  I want 
it abolished by all governments, tribes, underground crime networks, etc. I 
have a long complex moral and political argument for why I think the death 
penalty should be abolished.  This comes close to a practical definition of one 
"unalienable Right" I would advocate, the right to "life," even when revenge or 
justice appears to dictate otherwise.  

The idea of "first principles," and the difficulties involved, extends to 
nearly every field of human thought.  Mathematics, physics, religion, ethics, 
law, etc., all seek fundamental principles or equations which can provide a 
foundation for a whole system of thought.  However, this does not mean these fields 
of human thought do not continue to operate in people's lives, however 
incomplete or flawed they may be.  We still use Newtonian Physics, though its first 
principles are flawed, and Relativity has replaced it as a more complete and 
perfect system.  But to launch a satellite into orbit, Newtonian Physics does 
the job nicely.

To compare this to Ethics, though our Ethical principles may be flawed and 
hard to define, 
they are still of use to guide actions and provide a framework to debate 
moral choices.  Of course Ethical principles may not offer the empirical precision 
when applied that we can derive from launching a satellite using flawed 
Newtonian Physics, so my analogy is not perfect.

When we are dealing with Ethics, though, this impacts everyone's life in a 
direct manner that is not trivial, nor can someone say the problems are just 
academic, or are only for scientists or technologists, etc.  Everyone uses some 
sort of ethical principles in their life, everyone is a moral philosopher, 
whether they admit it or like it.  And the application of these "principles" 
impacts all of us as we impact each other based on our moral choices. 

Though the concept of "unalienable Rights" may be difficult or impossible to 
define in terms that all will agree upon, or even in terms that always make 
good logical and empirical sense, I still think the concept of value, like 
Newtonian Physics is of value, though any physicist will tell you how flawed it is! 
 And furthermore, that "unalienable Rights" can be put to good use to try to 
establish firm guidelines to create a better world.  Of course this cuts both 
ways, because the concept can be used to also support extreme cruelty and 
killing.  Those we are convinced with no shred of doubt they have the ultimate 
moral laws of the universe are sometimes inclined to use brutal methods of 
forcing these values upon others.

I still like the idea, however flawed, that we all have an "unalienable 
Right" to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Ted Moffett

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20041121/7528aa65/attachment-0001.htm