All men are created equal... right?

[billydkid]

The whole premise

The Declaration is a fine piece of writing but it leaves a lot open to question. The notion of in(un?)alienable rights is historically suspect - rights come into and go out of existence in the course of time - there is no law of conservation of right that I'm aware of.

I'd rephrase it as "all those subject to the government described by the constitution are to be regarded as having equal rights under the law, such rights subject to change". One doesn't take into account the identity of the agent, only his actions and motives, when deciding whether an action is lawful or criminal.

The deus ex machina of the declaration, I contend, is a rhetorical device that merely states "God is on our side in this one, the devil take King George".

The whole premise of the statement (and I think it is a bold statement) is that there ARE fundamental rights to which every human being is entitled by virtue, simply, of living and breathing. And they are endowed with these rights by their creator (whatever that may be - god, the universe, pink unicorns, big bangs). I take "their creator" to mean whatever created them - "creation" being used in the broadest sense. They are entitled to these rights by virtue of having been created - by virtue of existing.

 

[c4ts]

According to Aristotle, some men are born slaves by disposition.

 

[calladus]

Re: Re: All men are created equal... right?

Eugenics is wrong for the same reason astrology is wrong. Perhaps there is an ethical way to reproduce that will actually result in improving the gene pool, but that method has not yet been discovered. Until such discovery, promoting barbarous superstions causes nothing but tragedy.

I dunno where I read this (probably Sci Fi somewhere) But how about this -

Sperm doners - basically men who have no kids and who want to pass on their genes, (and maybe guys who want to make a little money - but I hope otherwise)

Instead of allowing people to select the sperm as soon as it's available, it should be put on ice until after the doner dies. Then his life story is compiled and made available to those who are looking for doners.

In this fashion, the totality of the gentleman's life could be summed up by the childless couple, and a determination could be made whether or not the sperm will produce a wanted child.

Parents would tend to select for physical features that are pleasing, or that match the husband. But they would also select for success, smarts, health and such.

Its not much - the results wouldn't have a drastic impact on the whole gene pool, but it would have SOME impact.

I'm not asking if Eugenics is a science or not, for the sake of this argument I'm assuming that Eugenics works as a science.

What I want to know is would this be a form of moral Eugenics ?

 

[whitefork]

According to Aristotle, some men are born slaves by disposition.

Indeed, everyone should have the right to be a slave - it's when you have it forced on you that an injustice it done.

As far as Billy's - and Jefferson's - claim that there are fundamental and natural rights - I can't see it. I don't see how these rights exist until they're defined, asserted and claimed by force. It's comforting to believe that these rights exist in the abstract, but comfort is just a feeling, and feelings are quite often an unreliable guide for action.

I have not seen a good logical proof for the necessity for rights. They have simply not existed for that long in human history. I'm always willing to learn, though.

 

[Yahzi]

I'd like to see some statistics that show the offspring of intelligent people to be higher than the rest of the population, and furthermore, that such intelligent people are more likely to act in the interest of the society granting the incentives.

Bingo! We have a winner.

The concept of eugenics might possibly contain some merit; but the practice of it, in the absence of any viable theory is just superstition. And as you so aptly pointed out, we have no viable theory, because we have no data to draw a theory from; worse, we know for a fact that human genetics are so complicated that we know we we can't possibly know what we are doing.

Of course that doesn't stop racists, but mere ignorance was never a stumbling block for them.

Indeed, everyone should have the right to be a slave - it's when you have it forced on you that an injustice it done.

I disagree. I don't think anyone has a right to be a slave. Freedom requires the effort and support of my fellow citizens. That support is a duty, an obligation upon everyone. You cannot opt of out it. I think you have the right to die, but I don't think you have the right to be a bad citizen. I don't think you have the right to make my life more difficult.

Natural rights come from biology and mathematics. What Jefferson was trying to say is that the Golden Rule is more than just an arbitrary rule we made up - it is a principle of the objective world. Animals that have theory of mind and are eusocial will discover the Golden Rule, just as they will discover 2+2 = 4. Hence morality has an objective basis in the real world. Hence natural rights.

 

[Yahzi]

Re: Re: Re: All men are created equal... right?

Its not much - the results wouldn't have a drastic impact on the whole gene pool, but it would have SOME impact.

You don't know that. In fact, we have enough understanding of genetics and culture to recognize that we can't predict in advance whether your experiement would have ANY impact on the gene pool, let alone a positive or negative one.

That's the whole point. We don't actually know what we are doing, so doing anything is just guesswork.

Maybe someday we'll understand enough to devise a method. But until then we should refrain from practicing eugenics.

 

[Franko]

Yahzi:
I disagree. I don't think anyone has a right to be a slave. Freedom requires the effort and support of my fellow citizens. That support is a duty, an obligation upon everyone. You cannot opt out of it. I think you have the right to die, but I don't think you have the right to be a bad citizen. I don't think you have the right to make my life more difficult.

You almost sound like a libertarian.

So in your opinion does the government have the right to conscript you or your sons, or your father for military service?

If you say YES, then isn’t that the government forcing you to be a “slave”?

And if you say NO, then isn’t that the same as allowing people to “opt out of their obligation and duty to their fellow citizens"?

 

[c4ts]

Are all men born with an equal amount of potential?

 

[whitefork]

I disagree. I don't think anyone has a right to be a slave. Freedom requires the effort and support of my fellow citizens. That support is a duty, an obligation upon everyone. You cannot opt of out it. I think you have the right to die, but I don't think you have the right to be a bad citizen. I don't think you have the right to make my life more difficult.

Natural rights come from biology and mathematics. What Jefferson was trying to say is that the Golden Rule is more than just an arbitrary rule we made up - it is a principle of the objective world. Animals that have theory of mind and are eusocial will discover the Golden Rule, just as they will discover 2+2 = 4. Hence morality has an objective basis in the real world. Hence natural rights.

1. How would my being a slave make your life more difficult?
2. I learn a new word, eusocial, but I don't see how it fits here

Eusociality is the phenomenon of reproductive specialisation found in some species, whereby a specialised caste carries out reproduction in a colony of non-reproductive animals.
from Wikipedia

I need more steps to see the necessity from The Golden Rule and 2+2=4 to "the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness". If you're taking a Kantian route, I'm probably with you, but mathematics - ? I don't get that part.

 

[whitefork]

Are all men born with an equal amount of potential?

Some are born blind, some deaf, some with severe mental disabilities. It would appear that their potential is rather limited in comparison with the sighted, hearing, and normally intelligent. I'm just going with the obvious counterexamples here.

 

[c4ts]

Some are born blind, some deaf, some with severe mental disabilities. It would appear that their potential is rather limited in comparison with the sighted, hearing, and normally intelligent. I'm just going with the obvious counterexamples here.

But people have been known to overcome their disabilities.

 

[Yahzi]

Are all men born with an equal amount of potential?

No, that's clearly not true either.

 

[Yahzi]

1. How would my being a slave make your life more difficult?
2. I learn a new word, eusocial, but I don't see how it fits hereI need more steps to see the necessity from The Golden Rule and 2+2=4 to "the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness". If you're taking a Kantian route, I'm probably with you, but mathematics - ? I don't get that part.

Uhoh. I think I meant euosocial. My bad. I was just trying to say people require social groups to exist.

Animals that live in groups do better (as a species) if they cooperate. (That's the math part). Creatures that have a sense of self-identity need some inner psychological motivation to make them cooperate. (That's the biology part). Viola! Biomathematical morality.

Your being a slave would make my life more difficult becuase, as a slave, you could be utilized as a weapon to enslave me. If you surrender your moral duties, then you become the most dangerous animal on earth.

 

[whitefork]

Your being a slave would make my life more difficult becuase, as a slave, you could be utilized as a weapon to enslave me. If you surrender your moral duties, then you become the most dangerous animal on earth.

I see the point you're getting at, but I'd offer the observation that one can be a moral slave (Epictetus or Aesop for example), or an amoral freeman (Pol Pot, Stalin) - the bare fact of being a slave does not appear to be enough to conclude that bad consequences follow.

C4ts - sure. Helen Keller's on the Alabama quarter but would you trade your life for hers? "Potential" is a nice flexible concept. I'm never quite sure what it means.

 

[c4ts]

No, that's clearly not true either.

How so?

 

[Yahzi]

I see the point you're getting at, but I'd offer the observation that one can be a moral slave

So if a moral slave was told to do something immoral, he wouldn't do it, because he's moral. Well, how is he a slave if he chooses what to do?

Morality requires free will. You can't be moral if you can't control your actions.

 

[Yahzi]

How so?

It is obvious. Not everyone is born with equal potential. People born without legs do not have the same potential to become winning marathon runners as people who are born with legs.

This idea that we are all blank slates, and our fates are purely a result of our own effort, is just a myth used to excuse oppression and indifference. How successful a person is (however you define success) depends on many factors, only some of which are under that person's control. Claiming otherwise is tantamount to saying that poor people deserve to be poor. While this might be true of some individuals, it is clearly not true of entire populations, yet it is often used as an excuse to not address or consider the factors that make entire populations poor.

 

[whitefork]

So if a moral slave was told to do something immoral, he wouldn't do it, because he's moral. Well, how is he a slave if he chooses what to do?

Morality requires free will. You can't be moral if you can't control your actions.

That's a rather extreme view of slavery, more like "robot". I think you've gone and redefined "slave" as "one without free will" and under those conditions, you're correct. But then, how can one choose to be a slave? It seems to be logically impossible.

Point - Yahzi.

 

[c4ts]

Forgive me if I seemed like I was making an argument, I am merely trying to find where the idea that all men are created equal comes from. It does not make sense that it would originate from anything promoting tyrrany or a dictatorship. What you describe seems to have arrived after the fact, so it is not apparently something that is part of the idea itself, but more of an opinion that was added later.

Anyway, back to the subject, I do agree that some are born deformed, and that deformations can inhibit physical potential, but is the potential of a human being only physical? Are there other ways in which someone's potential as a human being can be reached?

 

[Blue Monk]

I believe all men and women are created equal.

Traits such as strength, beauty or intelligence are superficial.

The only true measure of a human being is their capacity for honesty and compassion and in that regard I believe we are all born with the same potential.