22 Sep 05
Originally posted by KneverKnightOf course we have rights other than those we explicitly grant ourselves. Some rights we have just in virtue of being the sorts of creatures that we are; some rights we have because we are human.
... have rights other than those we grant ourselves?
Are "human rights" written in stone somewhere to be discovered or do we make them up as we go along?
Is the concept of "human rights" self-serving or altruistic?
This is the Human Rights thread, please post your views.
Human rights are neither written in stone nor made up as we go along. Rather, they exist in virtue of our having the sorts of minds we have.
The concept of human rights is both self-serving and altruistic. It serves our interests by protecting us from harm, and it is altruistic by protecting others from harm.
22 Sep 05
1 edit
Originally posted by tojoTypically in nature ('nature' in this case includes only the non-human animals) a mother will protect her young, but only until they are old enough to take care of themselves...Fathers typically play no part in child protection, even if they do stick around long enough for the kids to grow up, which seldom happens.
But almost every other species also looks to protect the older or weaker of their kind too. Look at any mothers instinct to protect it's child.
We ARE animals. I wish people would stop trying to seperate us from them. There is no us and them.
Once the kids are old enough, the mother usually kicks them out of the house and never sees them again,and won't acknowledge their relationship even if they run into each other in the field. The 'kids' will not be welcomed back into the hole under any circumstances, even at Thanksgiving and Christmas.
Also, some mammals will disown, abandon, or even kill their young if the kid is born with a defect which makes it 'abnormal'. Human mothers don't do this.
There are huge differences between human animals and non-human animals.
22 Sep 05
Originally posted by TheBloophttp://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/seahorse/superdads.html
Typically in nature ('nature' in this case includes only the non-human animals) a mother will protect her young, but only until they are old enough to take care of themselves...Fathers typically play no part in child protection, even if they do stick around long enough for the kids to grow up, which seldom happens.
Once the kids are old enough, the mot ...[text shortened]... hers don't do this.
There are huge differences between human animals and non-human animals.
Humans are not distinguished from the rest of the animal kingdom by the role of the male parent.
22 Sep 05
2 edits
Children's human rights are a forgotten subject. I wonder why.
Does this prove that adults are more interested in their own rights and are afraid children's rights will infringe on their own rights ? This could prove some human "rights" are merely self-serving, protecting certain adult privileges while at the same time ignoring children's rights.
22 Sep 05
2 edits
Originally posted by PullhardAssuming this extinguished mewling Pullet is human...
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/seahorse/superdads.html
Humans are not distinguished from the rest of the animal kingdom by the role of the male parent.
....*tosses coin* ... humans obviously have the right to veer wildly off-topic in debate.
22 Sep 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeReplace forgotten with ignored. Rights are arrived at by social consensus - or force. Children don't get to vote. And they are usually weaker than their loving parents.
Children's human rights are a forgotten subject... some human "rights" are merely self-serving, protecting certain adult privileges while at the same time ignoring children's rights.
All human "rights" are self-serving as KK & bb previously discussed.