Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Civilized Man May Soon Revile Abortion as it Does Slavery
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ethan N" data-source="post: 3230332" data-attributes="member: 29267"><p>Now this is where it gets interesting. It was never argued classically, as far as I’m aware, that rational thought is <em>the thing</em> that distinguishes man from beast, and I don’t think it’s a compelling argument. There’s a clear gulf between the minds of humans and the minds of all animals, but there’s a broad range of mental and emotional capabilities among animals, some of which, while not as sophisticated as humans, can be described as rational thought. That doesn’t give them rights.</p><p></p><p>The philosophy of natural rights, including their origin, is a topic of remarkable depth. I’m looking forward to seeing what others have to say on it, but I’m mostly going to spectate for now because I’ve got a lot of work to get done tonight. But I will point out that in our Declaration of Independence, Jefferson, despite being possibly the most capable man alive at the time to expound on the origin of natural rights, chose to simply note that they are a self-evident truth. Much has been written by people smarter than all of us about the nature of human rights, but they all seemed to agree that, when you take a step back and look at nature, there’s a self-evident distinction between mankind and everything else, and it is the simple fact of being human that confers our rights. That’s not necessarily what it all comes down to, as much more has been written on the subject, but it’s a common line of thinking among 17th and 18th century philosophers. Most of them described this difference in terms of God creating mankind as separate and distinct from the rest of creation, but I don’t think that belief in God as the creator of all things is necessary to recognize the difference in nature between man and beast.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ethan N, post: 3230332, member: 29267"] Now this is where it gets interesting. It was never argued classically, as far as I’m aware, that rational thought is [I]the thing[/I] that distinguishes man from beast, and I don’t think it’s a compelling argument. There’s a clear gulf between the minds of humans and the minds of all animals, but there’s a broad range of mental and emotional capabilities among animals, some of which, while not as sophisticated as humans, can be described as rational thought. That doesn’t give them rights. The philosophy of natural rights, including their origin, is a topic of remarkable depth. I’m looking forward to seeing what others have to say on it, but I’m mostly going to spectate for now because I’ve got a lot of work to get done tonight. But I will point out that in our Declaration of Independence, Jefferson, despite being possibly the most capable man alive at the time to expound on the origin of natural rights, chose to simply note that they are a self-evident truth. Much has been written by people smarter than all of us about the nature of human rights, but they all seemed to agree that, when you take a step back and look at nature, there’s a self-evident distinction between mankind and everything else, and it is the simple fact of being human that confers our rights. That’s not necessarily what it all comes down to, as much more has been written on the subject, but it’s a common line of thinking among 17th and 18th century philosophers. Most of them described this difference in terms of God creating mankind as separate and distinct from the rest of creation, but I don’t think that belief in God as the creator of all things is necessary to recognize the difference in nature between man and beast. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Civilized Man May Soon Revile Abortion as it Does Slavery
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom