[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by sleepy_shadow [/i]
[B]Life rarely starts. It generally continues. However, to sustainably continue in face of time and entropy...
...known forms of biological life must unfortunately take a *huge* step backward in complexity... repeat a difficult process of assembly, while holding the narrow end of evolutionary chance.
However, this observation may not apply to all strains of life. Some step back far... others only a little. Really flexible forms of life... having more control over themselves... might preserve nearly everything, stepping back only a tiny bit.
I would be inclined to suspect... that by the virtue of wanting them.
A creature which wants to live... ought be permitted to. A person who wants to make their own choices... ought likewise be permitted to.
Only when one desire contradicts with another... does it get complicated. Bacteria wish to live... but when their growth hurts me... I may be justified in forcing them to withdraw. Plants and animals wish to live... but when my only opportunity for preserving myself is to eat them... I may have a little, incomplete justification for eating them. However, I should not hurt them in wanton fashion, and should strive to cause minimum possible harm.
It might depend on whether seeking efficiency (achieve more while wasting less) or independence (manage with minimum external help)... can be considered a "rational" input or feedback. Not sure about it. [/B][/QUOTE]
Sleepy, you have excaped the topic I belive.
And want is a poor basis for establishing a criterion for rights. If true You would have to then create criterion for establishing which wants are valid and which not. From eliminating wants to hurt others from consideration for establishing rights, to the nitty gritty of wants which might indirectly cause harm.
Rights exist as a result of desires. Some desires must not be satiated, because they require victomising others. They dont exist actually in the form of I can do X, but more in the form of you may not do X to me
Its not that you have a right to free speach, but that others dont have a right to silence you before you speak.
Now in classical english common law you always get your say, but if you say something stupid they can get you afterwards.
As for rational, I mean just that, rational and justified by a formal logic. Ive been in classes where profs have struggled in vain to find the quality that would give being rights, ultimatly you end up saying I [I]believe[/I] there is this property which does so. All other properties proposed have weaknesses.
I am a christian, theology wise I fall in a crack between the beliefs of the United Methodist Church, more conservative Free Methodist church. I have reasons to believe in my faith, I have had deeply personal experiences which reinforce my faith.
However absent of that faith, I would have no reason to embrace any philosophical belief save extreme skepticsim and leaning towards Nihilism, becuase while all claim to have support of logic, all contain either unsolvable contradictions, or ignore to many things which undermine their legitimacy.
Did I mention I hate philosophy? All i can invision from above is a bunch of fucking ritch snobs smoking their cubans having philosophical discussion with fake manditory laughter and missing the most beutiful elemends of creation.
General scientific definition of life:
1) React to environment
2) Grow by taking from surroundings and processing it
3) Reproduce, passing along some characteristics
4) Capacity for genetic change (this is too narrow I think, there may be life with out genetics persay)
5) These rules do not have to be met.
Random ChaosActually Carefully-selected Order in disguise
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by croxis [/i]
[B]5) These rules do not have to be met. [/B][/QUOTE]
Croxis, sorry if what Ive said pissed you off, but thats my point, in the end the "logic" behind life and rights only goes so far, then you ultimatly end up realizing its about beliefs, and then your stuck.
With things like abortion and such, it truly is in the mind of the anti abortion activist about killing, they believe they are saving innocents, just like environmentalists who crusade against species destruction, its the same mindset.
It is my opinion... that some principles known to ethics *can* be justified with simple appreciation of efficiency -- without involving an external source of "right" or "wrong".
For example, one can suspect that some behavioural models (for example [i]"try being nice to others, while others are nice to you... if you absolutely cannot, then cause minimum harm... but carry a big stick in case someone harms you"[/i])...
...are adaptive / efficient across a broad range of environments, allowing an entity practising them to achieve more with less resources. It doesn't say that inidivduals must want this. It merely proposes that if they do... they may benefit.
---
In addition to utilitarian calculations on efficiency (using less force, causing less entropy)... I likewise think mutuality can sustain ethical principles -- along the lines of "if someone does it to others, they probably accept if someone returns the favour".
----
As for rights... I perceive them as constructs arising from interaction. My view on rights... is that everyone should be permitted what they want... unless it conflicts with something another wants... in which case the more basic right should take precedence.
This however... is complicated when individuals are of different complexity, and have different things to lose.
For example, let us consider me and a tomato fruit. From not eating... I have one human life to lose. From getting eaten by me... a tomato has a tomato life to lose.
In short term, I might perceive myself to be justified in eating the tomato (since I have more to lose). However... should I keep eating tomatos for a long period... multiple models of weighing my justification would eventually yield that tomatos win, and I should stop eating them.
In this light, the answer might be "I can keep eating tomatos, provided that I set the goal, and contribute to achieving the goal... of eventually escaping the necessity of causing this harm".
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by croxis [/i]
[B]sorry, I just had bad experiences with Reedies :) The only one cool Reedie I have ever met was a biology major, alas he was a bit strange himself. [/B][/QUOTE]
Oh hell, then thats fine, the Reedies are freaking obnoxious. Only decent one I ever met left Reed for PSU :D
When my mom worked for catering she worked at a wedding between two reedies. She knew the guest hand enough alcohol when they tried to one up eachother by who could recite the most shakspear.
Comments
[B]Life rarely starts. It generally continues. However, to sustainably continue in face of time and entropy...
...known forms of biological life must unfortunately take a *huge* step backward in complexity... repeat a difficult process of assembly, while holding the narrow end of evolutionary chance.
However, this observation may not apply to all strains of life. Some step back far... others only a little. Really flexible forms of life... having more control over themselves... might preserve nearly everything, stepping back only a tiny bit.
I would be inclined to suspect... that by the virtue of wanting them.
A creature which wants to live... ought be permitted to. A person who wants to make their own choices... ought likewise be permitted to.
Only when one desire contradicts with another... does it get complicated. Bacteria wish to live... but when their growth hurts me... I may be justified in forcing them to withdraw. Plants and animals wish to live... but when my only opportunity for preserving myself is to eat them... I may have a little, incomplete justification for eating them. However, I should not hurt them in wanton fashion, and should strive to cause minimum possible harm.
It might depend on whether seeking efficiency (achieve more while wasting less) or independence (manage with minimum external help)... can be considered a "rational" input or feedback. Not sure about it. [/B][/QUOTE]
Sleepy, you have excaped the topic I belive.
And want is a poor basis for establishing a criterion for rights. If true You would have to then create criterion for establishing which wants are valid and which not. From eliminating wants to hurt others from consideration for establishing rights, to the nitty gritty of wants which might indirectly cause harm.
Rights exist as a result of desires. Some desires must not be satiated, because they require victomising others. They dont exist actually in the form of I can do X, but more in the form of you may not do X to me
Its not that you have a right to free speach, but that others dont have a right to silence you before you speak.
Now in classical english common law you always get your say, but if you say something stupid they can get you afterwards.
As for rational, I mean just that, rational and justified by a formal logic. Ive been in classes where profs have struggled in vain to find the quality that would give being rights, ultimatly you end up saying I [I]believe[/I] there is this property which does so. All other properties proposed have weaknesses.
I am a christian, theology wise I fall in a crack between the beliefs of the United Methodist Church, more conservative Free Methodist church. I have reasons to believe in my faith, I have had deeply personal experiences which reinforce my faith.
However absent of that faith, I would have no reason to embrace any philosophical belief save extreme skepticsim and leaning towards Nihilism, becuase while all claim to have support of logic, all contain either unsolvable contradictions, or ignore to many things which undermine their legitimacy.
General scientific definition of life:
1) React to environment
2) Grow by taking from surroundings and processing it
3) Reproduce, passing along some characteristics
4) Capacity for genetic change (this is too narrow I think, there may be life with out genetics persay)
5) These rules do not have to be met.
[B]5) These rules do not have to be met. [/B][/QUOTE]
This is the most important of them all :)
With things like abortion and such, it truly is in the mind of the anti abortion activist about killing, they believe they are saving innocents, just like environmentalists who crusade against species destruction, its the same mindset.
For example, one can suspect that some behavioural models (for example [i]"try being nice to others, while others are nice to you... if you absolutely cannot, then cause minimum harm... but carry a big stick in case someone harms you"[/i])...
...are adaptive / efficient across a broad range of environments, allowing an entity practising them to achieve more with less resources. It doesn't say that inidivduals must want this. It merely proposes that if they do... they may benefit.
---
In addition to utilitarian calculations on efficiency (using less force, causing less entropy)... I likewise think mutuality can sustain ethical principles -- along the lines of "if someone does it to others, they probably accept if someone returns the favour".
----
As for rights... I perceive them as constructs arising from interaction. My view on rights... is that everyone should be permitted what they want... unless it conflicts with something another wants... in which case the more basic right should take precedence.
This however... is complicated when individuals are of different complexity, and have different things to lose.
For example, let us consider me and a tomato fruit. From not eating... I have one human life to lose. From getting eaten by me... a tomato has a tomato life to lose.
In short term, I might perceive myself to be justified in eating the tomato (since I have more to lose). However... should I keep eating tomatos for a long period... multiple models of weighing my justification would eventually yield that tomatos win, and I should stop eating them.
In this light, the answer might be "I can keep eating tomatos, provided that I set the goal, and contribute to achieving the goal... of eventually escaping the necessity of causing this harm".
[B]sorry, I just had bad experiences with Reedies :) The only one cool Reedie I have ever met was a biology major, alas he was a bit strange himself. [/B][/QUOTE]
Oh hell, then thats fine, the Reedies are freaking obnoxious. Only decent one I ever met left Reed for PSU :D