Timjoebillybob
Grandmaster
- Feb 27, 2009
- 9,419
- 149
Yes, I'm making the argument that some rights are inherent. Regardless of the morals or if they are recognized. As you said "My conclusion is the same as yours, that human rights are inherent and unalienable". If it is inherent and unalienable, it is not dependent on morals. I'll agree that morals are required to recognize those rights. From Merriam's definition of inherent "involved in the constitution or essential character of something : belonging by nature or habit".But it's my contention that if it's an objective moral, it had to predate the discovery of it. So it does not matter when it's recognized, other than we can't hold people responsible for not having the moral maturity of the current age.
And again, the problem I have with rights preceding morality, rights are dependent on right and wrong. I mean. if some morals are absolute. And rights derive from morals. Then the rights that derive from morals would also be absolute. But it sounds like you're making the case that regardless, if rights are absolute, then
Yes I would say that morals are unnecessary for a squirrel to have the right to life. Now some peoples morals would prevent them from infringing on that right, some peoples wouldn't. I'm in the latter group. Squirrel is far from a staple on my menu but I've had it a time or two, it was pretty tasty. Same with cat and dog. I've heard young groundhog is good as well. Heck Guinea pig is a delicacy for some.Okay so does the squirrel have a right to life? That's a good question. I tend not to think in the same way humans do. Is there an underlying moral that would support such a right for squirrels? I think you might say morals are unnecessary for a squirrel to have rights. I don't think a right can stand without some absolute moral underpinning. So I'd say there would have to be some absolute moral truth that supports such a right. That feels subjective. I suppose I could make something up. But then I'd have to be a veeg. And I don't want to be a veeg. Not that I eat squirrel. That's a ****ing rodent. I don't eat rats either.
Or to put it this way, the squirrel has the right to attempt to feed itself, reproduce, and even defend itself in anyway it can. The eagle has those same rights, including by feeding itself and it's offspring said squirrel. No morals are required, it is the inherent right to life they have by nature.