Re:An Orangutan Has Some Human Rights, Argentine Court Rules
by mbrock on Tuesday December 23, 2014 @10:38AM
(#8788521)
They may be ultimately arbitrary, but until you come up with a final conclusive objective ethics, proven metaphysically beyond questioning, the rest of us have to make actual decisions today. The UN, as a collective body, defines various normative concepts, e.g., by defining "human rights." If you have issues with them, you join the proverbial mailing list and state your case.
Re:An Orangutan Has Some Human Rights, Argentine Court Rules
by ars on Tuesday December 23, 2014 @03:30PM
(#8790033)
My point is that there is no difference between the "rational argument" TheOtherHobbes doesn't like and rights.
He has tried to define a difference between them that doesn't actually exist.
ISIS will say everyone has the right to have a slave. The UN says everyone has the right to paid vacations (yes, it really does say that).
Who decides which rights should be accepted?
There is no one who can do so. Rights are arbitrary and reflect the culture of those who defined them.
You either decide to accept them or you don't. i.e. it's pretty much identical to "rational argument".