Dutch wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Dutch wrote:
> >> "Rupert" > wrote
> >> >
> >> > Derek wrote:
> >> >> On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 20:12:42 GMT, Leif Erikson
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >Derek wrote:
> >> >> >> On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 22:30:41 -0600, Karen Winter wrote:
> >> >> >>>Derek wrote:
> >> >> >>>>On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 14:28:57 -0600, Karen Winter wrote:
> >> >> >>>>>Derek wrote:
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>>><snip>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>>>>Exactly! Pearl starts off by saying, "From an AR point of
> >> >> >>>>>>view...",
> >> >> >>>>>>and then goes on to imply that harms are what make rights
> >> >> >>>>>>violations,
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>>>That is correct.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>>Wrong. Harms are a consequence of rights violations
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>No, Derek
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Tom Regan agrees with me, and that's probably why you snipped
> >> >> >> him away.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> "The rights view answers these questions as follows. In cases
> >> >> >> in which innocent people are murdered painlessly, their right
> >> >> >> to be treated with respect is violated; that is what makes their
> >> >> >> murder wrong. In cases in which the victims suffer greatly, the
> >> >> >> fundamental wrong is the same: a lack of respect, only in these
> >> >> >> cases the wrong done is compounded by how much the victims
> >> >> >> suffer. The suffering and other harms people are made to endure
> >> >> >> at the hands of those who violate their rights is a lamentable,
> >> >> >> sometimes an unspeakable tragic feature of the world. Still,
> >> >> >> according to the rights view, this suffering and these other
> >> >> >> harms
> >> >> >> occur ** as a consequence** of treating individuals with a lack
> >> >> >> of respect: as such, as bad as they are, and as much as we would
> >> >> >> wish them away, the suffering and other harms are not themselves
> >> >> >> the fundamental wrong."
> >> >> >> Tom Regan. The animal Rights Debate. Page198-199
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>>A lack of respect is not a violation of a right.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> When that lack of respect knowingly leads to harm, it IS a rights
> >> >> >> violation.
> >>
> >> A man may have great respect for deer yet still shoot a deer for food. A
> >> man
> >> may have no respect for deer yet never harm one.
> >>
> >> >> >Karen is equivocating on "respect".
> >> >>
> >> >> Well caught that man!
> >> >
> >> > Explain the point, then. What are the two senses of "respect" between
> >> > which she is equivocating?
> >>
> >> Regan is just talking in circles, like all AR authors do. What meaningful
> >> difference can there be between rights violations which are lack of
> >> respect
> >> leading to harm and simply acts which cause harm?
> >
> > I was wanting to know how Derek interpreted Leif Erikson's claim that
> > Karen was equivocating on the word "respect". I wasn't so much
> > concerned with the project of trying to interpret Regan.
>
> Derek talks in circles too.
>
> > I guess I'd have to read what Regan has to say, but most rights
> > theorists agree that there are some actions which adversely affect the
> > well-being of another which do not violate rights. A woman refusing a
> > suitor, for example.
>
> Any moron knows that, literally. People who think of obvious ideas like this
> as "rights theory" are pompous twits.
>
> >The idea is usually something like: this action
> > does not violate any of the constraints on how to treat another being.
> > Perhaps Regan would say that, as long as we do not violate the
> > constraints, we are treating the other being with respect, even though
> > they may be worse-off as a result of our action. I don't know. I agree
> > it's a topic that deserves careful discussion.
>
> No it doesn't, it's bloody simple, unless one's head is firmly implanted in
> one's ass.
>
> > Contrary to what you say
> > this is not a problem unique to AR authors, that's just your
> > narrow-minded prejudices and your lack of familiarity with moral
> > philosophy. Rather, all rights theorists have to address this problem.
>
> I didn't say talking in circles was unique to AR authors, pompous twit, I
> said all AR authors do it. Get the difference?

Yeah, right, anyone who tries to produce a systematic theory that
explains our moral intuitions is talking in circles and is a pompous
twit. I'm sure you'd be competent to know. Well, thanks for
enlightening me, I guess I'll give up studying moral philosophy. See ya
round.