Dutch wrote:
> > wrote
> >
> > 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.
>
> No, anyone who thinks that it is a profound observation of moral philosophy
> that we may act in ways which adversely affect the well-being of others
> without violating their rights is a deluded, pompous twit.

It's a point which is fairly widely agreed upon. It's not supposed to
be profound, but it's something that has to be borne in mind when
trying to come up with an account of what a rights violation is. I
brought it up because you seemed to think Regan is conflating rights
violations with acts which cause harm, which I doubt is the case.

> I may rush out
> and buy the last air conditioner in a store resulting in the person behind
> me dying of heat stroke the next day. I didn't violate his rights, yet my
> actions definitely adversely affected that person. There are endless
> examples, so many that this could almost be called a defining cornerstone of
> society. I would welcome the ideas of anyone who makes a serious attempt to
> produce a systematic theory that explains our moral intuitions but those
> people are not well represented among AR authors as far as I have seen.
>
> > 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.
>
> If you are reading authors who fall into the above category you are wasting
> your time.
> I admit that I am not well-read in this area of "academia" but I
> have a lot of common sense and a highly-developed bullshit meter.