Rights come
from the ability to think – not the ability to suffer?
The ability to
think like a human is an arbitrary criterion for rights.
Rights come from the ability to think, then some humans – babies and the
mentally incapacitated – are not deserving of rights, while some non-human
animals with the ability to think like a human do deserve rights.
The ability to
suffer makes sense as a criterion for rights holding, because the purpose of
rights is to ensure that those who might suffer if their rights are not
recognized are not allowed to suffer unduly.
Animals
cannot have rights because they do not have duties?
Like the ability
to think, having duties is an inappropriate criterion for rights holding
because some classes of humans - babies, the mentally ill, the mentally
incapacitated or the mentally retarded – do not have duties.
If only those with
duties deserve rights, then the mentally ill would have no rights and people
would be free to kill and eat them.
同學:你好!對於義務問題,我有一些淺見!義務不一定是主動的事,即主動地去做一些行為,相反,有些基本義務,基本的道德制約都是叫你不去做某些壞事,不去破壞一些普世價值。例如:不要偷竊、不要殺人、不要傷害別人,都是一些基本的道德制約。因此,嬰兒依然有足夠的條件,不違反道德的義務。至於,精神疾病、有智力障礙的人,我認為不能否定他們能遵守道德義務的權利,逍過教育、治療,他們便有履行道德義務的可能性。因此我認為權利和義務依然是相對的。
回覆刪除我認為權利非必然來自義務
回覆刪除人權是無條件與生俱來的權利, 獨立於那個個體的所有特性,現在的問題是人類會不會認為其他動物也同樣的擁有某程度的animal right 需要人類的尊重
I tend to agree with Charles' view and believe that rights and duties should always go together.
回覆刪除How can we make such an arbitrary claim as humans have intrinsic rights while the rest of the creatures in this world only deserve certain rights or respects? I think relying on any property in humans (e.g, rationality, etc.) to make such a claim will be problematic.
在下不認同甚麼「人權」及由其引申出的「人權是無條件與生俱來的權利」宣稱。「人權」只是人「發明」出來的口號。假如天下人皆相親相愛，本無須講求甚麼「人權」。正是人會有存心傷害他人的行為，所以才會想到要以尊重「人權」為口號，試圖譴責及制衡若干人傷害他人的行為。說穿了，「人權」在某意義上，其實標誌著自以為高等動物的人，性好卻仍然停留於自相摧殘的層次。「人權」本是毫不光彩的人類「發明」。現代開始有人提倡甚麼「動物權利」，似乎要將「人權」精神推而廣之，進一步將人除了會自相摧殘外，還會摧殘其他動物的性好一併正規化，再另外以「動物權利」這項人類「新發明」制衡之。在下想像自己若是(人類以外的)動物，就不禁會問：「人類這算是『貓哭老鼠』，還是『法國大餐 -- 多舊魚』呢？」
回覆刪除