Envelope-to: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org
Delivery-date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 13:49:49 -0800
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to         :content-type:content-transfer-encoding;        b=rp7PVrXIhX36lofT8ga8J8tjM6j0tTRAvLEaxpGeOiQ+OOAL6CTBSK1xoZKZ/2syER         DGf+TJkReWLsdtHNx0/sfAk6zUkF0EPz/z77BKeKPUJew4EmuNHWHvwMNwQOTLRSM6rG         rlMmSvLUKYKGQ93j5YbMBmfbicEiPSattsyio=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=9yXsO3VkRdhr3qDxvgv3xndDFJovLA=jEJgpL@mail.gmail.com>
References: <885332.19254.qm@web88003.mail.re2.yahoo.com>	<AANLkTi=9yXsO3VkRdhr3qDxvgv3xndDFJovLA=jEJgpL@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 18:48:30 -0300
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=3KGhamEOFUwMhuWHLLu=S8dZijt0Pf0hyjtXB@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: [jbovlaste] Re: natural and human rights
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?= <jjllambias@gmail.com>
To: jbovlaste@lojban.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: jbovlaste-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: jbovlaste-bounce@lojban.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: jbovlaste@lojban.org
Content-Length: 2185
Lines: 56

On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 2:06 PM, tijlan <jbotijlan@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Does "human" in a "human right" mean a physically defined
> biological object (remna)?

I think so, yes.

> Does it not have a more metaphysical ground, such
> as "person-hood" (prenu)? Article 1 of UDHR (Universal Declaration of Human
> Rights) says:
>
>  "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are
> endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a
> spirit of brotherhood."
>
> Would this exclude non-homo-sapiens beings with reason and conscience, if
> they existed?

Saying "All S are P" does not exclude "Some non-S are also P".

So no, it does not exclude some non-humans also having those rights.

But the very purpose of the UDHR is to basically say that all humans
are people. This hasn't been universally recognized throughout the
history of humankind. If you only list the rights of persons, you are
not saying that all humans have those rights, unless you also say that
all humans are persons.

> I think the use of the word "human" is a misnomer that doesn't
> accurately represent the actual ontology of the entity which the principles
> are meant to recognise. In fact, UDHR is hardly specific about any physical
> definition of "human"; there is little element that limits the endowed
> entity to "homo sapiens".

The preamble starts with:
"Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and
inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the
foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,"

I think "member of the human family" is pretty explicitly about
members of Homo sapiens.

> I therefore suggest "prenu", which can potentially embrace all kinds of
> beings with the qualities that UDHR's thirty articles identify.

If you are just translating it, "human" should be "remna". If you want
to write a better, more encompassing, etc. declaration, then you could
write about the rights of "prenu". But the problem is that then you
need to clarify who or what count as prenu. Who counts as a human
being is somewhat easier to define (although I'm sure there are
borderline cases too).

mu'o mi'e xorxes