[jbovlaste] Re: natural and human rights

["A. PIEKARSKI" <totus@rogers.com>]

I am missing the email to which this is the reply, and it's not 
in my spam file.  Would someone please send me a copy?

totus


----- Original Message ----
> From: Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>
> To: jbovlaste@lojban.org
> Sent: Fri, December 10, 2010 4:48:30 PM
> Subject: [jbovlaste] Re: natural and human rights
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
>