[jbovlaste] Re: natural and human rights

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

>>
>>1) mujyselpo'e
>>
>>p2 is a natural/inalienable right possessed by p1
>> 
>>from:
>>p2 se ponse p1 lo munje 
 
>2) remselpo'e
> p2 is a human right possessed by p1
> 
>from:p2 se ponse p1 lo remna
> 
>totus
>

In my opinion, a right is not so much a possessed thing as a condition for doing 

something.

What do people usually mean by "I have the right to ..."? It's a claim that they 

are conditioned with a freedom to do/be a certain thing. "have" is an idiomatic 
expression. So, how about "terzi'e" (te zifre)?

------------- The obvious advantage of using {terzi'e} is that it separates the 
right 

to 'do something" from the 'something' itself. However, I still don't understand 

it being a 'condition'.  I've looked through definitions of 'condition' and I 
don't see 

one that fits.  What is the definition of 'condition' that you see fits both 
your 

understanding of 'right' and that contained in the definition of 
{zifre}?-----------

For (1), I would use "rar" (rarna) instead of "muj". "munje" does not 
necessarily encompass the entire cosmos independent of any arbitrary framework; 
it can be of a specific domain (x2) and defined by a specific rule (x3), which 
again contrasts with a pan-domain pan-rule natural right.

-------------------- But I think that the default meaning of {lo munje} is 
generally 

understood to be our cosmos.  Do we really need to worry about natural 
rights in any other cosmos?  The trouble with {rarna} is that the meaning 
of 'natural' seems to be close to 'spontaneous' or 'instinctive' - not really 
relevant----------------.

As for (2): Does "human" in a "human right" mean a physically defined biological 

object (remna)? 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? 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".

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

-------------------- You've convinced me.----------------------

totus