Human Rights
- Thread starter Danoff
- 2,238 comments
- 116,612 views
- 23,800
- Philippines
Well... note... "feel obligated". I didn't say I would obligate them, but it would be nice to know that I've instilled a sense of family and caring for said family in my offspring before I shuffle off this mortal coil (but not to Buffalo).
We could make it a legal contract, if you want. Those are becoming quite popular amongst families nowadays...
...as unspoken arrangements that were once taken for granted between family members are now becoming less clear, thanks to differing values between generations and a general lack of communication. But then, that's a discussion for another time.
Keef
Premium
- 25,057
- Dayton, OH
- GTP_KeefRacer
- GTP Keef
I was just browsing the syllabus for my English class and I was reminded of the property rights discussion in this thread by a random quote pasted in here. As a guy named Aldo Leopold apparently wrote, "We abuse land because we regard it as a commodity belonging to us. When we see land as a community to which we belong, we may begin to use it with love and respect."
I scratched my head. Surely the English professor who typed up this syllabus slid this quote in to make us students think long and hard about property, what it is, and what it means. Surely. Because no college professor could ever be dumb enough to think tossing out civilization as we know it and living likecavemen animals would actually be a good idea.
*Even cavemen had a simple understanding of property rights. Hell, even animals do. That's why they fight when one wanders too far into another's territory.
I scratched my head. Surely the English professor who typed up this syllabus slid this quote in to make us students think long and hard about property, what it is, and what it means. Surely. Because no college professor could ever be dumb enough to think tossing out civilization as we know it and living like
*Even cavemen had a simple understanding of property rights. Hell, even animals do. That's why they fight when one wanders too far into another's territory.
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
What is the context of the quote? I mean, where does it appear within the syllabus? I'm and English teacher, so I might be able to tell you with certainty what it means.
Keef
Premium
- 25,057
- Dayton, OH
- GTP_KeefRacer
- GTP Keef
It's completely random, but is the last thing in the syllabus. A final thought, if you will.
The meaning of it is pretty straight forward. What Niky said, basically. But the "love and respect" thing isn't what got me. What got me was "...we regard it as a commodity belonging to us." Well, duh?
Comments like Mr. Leopold's obviously don't take ideas like "rights" into consideration. Clever sayings like these are what sparked the property rights debate in this thread to begin with. I'm not even slightly shocked that I've just read this when I think about it. Our first assignment in the class was to go outside and be emotional, or something. The professor is going to lead us on hikes out in the frigid cold in an effort to instill bloody-hearted liberalness into our brains. I can already hear Volvo's stock going up as I type.
Last edited:
- 29,231
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
The reason the professor will have included it is to encourage people to think about the issues involved, and probably doesn't reflect his own opinions at all. It's an interesting quote and one that is likely to generate differences of opinion and hence discussion... I think it is a great shame that you think that having discussions of this nature is "an effort to instill bloody-hearted liberalness into our brains".
As for the quote itself, I reckon Leopold is alluding to the fact that while humans may have assumed the right to use the land in any way we see fit, we are ultimately bound by something fundamentally more important - that we are compelled to maintain the land and not destroy it, otherwise it is to the detriment of everyone and everything. (Note that he draws a distinction between "use" and "abuse" of the land). While Leopold may not be arguing against human property rights, it is the ethic that 'love' and respect for the land and its resources is required just as much as a reverence for human rights, if we are to continue to enjoy prosperity. It also raises the more fundamental question about whether we are justified in assuming the right to do whatever we want with the planet... clearly, it is not in our interests to make the planet inhospitable for ourselves, but by affording ourselves the right to do so, we make it a possibility.
- 23,800
- Philippines
Perhaps there is something to the idea that people cannot own land. I may have legal rights to use a patch of land for whatever purpose I see fit simply by claiming it or paying for its use, but that land is going to be there long after I and the documents detailing my rights to that patch of land have turned to dust.
Whether that land will be a patch of dust or a living, productive thing after I'm gone will depend on how well I've cared for it.
Whether that land will be a patch of dust or a living, productive thing after I'm gone will depend on how well I've cared for it.
- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
Are there other quotes tied to topics on the syllabus, or is it your usual boring syllabus with stuff like: Jan 5th - Chapter 1: Early American Literature, January 12th - Chapter 2: Boring short stories you never want to read again.
Do this: Pretend he meant it as a reference to your books for class. I have some strange respect for printed books and will never throw one away. I will give it to someone, resell it, or whatever to make sure it still exists in a form that someone else can enjoy it. This isn't anything to do with some liberal notion of shared community goods or information that I owe to the rest of society, but that I find written language to be something special.
Is all of this serious? I quickly grow tired of being forced to over-analyze a story and if you are supposed to do some emotional cleansing thing to prepare for it you are screwed. That means you will be expected to look at a story that really isn't a story, because the woman's hat symbolizes the queen's (and you have to know who was queen and what the socio-political climate was when and where it was written to even get this) prideful nature.
I got lucky that my professor was apparently dumber than me. She took my smart ass answers like, "I think he was just dehydrated and his dream was some hallucination," as thinking outside the box. She gave me bonus credit for that. Clearly she was just teaching it the way she was taught to, not because she actually understood the purpose.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,011
- Mile High City
...and now it's time for a classic Danoff post.
Land is property, a commodity owned by individuals for a reason. It's not an arbitrary distinction, but a necessary recognition. Land is property for the same reason a stick, or an invention can be property - the investment of labor. Unworked unowned land is not property and cannot be property until some labor establishes as such. (Sticking a flag in it does not count)
This is the same reason that if you pick up an unowned unworked stick and carve it into a work of art, it belongs to you. Because to take it from you would be to deny you the fruits of your labor and retroactively force you into slavery.
I'll say again, though, that sticking a flag in a piece of dirt does not count as working the land or mixing labor with it. That's simply attempting to claim something without any rational basis for it.
Amended to a link, 'cos Eddie Izzard swears a bit
Land is property, a commodity owned by individuals for a reason. It's not an arbitrary distinction, but a necessary recognition. Land is property for the same reason a stick, or an invention can be property - the investment of labor. Unworked unowned land is not property and cannot be property until some labor establishes as such. (Sticking a flag in it does not count)
This is the same reason that if you pick up an unowned unworked stick and carve it into a work of art, it belongs to you. Because to take it from you would be to deny you the fruits of your labor and retroactively force you into slavery.
I'll say again, though, that sticking a flag in a piece of dirt does not count as working the land or mixing labor with it. That's simply attempting to claim something without any rational basis for it.
Amended to a link, 'cos Eddie Izzard swears a bit
Joel
Premium
- 8,141
- Halifax, NS
- Noob616
Oh my goodness that stuff can get ridiculous. I'm only in high school English and we do the same garbage. Apparently Atticus Finch not liking to use guns even though he's a great shot is a symbol that America should be less violent. Yeah, she said that.
Keef
Premium
- 25,057
- Dayton, OH
- GTP_KeefRacer
- GTP Keef
That was just a bit of sarcasm for humorous effect. I think discussions about topics like this are fantastic and that's why I drummed up the thread. The only problem is that this isn't a class based on the discussion of human rights.
It will apparently grow into a class about the art and science of research, but so far it seems a corny exercise in how needlessly wordy and shrewd a student can summarize a beautifully written short story by, you know, an actual author. As I was driving home I thought, "That's just trying too hard." Everyone tried to morph the author's style into a one-sentence summary, and I refused to do so because it sounded ridiculous. I apologize for not being the Bob Ross of authordom, but even this story about mountains and forests and wolves couldn't let it shine.
Today we read a passage from the book this quote may be from. Something about how the author killed wolves for fun, and when he looked in the eye of this dying mother wolf he realized the mistake he had made. As time went on in the early 20th century, and as wolves were extermination around the country, he watched woodland environments fall apart through a lack of balance in the ecosystem. Too many deer, not enough bullets.
My conclusion is that the author did not step back and look at this experience and the later environmental destruction objectively. Instead, the emotions he felt at the time took over and became stronger as he watched the situation devolve. Basically, he turned into an eco-hippie. And as we all know, hippies don't think about much very deeply. They cry for "freedom" or whatever, and don't even know what it is.
EDIT: But seriously, there is a good point to the story that deserves some attention. Respect for the environment is cool with me. The artful presentation just screams hippie though.
In this day and age, "legal rights" are a pretty good judge of ownership. Besides working to make something your own, you can in fact sign pieces of paper to further prove it, and also bring law into the equation instead of cowboy justice. But as Danoff said, "claiming" something doesn't prove squat.
It doesn't matter how long it will be there or what condition its in with regards to ownership. It's yours from the time you take ownership until the time you die, and then it goes on to whoever you said it should go on to. Or at least that's the idea behind wills. If no people are left to take ownership then I suppose nobody owns it. Maybe an intelligent animal will be able to understand these ideas.
Seems more like a "teacher's favorite author" thing.
A reference, yes, but not on purpose I don't think. Also, I tend to keep books. You never know when you or somebody else might need the information within.
Like I said before, I'm no Bob Ross, so I think I'm going to avoid the artsy fartsy side of writing and just do my research when it comes time.
Shame on you Danoff! Go kill a wolf and watch it die and let us know if you still feel the same afterwards. Think Like a Mountain, bro.
Keef
Premium
- 25,057
- Dayton, OH
- GTP_KeefRacer
- GTP Keef
This is the short version. There is a slightly longer version with a bit about gods' ownership of humans, which I thought cleared up the religious argument in about 10 seconds, but then I figured everybody would get hung up on it and start arguing about Jesus and stuff. So, short version it is then.
Keef
Premium
- 25,057
- Dayton, OH
- GTP_KeefRacer
- GTP Keef
Okay fine, here's a legitimate question I just got stumped on. I'm analyzing sources for an English paper and I'm interrupting my homework to post this.
Bailey, Ronald. "The Science of Libertarian Morality." Reason 42.9 (2011): 46-47. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 17 Feb. 2011.
How's that for a source? Anyways...
"The researchers also found that libertarians tend to be less flummoxed [than liberals and conservatives] by various moral dilemmas, such as the famous "trolley problem." In the trolley problem, five workmen will be killed by a runaway trolley unless you move a track switch which will divert the train but kill one workman -- or, in another version, push a fat man off a bridge stopping the trolley. Typically, most people will choose to move the switch, but refuse to push the fat man. Why the difference? The utilitarian moral calculus is the same -- save five by killing one. According to the researchers, libertarians are more likely to resolve moral dilemmas by applying this utilitarian calculus."
The "fat man" situation caught my interest, so I looked it up.
Trolley problem.
According to these researchers, it's some sort of cost-to-benefit scenario for libertarians, deciding whether or not to save 5 people by sacrificing one to stop the train barreling toward them.
It's not the fat man's duty to protect those 5 people. It's his life, and nobody should decide for him whether or not it should be sacrificed. I totally disagree with the researchers' perceived sacrificial "calculus" of libertarians.
As far as I know, any good libertarian would never sacrifice one for many, unless that one willingly sacrificed themselves. A good libertarian would simply tell those five idiots to get off the track because there's a train coming. Right?
The rest of the research generally sounds accurate but doesn't cover anything I didn't already know - perhaps they just did it for scientific documentation. Libertarians seem to be a blend of the best qualities of many ideologies, the common factor being rationality.
Bailey, Ronald. "The Science of Libertarian Morality." Reason 42.9 (2011): 46-47. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 17 Feb. 2011.
How's that for a source? Anyways...
"The researchers also found that libertarians tend to be less flummoxed [than liberals and conservatives] by various moral dilemmas, such as the famous "trolley problem." In the trolley problem, five workmen will be killed by a runaway trolley unless you move a track switch which will divert the train but kill one workman -- or, in another version, push a fat man off a bridge stopping the trolley. Typically, most people will choose to move the switch, but refuse to push the fat man. Why the difference? The utilitarian moral calculus is the same -- save five by killing one. According to the researchers, libertarians are more likely to resolve moral dilemmas by applying this utilitarian calculus."
The "fat man" situation caught my interest, so I looked it up.
Trolley problem.
According to these researchers, it's some sort of cost-to-benefit scenario for libertarians, deciding whether or not to save 5 people by sacrificing one to stop the train barreling toward them.
It's not the fat man's duty to protect those 5 people. It's his life, and nobody should decide for him whether or not it should be sacrificed. I totally disagree with the researchers' perceived sacrificial "calculus" of libertarians.
As far as I know, any good libertarian would never sacrifice one for many, unless that one willingly sacrificed themselves. A good libertarian would simply tell those five idiots to get off the track because there's a train coming. Right?
The rest of the research generally sounds accurate but doesn't cover anything I didn't already know - perhaps they just did it for scientific documentation. Libertarians seem to be a blend of the best qualities of many ideologies, the common factor being rationality.
Last edited:
Danoff
Premium
- 34,011
- Mile High City
Doesn't this claim that libertarians are likely to push the fat man? It claims the math is "the same" and that libertarians are more likely to apply the math. That suggests that libertarians view it in the same way.
I agree with your assessment Keef, and good job solving a problem that seems to somehow stump hundreds of years of philosophers. It's up to the fat man to sacrifice himself. You either sacrifice yourself, or you let them die, but sacrificing one for many is a violation if his rights. The people on the track do not have a right to compel the fat man to save them, and neither do you on their behalf.
- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
Are there people on the trolley? If so, are they presumed to be killed no matter what?
Danoff
Premium
- 34,011
- Mile High City
I think you are supposed to assume there is nobody on the trolley. That it's simply an object of death, and that you have to choose between 1 or 5.
- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
Danoff
Premium
- 34,011
- Mile High City
That's fine James, but it defeats the purpose of the thought experiment.
- 234
- BlackWhiteWolf; GTP_DeadlyWolf
Suppose the facts are that
1) There are only two options (a) and (b).
2) The default position is (a).
3) (a) will result in x people being killed.
4) (b) will result in 1 person being killed.
Now if x=1000, will your answer still be the same? What about 10000, 100000, 1 million, 10 million? Will there be a threshold that may limit or even negate your proposition that one man's rights can never be subjected to the rights of others?
1) There are only two options (a) and (b).
2) The default position is (a).
3) (a) will result in x people being killed.
4) (b) will result in 1 person being killed.
Now if x=1000, will your answer still be the same? What about 10000, 100000, 1 million, 10 million? Will there be a threshold that may limit or even negate your proposition that one man's rights can never be subjected to the rights of others?
- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
Danoff
Premium
- 34,011
- Mile High City
Well said.
FK
I don't get it. You have the ability to direct the gunman? So it's like putting your spouse on one track, and having the option of pushing the fat man in the way of the trolley car. That, of course, doesn't change the morality of the issue, it's the same scenario. Making it personal, like involving a spouse, is just a way to tempt you into making an immoral decision. Regardless of whether I say "yea, I'd sacrifice an innocent person to save my wife", the morality of the scenario doesn't change. It would simply mean I was successfully tempted into making an immoral choice.
- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
Danoff
Premium
- 34,011
- Mile High City
Right, well in that scenario you can off yourself - which is the moral way out, but isn't supposed to be available in the train track scenario.
- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
True, but even with myself taken out of the scenario I don't like the confines of a box and I will always look for an alternate option.
But ultimately the best decision is no decision. Of course that leads to the philosophical question of; Isn't that the same as deciding to to kill the original victims? Which is why I will always be compelled to find a way to derail the trolley or stop the gunman or sacrifice myself first. In my mind the limits these scenarios place on us leaves no 100% moral option. Someone will die due to either your action or inaction.
