Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!sabre!zeta!epsilon!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) Newsgroups: net.religion.jewish Subject: Re: Re Rights Message-ID: <1048@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Tue, 4-Jun-85 00:19:16 EDT Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1048 Posted: Tue Jun 4 00:19:16 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 6-Jun-85 00:56:12 EDT References: <593@sfmag.UUCP> Organization: The Chartered Accountants Who Want to Be Lion Tamers Association Lines: 102 >>... your rights end where my rights begin ... [ROSEN] > The issue of rights is at the heart of many disagreements > expressed here and it deserves comment. [SAMET] > > One argument for respecting men's rights is that the common > interest of all men is best served if we all adhere to this > principle. This argument establishes rights infringements as > wrong because they violate a social norm subscribed to by members > of society, for society's perceived benefit. Under this view, the > limit on personal rights is determined solely by the principle > of personal rights, i.e., your rights cannot infringe on mine. Clearly this argument has a rational basis behind and limits its presumptions. > A second argument is that man is inherently endowed with certain > inalienable rights. For some, this position relatively > axiomatic, in the sense that they don't see any real need to > prove it, and can't understand how anyone could think otherwise. This argument assumes the existence of an endower, which is an unproven (and a wishful thinking) assumption. > A third argument is very close to the second. Man's endowment > with rights stems from the religious perspective that he is > somewhat sacred, being created in the image of G*d. According to > this position, the ultimate reason for respecting others, and > respecting their rights, would be because of man's inherent > sanctity. Historically, this view pervaded Western society, and > in that sense, its incorporation into our legal system reflects > our heritage of so-called "judao-christian" values. See above. > It's safe to say that the Torah sees certain validity in the > first and third arguments. (The second one is unnecsary in that > the third provides a basis for what was taken axiomatically in > the second.) If you choose to take the same assumptions that Mr. Samet does as your axioms. > In many cases the consequences are the same for all three positions. In > others, the third view would lead to different conclusions. But why take the presumptive third view, with its wishful thinking presumptions behind it, when you have the first view which has its roots in a clear rational basis? The second and third views only work as justifications if your accept the premises about "endowers". > The reason for this is that this view sees G*d, in > contradistinction to Man, as the ultimate arbiter of values. In > this sense, it would place morality above ethics. (People often > use the term morality and ethics interchangibly. I am selecting > a usage which stresses the distinction between values stemming > from a Divine imperative and those which are necessary for > orderly human relations.) See above. Mr. Samet's views would require that you make his types of presumptions about the existence of god and, moreover, that your assumptions be exactly the same as his. > In applying the third view, the Torah might require capital > punishment for certain religious sins. This would override any > right to life which would be posited by purely man-centered value > systems. What about the rights of those who don't hold your presumptions about god? > In such cases, it would appear that the Torah sees man's > sanctity as second to some other realm of sanctity, or perhaps > that certain actions undermine his sanctity or threaten to > corrupt the basic sanctity of mankind. Such considerations would > seem to take precedence, in the Torah view, over argument #1. If and only if you could prove your presumptions about the nature of the law within the Torah. > As an aside, Christianity attempts, on the one hand to subscribe > to the Torah, and on the other hand to advocate tolerance towards > some practices which the Torah views harshly. The liberal > tendencies of modern humanism stem in part from such biases which > are tracable to Christianity. Again, the issue of capital > punishment is a case in point. This is funny: accusing the religion credited with perhaps the most intolerance throughout the centuries with being overtolerant of things like the dreaded "humanism", which, when you look at it, appears (to these people) to "place humans on a pedestal" because it takes the presumptions about go OFF of that pedestal where they do not belong. > Intelligent debate over rights issues (and others) requires us > to identify the relevant sacred cows rather than to posit their > sanctity. An approach which ignores its own underlying dogmas and > simultaneously attacks the Torah view as dogmatic and arbitrary > is blindly biased and self-righteous. It's dogmatic and arbitrary in that your basis for accepting it as fact is no sounding than that of any other religious believer. -- "Ya dee apockety, rum fing f'doo. Ni, ni, ni, YOWWWWWWWWWW!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr