SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: one_less who wrote (79351)12/1/2003 8:51:01 PM
From: Solon  Respond to of 82486
 
"They are in fact directly connected"

Mind can relate everything to everything. But "right action" for you does not relate to the needs of a rock ( IT has no needs)...but to the sense and thought of sentient creatures.

For a rock to have rights it would need to comprehend or to feel a difference. This is a minimum postulate. Insensate matter cannot possess RIGHTS. It is a contradiction in terms. As I said, there is nothing you can do to a rock which makes a difference to THE ROCK. Pee or cream...it is all the same.



To: one_less who wrote (79351)12/2/2003 6:14:47 AM
From: Lane3  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 82486
 
I agree with your sense of responsibility to and respect for animals and rivers. I have that very same sense. I scratched my head, though, during your discussion of rights. Just because we have a moral responsibility to something, it doesn't necessarily have a "right" as that word is used. The right or entitlement to something comes from the authority and might to enforce the claim, something like the Constitution. While I, too, think in terms of animal rights, and by extension, river rights, I recognize that they really have none, not in any practical or legal sense. Conveying entitlement to them is not something that society is prepared to do. You and I may continue to treat them with that respect out of love but they aren't entitled to it in any real way.