Quote:
Originally Posted by bns  I think we can work around that contradiction. I presently feel no need, however.  |
No need at all, the points I set out earlier were meant as a summary, not a viable set of axioms as a whole.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bns It's one I think is important. It is the only basis for arguing against xenophobia, AFAIK. |
That is exactly the counterargument i got on the slashdot forum. (cannot find it back :/) On the "theoretical side" i disagree, determining the rights of a creature has the same problem of being arbitrary as determining what is (feel-)good in the first place.
On the practical side, I agree, since what is good is already defined culturally. Or perhaps instinctively or via association? I guess people who have no idea of good and evil cannot from any kind lasting society.
Human rights not being race-based is a newer concept though, i do not think any such mechanism exist to make it last by itself. (especially considering history!) I think i can do without an dont-be-racist axiom without being racist myself. i do not expect that others do the same. For example, in practice this would mean that in the law rights should not be per-creature based, but sweeping, like rights per animal species, human rights.
I simply cannot imagine treating people differently because of such superficial aspects. (ok, I probably am when people are attractive, but who isnt)