A typical "liberal" predicament: how do you maintain that people are "equal" if you don't believe that they are "created equal?" Perhaps you should not let "science" dictate silly notions of what is important in a human person (in this case, IQ test scores).
6 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Did you ever look at, say, the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)? Here is a statement that has the force of law to all signatories, which says:
"Article 1.
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."
So, you could get everyone to agree to a theological basis for universal human rights OR you could, as in this case, simply sign a treaty that recognizes all (born) human beings as inherently equal. What's the problem with that?
Just to complete my thought, above, why not think that species-membership is a basis for rights as opposed to ability of one kind or another?
See further the article: THE HOLY SEE AND THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS: WORKING TOWARD A LEGAL ANTHROPOLOGY OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE FAMILY in the Ave Maria Law Review 2005 4:2 which quotes Mary Anne Glendon's book on the subject and discusses the role many Catholics played in producing this resolution.
Treaties are fine as long as there is a civilization that believes that treaties must be respected. Rights are fine as long as there is a civilization that is willing to uphold them. But neither treaties nor rights create such civilization. Neither does "science," which is implicitly regarded by contemporary liberals like Saletan as the only sure basis of knowledge.
"Treaties are fine as long as there is a civilization that believes that treaties must be respected. Rights are fine as long as there is a civilization that is willing to uphold them. But neither treaties nor rights create such civilization."
Yes, but the same goes double for sectarian, theological constructs like "god made all men equal".
Seems like getting everyone to sign on to a treaty enthroning such rights is a lot easier than getting everyone in the world to embrace the same confession.
It is important to know where things come from. Christianity (not theological constructs) created our civilization. That has implications we need to understand. Then, we can have all the treaties we want, or you can try to get everybody to embrace whatever religious confession you like. But that's not my point.
>Christianity (not theological constructs) created our civilization.
Did Christianity alone create our civilization? That's a very hyperbolic statement. I can think of lot's of other worldviews that influenced ours.
And even if it did, where does this leave us with respect to other civilizations: in order to agree, we must all convert to one or another view? St. James Matamoros forfend!
6 comments:
Did you ever look at, say, the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)? Here is a statement that has the force of law to all signatories, which says:
"Article 1.
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."
So, you could get everyone to agree to a theological basis for universal human rights OR you could, as in this case, simply sign a treaty that recognizes all (born) human beings as inherently equal. What's the problem with that?
Just to complete my thought, above, why not think that species-membership is a basis for rights as opposed to ability of one kind or another?
See further the article: THE HOLY SEE AND THE UNIVERSAL
DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS:
WORKING TOWARD A LEGAL ANTHROPOLOGY
OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE FAMILY in the Ave Maria Law Review 2005 4:2
which quotes Mary Anne Glendon's book on the subject and discusses the role many Catholics played in producing this resolution.
Treaties are fine as long as there is a civilization that believes that treaties must be respected. Rights are fine as long as there is a civilization that is willing to uphold them. But neither treaties nor rights create such civilization. Neither does "science," which is implicitly regarded by contemporary liberals like Saletan as the only sure basis of knowledge.
"Treaties are fine as long as there is a civilization that believes that treaties must be respected. Rights are fine as long as there is a civilization that is willing to uphold them. But neither treaties nor rights create such civilization."
Yes, but the same goes double for sectarian, theological constructs like "god made all men equal".
Seems like getting everyone to sign on to a treaty enthroning such rights is a lot easier than getting everyone in the world to embrace the same confession.
It is important to know where things come from. Christianity (not theological constructs) created our civilization. That has implications we need to understand. Then, we can have all the treaties we want, or you can try to get everybody to embrace whatever religious confession you like. But that's not my point.
>Christianity (not theological constructs) created our civilization.
Did Christianity alone create our civilization? That's a very hyperbolic statement. I can think of lot's of other worldviews that influenced ours.
And even if it did, where does this leave us with respect to other civilizations: in order to agree, we must all convert to one or another view? St. James Matamoros forfend!
Post a Comment