tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3291522678539500772.post7387581407463925312..comments2024-01-24T05:45:35.322-05:00Comments on imagining history: understanding the law as one of many expressions of social values and normsDaniel MacDonaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07546752099879983120noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3291522678539500772.post-1711733648786290542009-07-24T20:53:09.728-04:002009-07-24T20:53:09.728-04:00Joe,
I see where you're coming from with both...Joe,<br /><br />I see where you're coming from with both of these points. I'd never heard that specific argument before in (1) for animal rights. I guess it's all a little new to me: my brother (11) recently decided he's a vegetarian, and he does it because he thinks killing animals is mean under any circumstances. I wonder if there exist towns/cities/states that have outlawed hunting based on the logic of the argument you presented. And if not, how could some places support environmental rights in this way but not animal rights? It truly does seem to be a completely different issue as you point out. <br /><br />On (2) -- you're right. I was thinking about the extremist libertarian view, viewing rights to, say, property as absolute, etc. But, these arguments are pretty weak which is why I think there are problems with it. And, I don't like to take the "extreme view", usually :)<br /><br />Thanks!Daniel MacDonaldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07546752099879983120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3291522678539500772.post-74088720161157568062009-07-24T09:46:22.189-04:002009-07-24T09:46:22.189-04:00Maybe this is tangenting off Dan's tangent and...Maybe this is tangenting off Dan's tangent and taking it where you don't want to go but...<br /><br />1. I don't think the trick of rights of the environment falls into the same category as animal rights. The animal rights argument(s) is on a basic level motivated through the precedent of human rights. Human animals and other animals are both animals. In some cases humans may be given rights non-human animals may not. Being a human as opposed to a dolphin is a significant difference when it comes to voting or freedom of religion. However, being a dolphin as opposed to a human does not seem as significant when it comes to basic rights of life. So at least in many of the basic arguments, animal rights is just considered an extension of human animal rights. Environmental rights seems like a completely different thing. <br /><br />2. You say, "The debate is important here because if we admit that our freedoms and rights are socially constructed then it's possible to see the sphere expand (or contract) in a democratic society." Now isn't the expandability and "contractability" of rights and freedoms within society as absolutely a solid and undeniable historical fact as possible. You say there are problems with the "extreme view" of this but can we think of any right that has not been subject to expansion/contraction. Could there be any argument against it?joseph göner-rebellohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16966239737843409047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3291522678539500772.post-18463511852524518192009-07-22T21:45:20.743-04:002009-07-22T21:45:20.743-04:00**"Someone needs to represent the rivers, for...**"Someone needs to represent the rivers, forests"** (from the article). And, **damages would be awarded in the case that the environmental entity wins.** <br /><br />Presumably the environment could hold people accountable for their policies through the use of a prosecutor in court, and I guess this is what I mean by agency, but it's a bad choice of a word in retrospect. Initially, I was unclear as to how I could formulate my problems with the article so I used that term sloppily. <br /><br />Whether we can actually give the environment rights and what that actually means (aside from the perspective of policy measures) is a tough question. In fact, aside from "why not" I don't think I can give you a legitimate legal reason for doing so. But, isn't the argument for environmental rights in the same vein as the argument animal rights? I can't necessarily give a clear explanation for that either, but we can appeal to notions of morality, communal understandings of what is "humane", etc.<br /><br />This gets me thinking about the individualism vs. social sciences debate. To what extent are our freedoms and rights defined by the society in which we live and to what extent are our rights "absolute", irrespective of any society we are in? The debate is important here because if we admit that our freedoms and rights are socially constructed then it's possible to see the sphere expand (or contract) in a democratic society. I don't want to take a stand here, since there are problems with the extreme view on either side, but that fact alone does not preclude debate on the issues. <br /><br />For example -- society is constantly faced with redefining what constitutes private property vs. common property (from land to water to products of the digital age). Property is in no way defined absolutely in society and that calls into question what "private property" actually is. <br /><br />Or, perhaps I'm off on a tangent? :)<br /><br />Thanks for the comment Alyssa,<br />DanDaniel MacDonaldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07546752099879983120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3291522678539500772.post-48903779535728475402009-07-22T19:44:54.295-04:002009-07-22T19:44:54.295-04:00hey, dan, thanks for the links.
a question, thoug...hey, dan, thanks for the links.<br /><br />a question, though. what does it mean to give nature "rights?" can we extend the human concept of a "right" onto a non-human entity? what dies it really mean for nature to have agency? <br /><br />i guess i don't really understand the argument because i don't know what it means for nature to have rights in the sense that (some) humans do. let me know your thoughts.<br /><br />-alyssasnowtreehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01324158941272911354noreply@blogger.com