Total Posts:82|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Does the environment have rights?

Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 12:36:39 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
If I go and chop down an entire forest or pollute a pond so that everything in it dies, for no reason whatsoever, should I be stopped? Even if there is a positive result (not necessarily net positive), such as selling the wood for energy, or getting rid of waste, is it still wrong? Does the environment have certain rights?

A right being a protection against moral wrongdoing.
ford_prefect
Posts: 4,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 12:37:31 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/14/2016 12:36:39 AM, Hayd wrote:
If I go and chop down an entire forest or pollute a pond so that everything in it dies, for no reason whatsoever, should I be stopped? Even if there is a positive result (not necessarily net positive), such as selling the wood for energy, or getting rid of waste, is it still wrong? Does the environment have certain rights?

A right being a protection against moral wrongdoing.

You should be stopped but not because the environment has rights. Your actions would impose negative externalities on the people around that forest or pond, and they do have rights.
ford_prefect
Posts: 4,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 12:38:38 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/14/2016 12:36:54 AM, Hayd wrote:
pope francis says so
http://www.theguardian.com...

If you read the article, he goes on to clarify his reasoning: "Any harm done to the environment, therefore is harm done to humanity," Francis said. "The ecological crisis, and the large-scale destruction of biodiversity, can threaten the very existence of the human species," he concluded.
walker_harris3
Posts: 273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 12:49:50 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
I don't think the environment has rights, but we as inhabitants have a shared moral duty to keep it in good shape, which we are currently failing at. https://www.google.com...
Yes, there should be laws against intentionally polluting ponds.
No, there should not be laws against logging, as logging is 100% sustainable and a great source of side income.
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 12:53:26 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/14/2016 12:37:31 AM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 4/14/2016 12:36:39 AM, Hayd wrote:
If I go and chop down an entire forest or pollute a pond so that everything in it dies, for no reason whatsoever, should I be stopped? Even if there is a positive result (not necessarily net positive), such as selling the wood for energy, or getting rid of waste, is it still wrong? Does the environment have certain rights?

A right being a protection against moral wrongdoing.

You should be stopped but not because the environment has rights. Your actions would impose negative externalities on the people around that forest or pond, and they do have rights.

So we should only respect the environment in order to better ourselves, but the environment does not have seclusive, individual, and objective rights?
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 12:54:37 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/14/2016 12:38:38 AM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 4/14/2016 12:36:54 AM, Hayd wrote:
pope francis says so
http://www.theguardian.com...

If you read the article, he goes on to clarify his reasoning: "Any harm done to the environment, therefore is harm done to humanity," Francis said. "The ecological crisis, and the large-scale destruction of biodiversity, can threaten the very existence of the human species," he concluded.

I did read the article. That doesn't change the fact that he supports environmental rights, his reasoning is that it would better humanity.
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 1:00:41 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/14/2016 12:38:38 AM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 4/14/2016 12:36:54 AM, Hayd wrote:
pope francis says so
http://www.theguardian.com...

If you read the article, he goes on to clarify his reasoning: "Any harm done to the environment, therefore is harm done to humanity," Francis said. "The ecological crisis, and the large-scale destruction of biodiversity, can threaten the very existence of the human species," he concluded.

Also says
"We Christians, together with the other monotheistic religions, believe that the universe is the fruit of a loving decision by the Creator, who permits man respectfully to use creation for the good of his fellow men and for the glory of the Creator; he is not authorized to abuse it, much less to destroy it,"
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 1:11:03 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/14/2016 1:00:41 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 4/14/2016 12:38:38 AM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 4/14/2016 12:36:54 AM, Hayd wrote:
pope francis says so
http://www.theguardian.com...

If you read the article, he goes on to clarify his reasoning: "Any harm done to the environment, therefore is harm done to humanity," Francis said. "The ecological crisis, and the large-scale destruction of biodiversity, can threaten the very existence of the human species," he concluded.

Also says
"We Christians, together with the other monotheistic religions, believe that the universe is the fruit of a loving decision by the Creator, who permits man respectfully to use creation for the good of his fellow men and for the glory of the Creator; he is not authorized to abuse it, much less to destroy it,"

What if God really wanted us to turn the earth into a big plastic ball?
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 1:25:29 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/14/2016 1:11:03 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/14/2016 1:00:41 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 4/14/2016 12:38:38 AM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 4/14/2016 12:36:54 AM, Hayd wrote:
pope francis says so
http://www.theguardian.com...

If you read the article, he goes on to clarify his reasoning: "Any harm done to the environment, therefore is harm done to humanity," Francis said. "The ecological crisis, and the large-scale destruction of biodiversity, can threaten the very existence of the human species," he concluded.

Also says
"We Christians, together with the other monotheistic religions, believe that the universe is the fruit of a loving decision by the Creator, who permits man respectfully to use creation for the good of his fellow men and for the glory of the Creator; he is not authorized to abuse it, much less to destroy it,"

What if God really wanted us to turn the earth into a big plastic ball?

do it
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 1:27:28 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
People have rights, not objects. A private owner of property has the right to determine usage.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 1:30:55 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/14/2016 1:27:28 AM, Chang29 wrote:
People have rights, not objects. A private owner of property has the right to determine usage.

What grounds people having rights? Is it autonomy? Is it rationality? Is it sentience? The only feasible justification is sentience since morality is based off suffering/pleasure, which many plants also share.
ford_prefect
Posts: 4,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 1:37:31 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/14/2016 1:30:55 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 4/14/2016 1:27:28 AM, Chang29 wrote:
People have rights, not objects. A private owner of property has the right to determine usage.

What grounds people having rights? Is it autonomy? Is it rationality? Is it sentience? The only feasible justification is sentience since morality is based off suffering/pleasure, which many plants also share.

No, it's a social contract. Animals and plants don't participate in our social contract, so they have no rights.
ford_prefect
Posts: 4,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 1:38:27 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/14/2016 1:00:41 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 4/14/2016 12:38:38 AM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 4/14/2016 12:36:54 AM, Hayd wrote:
pope francis says so
http://www.theguardian.com...

If you read the article, he goes on to clarify his reasoning: "Any harm done to the environment, therefore is harm done to humanity," Francis said. "The ecological crisis, and the large-scale destruction of biodiversity, can threaten the very existence of the human species," he concluded.

Also says
"We Christians, together with the other monotheistic religions, believe that the universe is the fruit of a loving decision by the Creator, who permits man respectfully to use creation for the good of his fellow men and for the glory of the Creator; he is not authorized to abuse it, much less to destroy it,"

Right, and the reason man is not authorized to abuse or destroy the environment is because this would cause harm to all of humanity.
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 1:55:02 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/14/2016 1:37:31 AM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 4/14/2016 1:30:55 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 4/14/2016 1:27:28 AM, Chang29 wrote:
People have rights, not objects. A private owner of property has the right to determine usage.

What grounds people having rights? Is it autonomy? Is it rationality? Is it sentience? The only feasible justification is sentience since morality is based off suffering/pleasure, which many plants also share.

No, it's a social contract. Animals and plants don't participate in our social contract, so they have no rights.

So if there was no government (a state of nature), morality wouldn't exist? If I were to hack someone to death in front of his daughter, that would not be considered immoral. You would affirm this, since you are proposing moral rights are contingent upon government jurisdiction; social contract.

Can you also define social contract? I have a response in mind, but I want to make sure we have the same concept in mind first.
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 1:56:36 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/14/2016 1:38:27 AM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 4/14/2016 1:00:41 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 4/14/2016 12:38:38 AM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 4/14/2016 12:36:54 AM, Hayd wrote:
pope francis says so
http://www.theguardian.com...

If you read the article, he goes on to clarify his reasoning: "Any harm done to the environment, therefore is harm done to humanity," Francis said. "The ecological crisis, and the large-scale destruction of biodiversity, can threaten the very existence of the human species," he concluded.

Also says
"We Christians, together with the other monotheistic religions, believe that the universe is the fruit of a loving decision by the Creator, who permits man respectfully to use creation for the good of his fellow men and for the glory of the Creator; he is not authorized to abuse it, much less to destroy it,"

Right, and the reason man is not authorized to abuse or destroy the environment is because this would cause harm to all of humanity.

Not in this quote. The reason is that God created nature for the good of man, and for God's glory. Thus destroying it violates that, is disrespectful, and unpious.
Sam7411
Posts: 959
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 2:09:10 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/14/2016 1:27:28 AM, Chang29 wrote:
People have rights, not objects. A private owner of property has the right to determine usage.

Who determines ownership?
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 2:28:51 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/14/2016 2:09:10 AM, Sam7411 wrote:
At 4/14/2016 1:27:28 AM, Chang29 wrote:
People have rights, not objects. A private owner of property has the right to determine usage.

Who determines ownership?

The source of property ownership, simple the first person to use it. Too bad governments have injected coercive power into this area for far too long.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
ford_prefect
Posts: 4,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 3:23:59 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/14/2016 1:55:02 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 4/14/2016 1:37:31 AM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 4/14/2016 1:30:55 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 4/14/2016 1:27:28 AM, Chang29 wrote:
People have rights, not objects. A private owner of property has the right to determine usage.

What grounds people having rights? Is it autonomy? Is it rationality? Is it sentience? The only feasible justification is sentience since morality is based off suffering/pleasure, which many plants also share.

No, it's a social contract. Animals and plants don't participate in our social contract, so they have no rights.

So if there was no government (a state of nature), morality wouldn't exist? If I were to hack someone to death in front of his daughter, that would not be considered immoral. You would affirm this, since you are proposing moral rights are contingent upon government jurisdiction; social contract.
Uhh, no. Morality is completely different from rights. I can do something immoral but it may or may not violate somebody else's legal rights.
Can you also define social contract? I have a response in mind, but I want to make sure we have the same concept in mind first.

The social contract I'm talking about is the unofficial one that all human beings sign in order to live together as a society/civilization/whatever you want to call it. We basically agree to abide by a set of (usually) codified rules in exchange for the increased security and prosperity achievable in a group as opposed to individually.
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 3:45:20 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/14/2016 3:23:59 AM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 4/14/2016 1:55:02 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 4/14/2016 1:37:31 AM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 4/14/2016 1:30:55 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 4/14/2016 1:27:28 AM, Chang29 wrote:
People have rights, not objects. A private owner of property has the right to determine usage.

What grounds people having rights? Is it autonomy? Is it rationality? Is it sentience? The only feasible justification is sentience since morality is based off suffering/pleasure, which many plants also share.

No, it's a social contract. Animals and plants don't participate in our social contract, so they have no rights.

So if there was no government (a state of nature), morality wouldn't exist? If I were to hack someone to death in front of his daughter, that would not be considered immoral. You would affirm this, since you are proposing moral rights are contingent upon government jurisdiction; social contract.
Uhh, no. Morality is completely different from rights. I can do something immoral but it may or may not violate somebody else's legal rights.

No it isn't. "a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way." Google

I agree, but this is irrelevent to what I posted.

Can you also define social contract? I have a response in mind, but I want to make sure we have the same concept in mind first.

The social contract I'm talking about is the unofficial one that all human beings sign in order to live together as a society/civilization/whatever you want to call it. We basically agree to abide by a set of (usually) codified rules in exchange for the increased security and prosperity achievable in a group as opposed to individually.

Alrighty.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 3:52:12 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/14/2016 12:36:54 AM, Hayd wrote:
pope francis says so
http://www.theguardian.com...

Pope Francis is definitely the authority on how government functions.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 3:54:06 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/14/2016 12:36:39 AM, Hayd wrote:
If I go and chop down an entire forest or pollute a pond so that everything in it dies, for no reason whatsoever, should I be stopped? Even if there is a positive result (not necessarily net positive), such as selling the wood for energy, or getting rid of waste, is it still wrong? Does the environment have certain rights?

A right being a protection against moral wrongdoing.

The environment doesn't have any rights, since the environment is a non thinking entity and is not made up of people, unlike other non thinking entities, being businesses.

The environment, if it were to receive these rights, would immediately mean the capture of all humans, since anything that causes any detriment to the environment, even if its spitting gum on a tree, would mean an impediment on its right to life.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 3:58:08 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/14/2016 3:54:06 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 4/14/2016 12:36:39 AM, Hayd wrote:
If I go and chop down an entire forest or pollute a pond so that everything in it dies, for no reason whatsoever, should I be stopped? Even if there is a positive result (not necessarily net positive), such as selling the wood for energy, or getting rid of waste, is it still wrong? Does the environment have certain rights?

A right being a protection against moral wrongdoing.

The environment doesn't have any rights, since the environment is a non thinking entity and is not made up of people, unlike other non thinking entities, being businesses.

So you seem to take rationality as a moral grounding property? Why is it that, and not sentience?

The environment, if it were to receive these rights, would immediately mean the capture of all humans, since anything that causes any detriment to the environment, even if its spitting gum on a tree, would mean an impediment on its right to life.

Spitting gum on a tree doesn't violate the tree's right to life. And it would not mean the capture of humans. This is like saying making the right to not be murdered would mean the capture of all humans, since anything that violates their right to life would be immoral. Its not that hard, you just don't have to abuse it. But if abusing things in fundamental to your being...
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 4:07:26 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/14/2016 3:58:08 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 4/14/2016 3:54:06 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 4/14/2016 12:36:39 AM, Hayd wrote:
If I go and chop down an entire forest or pollute a pond so that everything in it dies, for no reason whatsoever, should I be stopped? Even if there is a positive result (not necessarily net positive), such as selling the wood for energy, or getting rid of waste, is it still wrong? Does the environment have certain rights?

A right being a protection against moral wrongdoing.

The environment doesn't have any rights, since the environment is a non thinking entity and is not made up of people, unlike other non thinking entities, being businesses.

So you seem to take rationality as a moral grounding property? Why is it that, and not sentience?

Because rationality is important in determining who is owed rights and who is not. A tree, while being "sentient", in the sense that it is a life form, doesn't receive these rights on the basis that's it's not a rational life-form, nor is it in any way relative to a human.

However, as a chink in your own argument, would that mean that, since bacteria are sentient life-forms - are they owed these rights, and would any action that kills such bacteria be punishable with jail or a fine?

The environment, if it were to receive these rights, would immediately mean the capture of all humans, since anything that causes any detriment to the environment, even if its spitting gum on a tree, would mean an impediment on its right to life.

Spitting gum on a tree doesn't violate the tree's right to life. And it would not mean the capture of humans. This is like saying making the right to not be murdered would mean the capture of all humans, since anything that violates their right to life would be immoral. Its not that hard, you just don't have to abuse it. But if abusing things in fundamental to your being...

That's not true at all. The right to not be murdered is the right to Life, and only that person which violates such rights are going to be put into prison. On the other hand, a person naturally does what you would then define as an incursion on the environment's rights on a daily basis, whether it is releasing methane into the atmosphere by passing gas, or even if it's smoking in your own home.

Also, abusing things is not fundamental to my being, although I wouldn't term the usage of nature to suit human interests as being abusive.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 4:07:59 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/14/2016 3:23:59 AM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 4/14/2016 1:55:02 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 4/14/2016 1:37:31 AM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 4/14/2016 1:30:55 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 4/14/2016 1:27:28 AM, Chang29 wrote:
People have rights, not objects. A private owner of property has the right to determine usage.

What grounds people having rights? Is it autonomy? Is it rationality? Is it sentience? The only feasible justification is sentience since morality is based off suffering/pleasure, which many plants also share.

No, it's a social contract. Animals and plants don't participate in our social contract, so they have no rights.

So if there was no government (a state of nature), morality wouldn't exist? If I were to hack someone to death in front of his daughter, that would not be considered immoral. You would affirm this, since you are proposing moral rights are contingent upon government jurisdiction; social contract.
Uhh, no. Morality is completely different from rights. I can do something immoral but it may or may not violate somebody else's legal rights.
Can you also define social contract? I have a response in mind, but I want to make sure we have the same concept in mind first.

The social contract I'm talking about is the unofficial one that all human beings sign in order to live together as a society/civilization/whatever you want to call it. We basically agree to abide by a set of (usually) codified rules in exchange for the increased security and prosperity achievable in a group as opposed to individually.

Could you post copy of this unofficial social contract that you signed?

I never signed one, and if I someone attempts to impose, I withdraw my consent to all provisions.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 4:34:32 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/14/2016 12:36:39 AM, Hayd wrote:
If I go and chop down an entire forest or pollute a pond so that everything in it dies, for no reason whatsoever, should I be stopped? Even if there is a positive result (not necessarily net positive), such as selling the wood for energy, or getting rid of waste, is it still wrong? Does the environment have certain rights?

A right being a protection against moral wrongdoing.

You should be stopped under certain circumstances, but not because the environment has any sort of right. You should be stopped because that land is part of a polity which transcends you as an individual, and if your actions constitute the wanton sacrifice of that land's long-term productivity, then there is no reason to allow it to continue. Generally speaking, chopping down forests isn't any sort of terrible travesty, and often wholesale conversation on a large scale does more long-term bad than good. Chopping forests down in a stupid manner is the biggest problem.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
ford_prefect
Posts: 4,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 5:00:20 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/14/2016 4:07:59 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 4/14/2016 3:23:59 AM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 4/14/2016 1:55:02 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 4/14/2016 1:37:31 AM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 4/14/2016 1:30:55 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 4/14/2016 1:27:28 AM, Chang29 wrote:
People have rights, not objects. A private owner of property has the right to determine usage.

What grounds people having rights? Is it autonomy? Is it rationality? Is it sentience? The only feasible justification is sentience since morality is based off suffering/pleasure, which many plants also share.

No, it's a social contract. Animals and plants don't participate in our social contract, so they have no rights.

So if there was no government (a state of nature), morality wouldn't exist? If I were to hack someone to death in front of his daughter, that would not be considered immoral. You would affirm this, since you are proposing moral rights are contingent upon government jurisdiction; social contract.
Uhh, no. Morality is completely different from rights. I can do something immoral but it may or may not violate somebody else's legal rights.
Can you also define social contract? I have a response in mind, but I want to make sure we have the same concept in mind first.

The social contract I'm talking about is the unofficial one that all human beings sign in order to live together as a society/civilization/whatever you want to call it. We basically agree to abide by a set of (usually) codified rules in exchange for the increased security and prosperity achievable in a group as opposed to individually.

Could you post copy of this unofficial social contract that you signed?

I never signed one, and if I someone attempts to impose, I withdraw my consent to all provisions.

Ok great, in that case please do not drive on publicly funded roads, attend publicly funded schools or universities, or use publicly funded libraries, parks, museums, etc. Also if someone goes to your house and robs it or somebody mugs you in the street, please do not call publicly funded police departments or expect a public servant (police officer) or any other decent human being to intervene. You don't want to play by the rules, you don't get to reap the benefits. Oh and did I mention you also have to grow all your own food on your own land and barter for the goods you can't produce? You see, the legal tender that is provided by the US government is also publicly funded and backed.
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 5:21:08 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/14/2016 12:36:39 AM, Hayd wrote:
If I go and chop down an entire forest or pollute a pond so that everything in it dies, for no reason whatsoever, should I be stopped? Even if there is a positive result (not necessarily net positive), such as selling the wood for energy, or getting rid of waste, is it still wrong? Does the environment have certain rights?

A right being a protection against moral wrongdoing.

Who will speak for the environment in the court of law about its rights being violated? Smokey the Bear? Gaia?
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 5:56:12 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/14/2016 5:00:20 AM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 4/14/2016 4:07:59 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 4/14/2016 3:23:59 AM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 4/14/2016 1:55:02 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 4/14/2016 1:37:31 AM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 4/14/2016 1:30:55 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 4/14/2016 1:27:28 AM, Chang29 wrote:
People have rights, not objects. A private owner of property has the right to determine usage.

What grounds people having rights? Is it autonomy? Is it rationality? Is it sentience? The only feasible justification is sentience since morality is based off suffering/pleasure, which many plants also share.

No, it's a social contract. Animals and plants don't participate in our social contract, so they have no rights.

So if there was no government (a state of nature), morality wouldn't exist? If I were to hack someone to death in front of his daughter, that would not be considered immoral. You would affirm this, since you are proposing moral rights are contingent upon government jurisdiction; social contract.
Uhh, no. Morality is completely different from rights. I can do something immoral but it may or may not violate somebody else's legal rights.
Can you also define social contract? I have a response in mind, but I want to make sure we have the same concept in mind first.

The social contract I'm talking about is the unofficial one that all human beings sign in order to live together as a society/civilization/whatever you want to call it. We basically agree to abide by a set of (usually) codified rules in exchange for the increased security and prosperity achievable in a group as opposed to individually.

Could you post copy of this unofficial social contract that you signed?

I never signed one, and if I someone attempts to impose, I withdraw my consent to all provisions.

Ok great, in that case please do not drive on publicly funded roads, attend publicly funded schools or universities, or use publicly funded libraries, parks, museums, etc. Also if someone goes to your house and robs it or somebody mugs you in the street, please do not call publicly funded police departments or expect a public servant (police officer) or any other decent human being to intervene. You don't want to play by the rules, you don't get to reap the benefits. Oh and did I mention you also have to grow all your own food on your own land and barter for the goods you can't produce? You see, the legal tender that is provided by the US government is also publicly funded and backed.

Where did you sign this social contract was the question.

I personally did not consent to the Constitution or any other government document yet forced to abide by them.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.