Crime against what?
---- by JLS
------- for the GC
From Peacocke's website:
"His book, Being Known (Oxford, 1999) is on the integration of metaphysics and epistemology. The Realm of Reason (Oxford, 2003) develops a theory of the relations between entitlement, truth, and the a priori, and proposes a generalized rationalism. His most recent book is Truly Understood (Oxford, 2008), which proposes a substantive theory of understanding , and applies it to some central issues in the philosophy of mind, including the nature of first-person thought, the general conception of many minds, the ability to think about one's own and others' conscious states, and the ability to think about intentional contents."
Focus on: the integration of metaphysics and epistemology: "being known".
Apply to Kennedy's remark:
'crime against humanity'
'crime against the conception of humanity', or 'a conception' of humanity.
I was having caveats on various fronts:
--- nominalism versus realism.
If someone commits a crime against me, I don't really want to be defended on account that I am 'human'. I have intrinsic value per se other and beyond my being human.
----
So, a crime against humanity
is 'realist' talk -- realism about universalia. A no-no for someone who endorses Occam's razor, modified or not.
---
Could my caveat refer to the grammar?
A crime cannot be against humanity. It's against one particular human at most, and even then.
But against a conception of humanity?
----
What about refining that to read:
"against humanity AS CONCEIVED BY..."
----
As when the Americans say, "He will mean the end of America as we know it" -- they were wrong. You don't need to be a sceptic to agree that you never get to know America, etc.
---
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
"If someone commits a crime against me, I don't really want to be defended on account that I am 'human'. I have intrinsic value per se other and beyond my being human."
ReplyDeleteThis was part of my argument for how others seek to extend human rights to cover animals, and have even had the big debate over whether it might become a breach of rights to switch off power to a conscious robot, etc.
Uh, Americans.
"That's not the America I know." - Sarah Palin x 1000000
A truly horrible sentiment to imply that every experience that differs from hers is not just different, but deviant.
Well, yes -- I was referring to "as we know it". I think if you google for "America as we know it", you get a few hits from the Barrack campaign -- its opponents.
ReplyDeleteEtc.
As "she knows it" (Sarah) we don't really care.
But back to your arguments. I don't think I follow the 'switch off' power to a robot. I am assuming you mean that we don't want a right ascribed a machine qua machine. And I use here the technical Aristotelian jargon, 'qua', which was 'e' in Greek, feminine dative. Why Aristotle chose feminine singular dative to apply to this is a moot point -- of course it's not. (A friend of mine thought I was meaning a 'mute' point when I said a 'moot' point).
----
So, let us focus on ... machines. "Probably we'll live to see machines do it -- let's do it, let's fall in love". Coward. Absurd. Also Turing -- a machine 'understanding'. Absurd. Confuses Grice's meaning-n and meaning-nn when it should NOT be confused.
But 'animal' is a different animal, altogether.
"A human being, qua animal, has an inviolable right to food and drink". Absurd.
By the same token, we would be feeding and 'dranking' (my neologism, for 'give them drink') to cows for reasons OTHER than we wanting to kill them at a later stage.
Qua animals we really don't care. And I use 'we' majestically. Of course one cares for one's pets, etc. -- but then, if Kramer is right that Andy Capp is our prototype of the Cockney hubby, then whenever he refers to his 'trouble and strife' as "pet" he is being a pro-animal-right activist.
---
Then there are rights qua lesbian, qua transgender, qua member of a minority, qua ... you name it.
Qua -- qua.
The logic of a qua proposition is very complex -- and otiose.
"Socrates, qua human, has inviolable rights".
"Socrates, qua philosopher, has none" (they killed him).
--- A crime against humanity? Or against Socrates?
--- "Crime" is legal jargon. Socrates was proved to have been engaged in 'terrorist' activities -- and he was condemned to cease to exist, which was perhaps just as well. It wasn't like he was Sacco or Vanzetti.
We may consider the phrase, 'human' right, then and right in general. It seems otiose to add 'human' because it's only a human who ascribes a right, recognises a right, and respect a right.
"right" is just a bad term out of an adjective ('the right thing to do') and it is cognate with the Roman idea of the 'directus', I think. The Roman would say 'ius', rather.
The realm of 'right' is NOT the natural realm. There are no rights -- in nature (as we know it). It takes a valuer to value. This is Grice's conception of value in his synonymously entitled, "The Conception of Value". We go from valuer to value qua conception.
We conceive of our pet, Fido, a mere dog -- as having 'intrinsic value' for us -- he helps us, to use Grice's example, to herd the sheep (Fido is an Old English sheepherd or sheep dog).
We are free to entitle a right to, say, a mosquito, because she (it's only females who buzz) keeps us company on a summer night, etc.
-----
"You have no right" is usually contradictory. A rational person is entitled to think that he has a right to anything. "As pigs have to fly", Alice is reprimanded -- but pigs DO have a right to fly -- only they never feel like they have been entitled to do so? This is a tricky question, and one that demonstrates that a pig does NOT have a right to fly. But a person ALLways (sic) has a right to fly, even if female (Witness that lovely song of 1980 -- "Wonderful Amy" -- to honour the first female flyer). Etc.