tcmay@got.net wrote:
I believe the game-theoretic and evolutionary approaches, mixed in with economics, offer the most solid grounding for the discussion of rights.
I'll try keep my response brief, because I seem to swerve between didactic and sarcastic without being able to stop in between. As others have said, look where I'm pointing, not at what I'm pointing with. So here goes... Basically, in this view of rights and raising of children it would seem that a relativistic pragmatism prevails. Personally, I think that the two choices are either this relative pragmatism or an absolute morality. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Some implications of Tim's view is that all our rights are basically a transitory agreement between individuals. If at any time the "cost" of a right becomes too high for too many (e.g. free speech leading to X for some X), then it is quite possible that this "right" will be removed. The "losers" have no higher appeal process in this matter than that of trying to gain a different consensus. This may work while there is not a large power gap between any two individuals or groups, but as power shifts to fewer people and groups (economic, social, political, etc...) the "losers" may find that the lowest cost path is into some form of economic serfdom or slavery (e.g. McJobs). Ask Phil for other examples ;-). Unlike Rawls, we are not in a position of developing our laws in advance of determining our social standing. I personally believe that our ability to develop reasonable laws and social structures will persist only as long as the majority of us have the ability to "put ourselves in someone else's shoes" and do in practical terms what Rawls suggests in theoretical ones. As soon as those with power are not able to see a situation where they could become like those without power, there will cease to be motivation to maintain a "safety net" of rights or economic means to protect the "losers" of our society. James