Roger Scruton on Human Duties
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 20 июл 2024
- Roger Scruton gives a talk on Human Duties at Princeton University back in 2012. This talk was the third and final talk in this series which was given as part of the James Madison Program.
00:00 Talk
57:17 Q&A
#philosophy #politicalphilosophy #ethics
Scruton was totally right in his repudiation of the notion that animals have rights akin to human rights.
Why? Humans are just a more advanced kind of animal
The only trait difference he attempted to use was failure to reciprocate social contracts. Was it ok to control and destroy native american populations because they would not or could not reciprocate social contracts with western colonizers? Oppressors accusing their victims of not playing by the rules they define - it stinks of irony.
And what about people with severe learning disabilities? Schitzophrenia? Or just young todlers? None of these reciprocate social contracts but we would never use that as an excuse to enslave, rape or kill.
It's speciesism, plain and simple. Searching for excuses to continue exploiting for one's own benefit. Drawing an arbitrary line between animals born with paws vs animals born with hooves.
Just awesome lectures I enjoyed them so much Thanks
Thank you for sharing this. Do you happen to have access to any more talks by Michael Dummett that you could share? (I’ve already heard the two talks you uploaded, and they were fantastic.)
No, unfortunately not. I know they are out there, but I haven't found them. I wish people would send me more stuff like that in general. In any case, it's nice to know that someone has watched and appreciated those rare finds.
I wish I'd paid proper attention to Scruton when I was young. It might've saved me a lot of trouble.
Thanks a lot.
What I would have given to be in that room and to have met Sir Roger.
Can't believe how empty of people the room was.
Got a blister
I was just doing duty
Animals can't be made responsible for their behaviours (not: "actions"), they are not accountable for what they do, they are not culpable. Because of that, they can neighter fulfil an obligation nor can an obligation be imposed on them. "Rights" are not for free, with rights come impositions. Rights contain dutys, and as animals can't fulfil obligations so they can't have rights. Because of the overwhelming majority of human beings are able to fulfil obligations a l l human beings have rights: What applies to the majority of cases applies to the nature of the kind. ("Ut in pluribus") And no, that there are in fact some marginal cases, who can also not be held accountable does n o t offer a path of argumentation to ascribe certain rights to animals. Because these people are equally human beings, though they may not be equal human beings, as we all are not "equal" human beings. These marginal cases are the m o s t vulnerable human beings or ill people they can't be downgraded to any animalistic status because of them being ill, very young, old or handicapped. The reason these marginal cases can't be held accountable is their illness, age or disability, in case of the animals the reason is their essence. I agree with Scruton, Josef Margolis, Carl Cohen and Kant: Animals have no rights and are not the equal of humans. Even if it were granted that humans were animals (which I would not agree to) does n o t follow from that, that animals were humans. (All greeks are humans, but not all humans are greeks. "Definitio fit per genus proximum et differentiam specificam" = Definitions are made by genus and specific difference: Humans: animal r a t i o n a l e) -> We are allowed to keep animals in zoos, breed them for food or use them as pets or for experimentation under the condition of a reasonable purpose and in accordance with the principles of practical animal welfare.
Oppressor logic, used to keep animals securely under your foot and sleep peacefully at night.
Populations are made of individuals, and it's the individuals who suffer when they are disregarded by you and other opressors. Your stereotypes are moot. You paint all human ability as a monolith, as well as painting all non-human animal abilities as a wholely separate monolith. Unrealistic 2-dimensional thinking, as there is tremendous overlap in all morally relevant non-physical behavioural traits between humans and animals.
From afar, you generalize populations based on pure congecture. "They can't be downgraded!" you shout passionately of human outliers. Well why then are you happy to downgrade the animal outliers whose abilities overlap with humans? Internal hypocrisy right there, and you don't even see it as you and Scruton are so steeped in human supremacy.
You tried so desperately but you can't reasonably name a human trait that doesn't overlap with animal traits - even when you went for the most vague of them all. Some animals can reciprocate social contracts better than some humans. That's why you and Scruton stand on such shakey ground. By extension of your reasoning, you do - by extension and in principle - support some cases of human enslavement / genocide. And that makes you uncomfortable, doesn't it?
Here's the better solution you're too stubborn to face up to:
Rights should be recognised based on sentience. The ability to suffer, and have an interest in one's own life. Tell me a reason why this shouldn't be so, and i'll explain to you why your reason is self-serving bs.
Rights are inalienable. Even before the creature opened her little eyes and saw the world, she was sentient and deserving of rights. No amount of blustering on trait differences can make right the enslavement of an innocent creature who doesn't want to be enslaved.
You can take everything away from a man but his thoughts
@55:30
1:21:01
A man can give everything but his ability to think. #winkwink
B.S B.S B.S we live in a world in which 2 people live. Those in authority those who live ignorantly. Their too busy to see notice anything. The end has already occured and that feeling of happiness is synthetic grequency 1.23.23
Fascist