[Dean's World] Rudy Rummel: On "The Declaration of Freedom of Humanity"

[notify at powerblogs.com]

Posted by Rudy Rummel:
On "The Declaration of Freedom of Humanity"
http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1152285305.shtml


   On [1]"The Declaration of Freedom of Humanity" what I also posted on
   Dean's World, Jos Metadi made this comment:

     "Endowed by nature with certain unalienable Rights"? Sorry, nature
     endows no rights other than might makes right, the right to do
     whatever someone else can't stop you from doing. Rights are either
     a creation of a sovereign God, or the creation of a
     group/civilization and are alienable dependent upon inclusion in
     that group and acceptance of its social order.

   Rather than putting this in terms of a "creator," which the
   Declaration of Independence does, and which makes this argument
   specific to certain religions and beliefs (I for one to not accept the
   idea of a creator), I prefer to make this Declaration as general as
   possible. The idea of natural rights is basic to freedom. No one is
   born a monarch, a dictator, or a ruler. True, by the luck of the draw,
   some people are born with certain capabilities, as members of the best
   of families, and in cultures favorable to their talents. What they
   achieve as adults, however, is not ordained, and in that sense, they
   must be free to make the best of what they are.

   The idea that " rights are . . . the creation of a group/civilization
   and are alienable dependent upon inclusion in that group and
   acceptance of its social order" is that we have no rights outside of
   our group or our culture. In no way would I agree that because people
   are born in North Korea, Saudi Arabia, or Mexico, they have no rights
   outside of those cultures and nations. The Declaration of Freedom
   makes natural rights universal.

   Now, how do I prove this? No more than anyone can prove that a creator
   gave us our rights. Natural rights are a necessary hypothesis of
   freedom. On accepting such hypotheses, consider Kant's argument for
   freedom as opposed to determinism. In his Critique of Pure Reason, he
   establishes what is (the phenomenal world of natural laws) and our
   subjugation to it. He then establishes what it is reasonable to
   suppose is possible (of freedom as a transcendental idea), and finally
   he argues that for a certain end (for there to be moral laws) we must
   hypothesize that what is possible is so. That is, he takes an "as if"
   approach to reality, showing alternative perspectives and then arguing
   that our ends dictate accepting a particular perspective as though it
   were true, even though we can never know whether it really is.

   Others, such as William James and Jerome Frank, have taken a similar
   approach. They argue that freedom and determinism are in effect both
   postulates about humanity, and we have no absolute basis for accepting
   either. Let us, therefore, accept freedom as the more pragmatically
   justified postulate, and affirm freedom thereby. Because of the
   contribution such acceptance makes to our dignity and worth, and to
   our sense of responsibility and creativity, the onus must be on the
   shoulders of those who deny freedom to prove their case. Otherwise,
   let us presuppose freedom.

   These are my arguments for the natural right to be free.

   Robert Modean was unhappy with my saying "men and Women" instead of
   "Men," as in the Declaration of Independence of 1776. He says:

     Men and Women, yes, it seems such a minor quibble and I understand
     that there are many countries where women are oppressed, but the
     term Men isn't just the plural of Man, it's also a gender neutral
     term that identifies a human being regardless of sex. Not only does
     "Men and Women" ruin the flow of the statement, it's needlessly
     wordy and honestly IMO it's a piece of PC piffle not worthy of a
     great declaration. If not Men, why not just say "...that Mankind is
     created equal, that people are endowed..." it's the same thing and
     it isn't nearly as clunky."

   At the time the Declaration of Independence was written, women were
   second and third class citizens everywhere. In the United States they
   did not even have the vote until 155 years after the Declaration. I
   believe that the cosigners of the Declaration really thought in terms
   of menâwhich is to say males. So, I wanted to make it clear, since
   even today women as a gender still are deprived of rights in many
   parts of the world, that the Declaration of Freedom applies to women
   as well as men.

References

   1. http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1151631423.shtml