reply to post by AmmonSeth
I think the first thing would be to define better, what you mean by "Rights".
I think the whole question of 'afforded' or 'bestowed' rights is a sad joke period. The idea of 'afforded rights' even in the 'nicest' use of the
term, to me, is still an expression of egosim and subjugation - and exercising these kinds of illusory authorities over others, is a fake power
tool-made-real and a fulcrum of oppression...evidence of fear based needs to control and exert an otherwise unnecessary and essentially non existant
power paradigm. ( ende pulpit)
In its tried and true sense, the word "Right" simply means 'moral principle'...the word Right does not mean 'permission' and given that, how can we
say that we have the authority to rule or assume authority over anothers guiding moral principles/Rights?
It is also specious reasoning to assume that any civilisation to arrive here would view the protection and upholding of Rights as the centeral edict
of identity, respect and social cohesion in the way many human societies do. Even here, between cultures and cities, our own view of their importance
My rights as a person are inherent...they stem from within me and define me, my obligations, priorities and responsibilities in this life. They are
not given to me by governments or laws or refined by peices of paper. The law and government can only protect and service my rights, they cant bestow
them. Nor can they take them away...as even dismissed, restricted, unsanctioned or ignored, my Rights continue to exist. They are not a comodity even
on the table for discussion.
In regards to communal civil law, where my rights are excercised in respect to the inherent rights of others and are open therefore to restriction,
even that authority to restrict them is based solely on my own willingness and commitment to communal responsibility and the process of obligating
myself to adhere to those restrictions; which only means I am personally agreeing to be bound by social laws that restrict my actions and behavior.
That agreement is conditional and those laws and restrictions dont alter the existance of the Rights themselves or my ability to exercise them in
conscience beyond those restrictions....something sadly prooved in the negative daily by s*icide b*mbers.
So even there, in that jungle of civil law and restrictions/permissions, "rights" of access, movement etc..are only *implied* authorities and
exclusions, and as such, they are only as good as the obligations they embody and the outward responsibility/ies they engender and even more, they are
dependant on the will of the individal and the collective society to uphold them.
Given our current human state, I doubt any individual or group of people on this planet at this time has any inherrent moral high ground or genuine
position of authority solid enough that would 'afford' them the right to 'afford' rights to or claim rights over any other group..human or alien.
The fact that people do do that, doesnt mean they have the Right to do so only that they have the opportunity or are or have been empowered with the
ability to compel or force such a result.
If a group of aliens arrived here, their Rights, as sentient beings, would also be similarly inherent and I feel that our primary focus ought to be
towards compelling them to aid us in comprehending what those Rights are and how they view those rights in regards to the rights of others.
Without that informed awareness, no decisions regarding social status or access etc can even begin to be made.
And...after that, I would consider my first priority to be seeing to the protection of *those* Rights - not to applying or attributing my Rights to
them or 'at' them, based on my own value system, which may be entirely different from their own.
Their rights would be based on a value system that we would need to learn and comprehend in order to evaluate against our own best collective
apprectiation of our human value system. As it stands today, we simply do not know what we do not know and our own concepts of *human* and social
Rights differ from region to region as it is.
Our answer to that problem to date has been to have or set in place a series of 'civil' rights that encompass all human sentient beings. A third
option many agree to oblige themselves to. But many do not.
So if in that context we were to catagorically state that aliens at base, are to be given the same or equvilent status of 'human' on arrival, then the
Rights and obligation issues are readily resolved and only comprehension of them becomes a factor.
Their comprehension of those obligations like their decision to agree to be obligated, remains as it is for us - a decision made activly, or not, to
adhere to those conventions in order to be treated and valued 'the same as everyone else'.
Until we do know what and how they view Rights, and beyond understanding, until we actually comprehend an alien view of Rights and until we can empart
to them a collective view of our own human values, "affording" them Rights or restricting their Rights would be like telling a blind person where
light switch is....they can switch them on but still wont see anything, meaning it wont have any result to the blind person/alien themselves.
Assuming for a second that their arrival isnt a case of Cortez conquering the Andes...I supose any actions taken on arrival of aliens here will have a
lot to do with the study of value systems that the aliens might have as those value systems define their *perception* of what Rights are and do...and
so, they mitigate our responses to them - be that a fear/foe or friendship relationship.
If their values encompass attributes like ' I have the Right to eat you as prey' then I might want to reconsider these offerings of softly softly
Saganistic approaches and simply get to the nearest bunker...but... if their value system and comprehension of the importance of Rights and the role
of Rights to social security as a whole is comparable, equal to or more observed than our own, then I would hope we would listen..and learn..before we
go about confusing them with our own confusions about what we think rights are and are not.
edit on 21-9-2010 by Rosha because: typoflu