- Nov 13, 2012--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston" <roy_langston@...> wrote:
>They're akin in that way to having a large hammer, I guess.
> That's where I'm coming from. We have rights -- they are characteristic of all known societies -- because our evolutionary history put them there: they enhance human reproductive success.
>IMO the most likely mechanism for this enhancement is inter-society competition: societies where people have rights out-compete, defeat, and exterminate societies where they don't. The effect of the defeat and extermination of one's society on one's genes' reproductive success, even if one survives personally, is worse than personal extinction. This sets up a selection pressure favoring rights not only as a societal characteristic, but as a genetic one.Seriously, the basic problem here is that the term "rights" is used in several different ways. First they're said to be something we "have" pursuant to evolution, but then there's a morph into rights being something that people have depending on their society--i.e., they need to be given them. In order to make any speculations of this sort sensible (never mind plausible), the first thing one has to do is to settle on a definition of "rights"--provide it, and be sure to stick with it. I highly doubt you can do this, but as you haven't actually tried, to this point, I'll give you a chance.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>