Three judgments which are a pleasure to read for anyone interested in the history of human rights:
1. Boumediene v. Bush, US Supreme Court, The Right to Habeas Corpus (June 2008) (Section III, page 16 onwards presents the larger picture)
2. Naz Foundation v. the Govt of NCT of Delhi, Whether homosexuality is a criminal offense (July 2009)
3. Joginder Kumar v. State of UP, The Justification for Arrest distinct from the Power to Arrest (April 1994)
Friday, July 03, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
Those innocent of Wittgenstein and Chomsky, or unable to operate big computers and jumbo aeroplanes---do they have rights, in your schema?
Notwithstanding my schema, I am a firm advocate of better living conditions and civil liberties.
http://harmanjit.blogspot.com/2009/04/on-fulfillment.html
Congratulations!!!
What is your view onthe issues of capital punishment and abortion?
Hi anonymous,
Why would you like to know my opinions on these matters?
There are umpteen websites, theories and viewpoints both pro and con to these issues.
...as a crollary to your professed commitment to human rights and as a votary of AF.
Hi anonymous, these are complex issues and deserving of much more than a blog comment or a statement of opinion.
Capital punishment only acts as a deterrent, since obviously it does not aim at reforming the accused. And it is an irreversible act, which if following from a flawed prosecution process, is a grave matter. As a deterrent, imprisonment for a long time is as (or perhaps more) effective as capital punishment. However, this is just an opinion and not a general prescription.
As for abortion, the issue of when a fetus can be considered an individual having rights is a complex one, and I do not profess to have an informed opinion on the issue in general. However, I do think that in the exceptional cases of an accidental, forced, or life-threatening pregnancy, the pregnancy can be terminated if the mother so desires and agrees. But again, this is just an opinion borne of cursory study and is not a general prescription. Moreover, I am completely in favor of sex education, birth control methods and their free availability in poorer sections of society so that accidental pregnancies (and STDs) and made less probable.
These opinions, as of an intelligent, informed and articulate lay person are appreciated. But one would expect AF to have an unambiguous stance on these fundamental issues.
AF is not about stands or principles, it is about freedom from malice and sorrow.
You might want to peruse the following:
http://actualfreedom.com.au/richard/selectedcorrespondence/sc-sense2.htm
The following is the gist, in case you miss it:
"The whole point of the silly/sensible appraisal of one’s thoughts/actions is to not fall into the trap of living each moment with pre-digested beliefs/factoids as values – to be open (to put it into the jargon) each moment again to what is actually the case (to what is factual) in each and every situation – yet I was being asked to do just that.
The problem with values – be they morals, ethics, principles (or cultural standards/mores in general) – is that they can, and do on occasion, make one myopic and if one cannot determine fact from fancy in the ‘outer world’ what then of determining same in the ‘inner world’ whilst on the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom from the human condition?
What I have found, again and again, is that when one starts sincerely investigating something one soon finds that facts are remarkably thin on the ground."
...pre-digested beliefs/factoids...
One is likely to break one's neck if one rejects the law of gravity, which we learn on our mothers' lap, as a predigested factoid. Similarly a bullet or a knife are unambiguous factoids.
With such ethical relativism, it may be possible to justify murder, so where is the question of landmark judgements on human rights or social existence at all. As a social animal, surely a human being's inner evolution is predicated on his existence as a member of the community.
I am relieved the quoted section are R's words and not yours. It really takes the cake for mish-mash, rigmarole and obfuscation.
You have been searching for an anchor, and understandably not having found one in spite of a prolonged and diligent search, you come to the conclusion that none exists, but you could have done better for yourself than this.
One is likely to break one's neck if one rejects the law of gravity, which we learn on our mothers' lap, as a predigested factoid. Similarly a bullet or a knife are unambiguous factoids.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factoid
With such ethical relativism, it may be possible to justify murder, so where is the question of landmark judgements on human rights or social existence at all.
And murder is indeed justified, for example, in self-defense. The place for landmark judgments is to evolve and fine-tune the context in which human freedom is not subject to tyranny of the strong or of those in power.
As a social animal, surely a human being's inner evolution is predicated on his existence as a member of the community.
Of course. Healthy social conditions are necessary, though not sufficient, for human beings to evolve internally.
You have been searching for an anchor, and understandably not having found one in spite of a prolonged and diligent search, you come to the conclusion that none exists, but you could have done better for yourself than this.
:-) An anchor is not needed for someone practicing actualism. I was looking for one till I came across actualism. And then my experiences and cogitation provided all the foundation that I needed.
I kid you not, people have strong reactions to Richard's reports, and i did too. What may be instructive to someone reading this blog, and who criticizes Richard but appreciates my writings, would be to note why I, whom they appreciate, appreciate Richard's findings.
Without exaggeration, I am privileged to be living in times when a man like Richard is alive and communicating.
So relativism is the sole absolute and R as the absolute relativist, the only Absolute.
Since murder is justified in self defense, so one may with a bit of imagination,construct scenarios where rape,war,genocide, holocausts, nuclear weapons( defensive, ofcourse) would be justified. I am sure R (I opened the page suggested by you) with his sorrowless harmlessness would be able to dodge these issues with "it all depends and don't expect me to commit" while smilingly nodding his head felicitously.
Albert Schweitzer made "reverence for life" his absolute. Man lives by belief and commitment, not logic alone. Did R take a stand on issues of human rights.
.....and who criticizes Richard but appreciates my writings, would be to note why I, whom they appreciate, appreciate Richard's findings....'H'
No one is perfect.
..I am privileged to be living in times when a man like Richard is alive..H
....a Saviour?
Hi anonymous:
I am not claiming to be perfect, not claiming Richard is a "savior". But I am privileged to be living in a time when new and radical solutions to the human condition are being proposed and lived, and when global communication makes it possible for men/women from all over the world to communicate their findings with each other.
As for "ethical relativism", actualism is not that either.
I understand what you are saying, and it is tough for anyone to accept that their most hallowed ethical and moral precepts are human inventions.
Albert Schweitzer made "reverence for life" his absolute. Man lives by belief and commitment, not logic alone. Did R take a stand on issues of human rights.
And where has this living by belief and commitment led mankind till date? I think you might be eulogizing passionate altruism, instead of felicitous living.
Mr Schweitzer's famous quotes belie his being within the human condition of malice and sorrow:
(from wikipedia)
Schweitzer's passionate quest was to discover a universal ethical philosophy, anchored in a universal reality, and make it directly available to all of humanity.[2] This is reflected in some of his sayings, such as:
"Until he extends his circle of compassion to include all living things, man will not himself find peace."
"I don't know what your destiny will be, but one thing I do know: the only ones among you who will be really happy are those who have sought and found how to serve."
He probably did not know, till the end of his life, that compassion cannot exist without sorrow.
instead of "belie" in the last comment, please read the word "betray"
Let us have a break for today.
Dear H
I read your article on the Rejection of Means and the other one in which you stated your position vis avis AF at a particular juncture. I admire your your long and persistent journey of seeking for a way. If what you are doing gives you satisfaction and makes you a nicer person and knowing your level of intelligence, I am sure it may be a milestone if not a destination. To repeat a cliche, its the journey and not the destination. Lets break our discussion now. I leave with a hyperlink which I found interesting:
http://www.daisakuikeda.org/
Wishing you all felicity.
Post a Comment