>> And goodbye to natural rights.
>>
>> Yoshie
>
>So, you don't think there are things that we ought not do to each other
>whatever the consequences (moral catastrophe, perhaps, excepted) and
>independently of social convention?>>>
Well, concerning the everyday politics of here and now, in some areas of political concerns I have a far longer not-to-do list than you do (recall our PEN-L discussion on anti-racism, for instance); in others, I may have a shorter list than you probably do (e.g., abortion). If we discuss more issues further, we'll discover our respective not-to-do lists on different issues.
But I think natural rights don't help us discuss these questions. For instance, if you (or anyone) don't do X, is it because of your adherence to the doctrine of natural rights that you don't engage in X? It's not as though you would ever turn into a rapist if natural rights (or any philosophy of your preference) allowed you to, I trust.
Moral standards have evolved historically, often through conflicts and struggles. It used to be -- in fact until the late 19th century, I believe -- morally OK to engage in infanticide in Japan (it wasn't even considered a moral question to begin with), for instance, but I don't think you'll find many Japanese persons who would engage in it under normal circumstances today. The change is due to economic development, advances in reproductive technologies (e.g., condoms, abortion, etc.), urbanization and preference for fewer pregnancies, (slow but palpable) progress in women's autonomy from men, etc.
I think that moral questions are best approached in a historical materialist fashion. That our morals & mores have historically changed, however, doesn't mean they are necessarily insignificant or do not govern our conduct, does it?
Yoshie