>More importantly, I fundamentally disagree with the utilitarian concept of
>ethics that you seem to espouse, namely that people reciprocate and grant
>other people rights solely because this has the utility of obtaining the
>same for themselves. I am pretty sure that it is not how most people think
>- most people do what they think is right, not what they think will maximize
>their safety, convenience or utility.
>
>The pitfall of this argument is that the normative principle in question
>does not hold in non-reciprocity situations. If one can ensure that one is
>not paid back in kind for one's actions, one is not obliged to extend the
>notion of rights to anyone.
You mean like the way the US government, believing itself too rich and powerful to have to worry about being brought to trial for international war crimes, flagrantly flouts international law?
> The victor or the jailer does not have to
>extend any right to the conquered or imprisoned people, because they are
>prevented from reciprocating. Why should he? Whether those subjugates are
>actual animals or "tier-menschen" to borrow from Nazi terminology, they are
>prevented from reciprocating by force, so they do not deserve any rights.
>
>I have a rather strong distaste toward utilitarian ethics (not as much as
>toward religion, but close,) because it is an ethics of convenience that can
>justify almost anything. In the extreme case, it is the ethics of
>concentration camps.
Maybe its just that you think that you are better than other people because you have superior ethics. But it just seems obvious to me that ethics have to be practical. There can be all sorts of high and noble ethics and probably have been, but only those cultures with practical ethics tend to survive to pass on their ethics.
> But even more importantly, it is the ethics that makes
>the individual rather than something greater than individuals (e.g.
>collective or the universe) the center of ethical gravity. In that respect,
>it is the ethics of capitalism.
>
>As I already said, I also believe this concept of ethic is antithetical to
>what most people think.
You may very well believe it, we'd all like to believe it I suppose. But that doesn't make it true.
> Most people follow deontological ethics of doing
>what is right, which is based on the concept of duty. The notion of duty is
>innate and universal - virtually people have it, albeit the actual contents
>varies from culture to culture.
Rubbish. Ethics are cultural artifacts. If certain ethics are universal across cultures, it is only because cultural evolution has selected for them.
> I believe, however, that the duty to
>reciprocate is pretty universal too.
>
>>From that point of view, it is possible to extent rights to anyone or
>anything on the grounds that this is a right thing to do (i.e. one has the
>duty to do so.). I extend the concept of rights to animals not because they
>can reciprocate, but because it is an ethical thing to do. If I did not do,
>it would say something negative about me, even if animals could not
>reciprocate (even though I think they can).
You just go on thinking that then, its probably fairly safe in your situation. In other words you can afford to have those ethics. So long as someone else takes care of exterminating the rats etc, discreetly so as not to offend your delicate ethics.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas