What an instructive thread! And it plays directly into the human-rights
issue in which I'm currently embroiled, preparing for a meeting with
Louise Slaughter's office: the plight of the Bahá'ís in Iran. They are
given by the Iranian religious authorities in power *exactly* the status
Sal describes: "considered no better than a wild animal who could be
killed with impunity when seen taking refuge..." There is even a word
for this status in Farsi, not corresponding exactly to our usual
definition of 'outlaw', but more to "apostate outlaw" - it is pronounced
something like "mobah", meaning "someone whose blood can be shed with
impunity".
This is not merely an official bit of status to be used in conversation
or ecclesiastical legalisms. It has been used to free those of approved
religious status of any liability for harming or killing Bahá'ís, and I
will not make this thread any harder to bear by posting here some
accounts of very recent tragic events which are to be part of the
presentation to Congress I'm working on.
Sal's summary "I think we've come a long way from that, but the
deplorable instinct is still there" is true at both ends. That
deplorable instinct, unfortunately, still thrives in many parts of the
world, and Iran is only one of them. We would be hard put to defend
some of the similar evils that unfold here at home as well, when some
among us are treated as less-than-people.
Enough from me on this. We are all people, somehow brought into
awareness in this life, and for every heartbeat of that awareness, I am
deeply grateful.
On 10/25/2010 1:05 PM, Sal Armoniac wrote:
Yes, it is deplorable. Dennett wrote this about twenty years ago, and
he is using the term "person" philosophically to mean "someone of
account who is recognized as such legally, socially, and ethically."
It is not a term that the average person uses. It is not common to
hear someone say, "well, they are not exactly persons yet." Mostly,
people will use circumlocutions or racist, ageist and sexist comments,
or just express their dismissal through action. He is reporting on
this dryly.
I agree with you. This dismissal or abuse of the marginal people in
our world has been appalling from the dawn of time. And your second
sentence exrpesses an opinion I agree with; but bear in mind the
philosophical use of the word "person." There are some people whose
actions cause them to lose the rights granted to other members of
society. In Old English terms, an outlaw was called a wulvesheafod,
"wulf's head." He was no longer considered a worthy human being whose
family could demand weregild (his man price) if he were murdered. He
was denied the protection of the law (that's the true meaning of "out
law") and considered no better than a wild animal who could be killed
with impunity when seen taking refuge in the woods he was banished
to. I think we've come a long way from that, but the deplorable
instinct is still there.
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 10:01 AM, Janice Carello
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
That some human beings are not considered full persons continues
to be a major problem in our society. Limiting some rights and
responsiblities of a person (temporarily or permanently) as
citizen is one thing; denying personhood is another.
"Human beings not considered full "persons" by society at
large (judging by the way the rights given them and the
respect they are treated with): infants and children, the
retarded or mentally deficient, convicts-- denied the right to
vote, drive, have the freedom of movement, decision-making,
using money, make legal decisions, etc.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "R-SPEC:
The Rochester Speculative Literature Association" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/r-spec?hl=en.
