|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Conflict of Rights & Legal Equality
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Clearly he can consult the law of the land. Which may conceivably give the visually-impaired person a legal right to attend with their dog under some form of antidiscrimination law.
These two rights are not even slightly equal.
In the UK it is against the law to refuse guide dog owners with their dogs to restaurants, cafes, taxis, shops - everywhere except zoos and food preparation areas.
People who are allergic to dogs can take a tablet. My son is allergic to dogs so he simply takes his antihistamines when he's home.
Guide dog owners rely completely on their dogs for mobility - refusing access would be like someone taking your eyes away.
Here is an example of a case.
[ 10. January 2016, 17:48: Message edited by: Boogie ]
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
Russ,
My post was a suggestion of a procedure because I am of the opinion that there is no one perfect way to reconcile conflicting claims of rights.
However, involving the parties in the effort to reconcile differing claims might just help them resolve some of their differences themselves; even if the process cannot manage it.
If there ever comes a truly irreconcilable set of differing claims, it may well be the role of the government involved to make a non theoretical decision based at least in part on the principal of the greatest good for the greatest number of people.
That my suggestions do not meet a theory of ultimate good is just part of what it means to be an imperfect (and therefore human) being. To my mind I am only responsible for doing the best I can do without worrying about getting it perfect. It is only when I expect to get things perfectly that I should be worrying about myself.
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
These two rights are not even slightly equal.
People who are allergic to dogs can take a tablet. My son is allergic to dogs so he simply takes his antihistamines when he's home.
Guide dog owners rely completely on their dogs for mobility - refusing access would be like someone taking your eyes away.
In the question as I posed it, both parties have exactly the same amount to lose. One will not attend and will feel excluded from the concert if dogs are allowed, one will not attend and feel excluded if dogs are not allowed.
Seems like you're taking the view that one is being reasonable and the other unreasonable. Based on your experience. That one has a serious complaint and one has a trivial complaint.
What does that amount to in terms of (moral) rights ? Does one have a right to attend on their own terms and one not ? Do they both have a right to attend but one's right is stronger ? Does the State have a right to close the theatre down if it can't accommodate both demands ?
[fixed UBB and quote misattribution]
[ 18. January 2016, 18:53: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
Russ, dogs <> guide dogs.
There are many, many, many places where dogs and other pets are not allowed - usually for health reasons, but also for the safety, comfort and convenience of staff and patrons. Certain types of establishments are free to decide whether or not they will allow dogs e.g. Canadian Tire allows dogs, Home Depot does not. However, if an establishment excludes guide dogs, then by definition they are excluding the person using the guide dog.
You're comparing two individuals - one with an allergy and one with a guide dog. They're not remotely in the same situation. There's a huge difference between someone who might occasionally end up in a room with a dog and be very uncomfortable to someone who can't go anywhere without their guide dog.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
There's a huge difference between someone who might occasionally end up in a room with a dog and be very uncomfortable to someone who can't go anywhere without their guide dog.
Yes, of course. Notwithstanding that, it is entirely reasonable for someone who doesn't like dogs to ask to be seated apart from the service dog.
Guide dogs are trained well to be unobtrusive, but there are a small number of people who would be uncomfortable sitting next to one on a long plane or train journey, say. It's entirely reasonable for those people to ask to move seats (whereas it wouldn't be reasonable to ask to move because you don't want to sit next to a black person, for example.)
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
People who are allergic to dogs can take a tablet. My son is allergic to dogs so he simply takes his antihistamines when he's home.
Guide dog owners rely completely on their dogs for mobility - refusing access would be like someone taking your eyes away.
Some people are allergic to the medications. One reason some situations are dilemmas is because there is no practical solution that is equally fair to all.
On a plane or train or bus, a passenger with a peanut allergy has a right to travel safely but who has a duty to undertake the work and expense of thoroughly searching all passengers and all their pockets to make sure no is carrying any peanuts or peanut covered chocolate or peanut butter? The right may be absolute but there is no one to impose a duty on because the duty would be very expensive to carry out with perfect assurance for the peanut allergy traveler.
Many higher level court cases are about a conflicts between two strong societal values. How much freedom of expression do citizens have a right to? Countries disagree.
How a right is expressed makes a huge difference. Does everyone have a right to food (which suggests someone has a duty to provide it, free for those who can't afford) or does everyone have a right to seek food, but no one has a duty to provide it, but maybe they have a duty to not intentionally block access to food, but its OK to block access to food you own? It gets complicated when we start describing exactly what a right is who has what extent of an obligation as a result.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
For what it's worth, taking antihistamines does crap all for a strong allergy. As I have discovered to my cost. Nearly hospitalized.
Though I would still remove myself if at all possible rather than asking that the guide dog and owner be removed, on the grounds that my need is occasional while theirs is 24 hour.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Ironically, there are some assistance dogs who work as allergy sniffer dogs.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
justlooking
Shipmate
# 12079
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibaculus:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Bibaculus:
...the right of business people to serve who they will.
This is explicitly not a right. Business people (regardless of the business) cannot refuse to serve someone because that someone is a member of a protected minority.
And where is that explicated? Who made the absence of such a right explicit?
UK Equality Law.
Specifically: this (pdf - 112 pages)
quote:
Because of a protected characteristic, you and anyone working for you:
Must not refuse to serve someone or refuse to take them on as a client.......
Must not give someone a service of a worse
quality or in a worse way than you would usually provide the service. ........
Must not give someone a service with worse terms than you would usually offer. .......
Must not put them at any other disadvantage.
[ 20. January 2016, 16:04: Message edited by: justlooking ]
Posts: 2319 | From: thither and yon | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
if an establishment excludes guide dogs, then by definition they are excluding the person using the guide dog.
You're comparing two individuals - one with an allergy and one with a guide dog. They're not remotely in the same situation. There's a huge difference between someone who might occasionally end up in a room with a dog and be very uncomfortable to someone who can't go anywhere without their guide dog.
It's a matter of degree.
If someone's allergy or phobia is bad enough that being in a small intimate venue with a dog present is worse than missing the concert, then allowing the dog is excluding the oerson.
You're comparing someone who is totally dependent on their guide dog with someone who has a trivial allergy no worse than the mildest hay fever. And seem to be saying that in that instance the visually impaired person would suffer more from an adverse decision than the person with the allergy would, and so a "least harm" outcome is to allow guide dogs.
You're probably right that in this particular example, for the balance to be that way around is more common than the other way around. And deciding on a "greatest good of the greatest number" basis has something to be said for it.
But it is at least conceivable that a situation might arise the other way around - the desires of someone with a severely debilitating allergy or phobia against the desires of someone who is quite capable of leaving the dog in the cloakroom and being escorted to and from their seat by a sympathetic theatre usher.
And the point of the example is what we can say about rights. Do you see both parties as having a moral right that is somehow conditional on the exercise of that right not causing more suffering than it alleviates ? Or are you using "right" to mean no more than a desire that you sympathise with ? And your experience leads you to sympathise with the person with the guide dog ?
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
.
And the point of the example is what we can say about rights. Do you see both parties as having a moral right that is somehow conditional on the exercise of that right not causing more suffering than it alleviates ? Or are you using "right" to mean no more than a desire that you sympathise with ? And your experience leads you to sympathise with the person with the guide dog ?
Not "moral" rights. This is an example of real, practical rights.
There is are real, practical issues faced here.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
the desires of someone who is quite capable of leaving the dog in the cloakroom and being escorted to and from their seat by a sympathetic theatre usher.
Regardless of the relative rights of blind people and dog-phobics, on what planet is it reasonable to park your dog in the cloakroom for the duration of a play or concert?
[ 25. January 2016, 22:57: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
...But it is at least conceivable that a situation might arise the other way around - the desires of someone with a severely debilitating allergy or phobia against the desires of someone who is quite capable of leaving the dog in the cloakroom and being escorted to and from their seat by a sympathetic theatre usher.
...
Russ, the whole point of having a guide dog is to be INDEPENDENT. To not have to rely on helpful theatre ushers or bystanders or whomever. To not be dependent on others. A guide dog is not a pet that can be left outside. A guide dog is like a wheelchair or braille signage or audible pedestrian signals.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
...But it is at least conceivable that a situation might arise the other way around - the desires of someone with a severely debilitating allergy or phobia against the desires of someone who is quite capable of leaving the dog in the cloakroom and being escorted to and from their seat by a sympathetic theatre usher.
...
Russ, the whole point of having a guide dog is to be INDEPENDENT. To not have to rely on helpful theatre ushers or bystanders or whomever. To not be dependent on others. A guide dog is not a pet that can be left outside. A guide dog is like a wheelchair or braille signage or audible pedestrian signals.
Yes, you are correct Soror Magna - the only choice if such a conflict of rights happened would be for one of the people not to attend.
You cannot 'park' a guide dog. This would compromise its future work. A guide dog costs 50,000 pounds to support from birth to retirement. Nothing is done to jeopardise that. Also, they are not robots which have on/off switches. They are dogs with reactions, emotions, intelligence and needs. Much like us,in fact.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Not "moral" rights. This is an example of real, practical rights.
There is are real, practical issues faced here.
Isn't "practical right" just another term for power ?
You have a legal right to do something that may impact negatively on other people if it is unlawful to prevent you. You have a moral right to do something if it is morally wrong to prevent you - if they should not. And a practical right if in practice nobody will prevent you.
Your legal rights can be increased by government passing a law. Your practical rights won't increase until that law is effectively implemented and enforced. Your moral rights are what they always were.
It's moral rights that I'm interested in - what rights people "should" have. As a basis for deciding what's a good law and what's a bad law.
I'm slowly tending to the conclusion that I don't like the usage of the word "rights" to mean "aspirations that I sympathise with". It seems not quite honest - a subjective feeling pretending to some sort of systematic objective truth. If you mean "understandable desires" or "reasonable aspirations" then why not say what you mean ? But I suppose if those involved understand it in exactly the same sense then there's no deception involved...
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Isn't "practical right" just another term for power ?
No. A practical right is something real. In the case of the allergic and the blind, one will miss out on something real. There will be a practical effect.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
It's moral rights that I'm interested in - what rights people "should" have. As a basis for deciding what's a good law and what's a bad law.
Why? Morals are changeable, conditional, subjective. Legislating by effect is more rational and usually more moral, once you untwist prejudice.
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I'm slowly tending to the conclusion that I don't like the usage of the word "rights" to mean "aspirations that I sympathise with".
This is a change of heart then? For it is the position you've argued, that something is "wrong" therefore should not be permissible or that something is "wrong" so refusal to hold to the law should be exempt from penalty.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
Have you ever cared for someone who is disabled or been disabled yourself?
It's not too much to ask to give equal access as much as humanly possible!
If those needs conflict with the needs of another then a compromise / way round can usually be found. It just requires good will and a lack of prejudice. Sometimes ingenuity and some creativity.
Prejudice often comes in the form of assuming you know what others need instead of asking them.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Is that addressed to me, Boogie? If so, can you clarify? If not, carry on.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Is that addressed to me, Boogie? If so, can you clarify? If not, carry on.
No, not at all - it was a general 'you'.
I am saying that in most situations the way to resolve these kinds of conflicts is with good will, some ingenuity and a lack of prejudice.
People only need to claim rights if they are badly and carelessly treated imo.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I am saying that in most situations the way to resolve these kinds of conflicts is with good will, some ingenuity and a lack of prejudice.
People only need to claim rights if they are badly and carelessly treated imo.
Agree that with goodwill and intelligence an acceptable compromise can often be found.
And also agree that in many cases the point where one calls in the lawyers is the point where one has already failed, where the good relationship one seeks to maintain has broken down.
But the point in thinking about this example is not to solve the problems of these two fictional people. It's to try to get a little more clarity and rigour into this notion of "rights". Rather than start with the abstract question of "what is a right and where does it come from", we've fallen on this example where some people might say that one of the two people has a right, you seem to think - if I've understood you correctly - that both have a right even though their aspirations are incompatible, and I'm suspecting that no such universal right exists.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
