Should a mountain be a legal person?

[Nearly Sane]

Unsure if this is the best approach




https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/22/new-zealand-gives-mount-taranaki-same-legal-rights-as-a-person

[Humph Warden Bennett]

Unsure if this is the best approach

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/22/new-zealand-gives-mount-taranaki-same-legal-rights-as-a-person

Under English Law a limited company is a "juristic person" but nobody has ever claimed that they are living beings. I would prefer that some animals be given some limited human legal rights rather than mountains.

[Rhiannon]

Unsure if this is the best approach




https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/22/new-zealand-gives-mount-taranaki-same-legal-rights-as-a-person

The Māori belief here appears to be animist. Therefore from that point of view to grant the mountain a personhood and therefore rights makes sense.

Protecting anything on environmental grounds doesn’t work. There’s always a ‘pressing economic reason’ or somesuch to allow fracking, or the destruction of trees, or dredging of marshes, or whatever. If this is the only way to guarantee protection I won’t object.

[jeremyp]

Protecting anything on environmental grounds doesn’t work. There’s always a ‘pressing economic reason’ or somesuch to allow fracking, or the destruction of trees, or dredging of marshes, or whatever. If this is the only way to guarantee protection I won’t object.

If there's enough money to be made by somebody, this move won't work either.

[Robbie]

First there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is.

[Nearly Sane]

The Māori belief here appears to be animist. Therefore from that point of view to grant the mountain a personhood and therefore rights makes sense.

Protecting anything on environmental grounds doesn’t work. There’s always a ‘pressing economic reason’ or somesuch to allow fracking, or the destruction of trees, or dredging of marshes, or whatever. If this is the only way to guarantee protection I won’t object.

It's partly the fact that this effectively privileges a religious/cultural belief that makes me uneasy. Why should mountains that some think are very small imporatant because they are animists be treated differently from some who think that a mountain is just very important because they like it? It may be that simply treating the mountain as a f owned by a collective could achieve the same and perhaps that might work in a bit at that doesn't privilege religious beliefs?



In reply to HWB - my reading is that this is treating the mountain like a juristic person. The concept of legal personhood covers both juristic and natural persons. This is also part of my unease though in that while the relationship of those in a company are well defined,  I'm not sure that that is the case here with the Maoris as a culture.

[jeremyp]

First there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is.

On closer inspection, it turned out to be a molehill.

Somebody had to say it.

[Rhiannon]

It's partly the fact that this effectively privileges a religious/cultural belief that makes me uneasy. Why should mountains that some think are very small imporatant because they are animists be treated differently from some who think that a mountain is just very important because they like it? It may be that simply treating the mountain as a f owned by a collective could achieve the same and perhaps that might work in a bit at that doesn't privilege religious beliefs?

But something that is owned by a collective can be compulsorily purchased.

This is bringing me back to the concept of holding things (place, environment, climate) as sacred even in the absence of religion. Unfortunately we are shit at doing that so native religion has to do it for us (not aware of Christianity being big on this one). It's not about 'liking something', it is about what happens if we desecrate, damage and destroy it.

[jeremyp]

But something that is owned by a collective can be compulsorily purchased.

This is bringing me back to the concept of holding things (place, environment, climate) as sacred even in the absence of religion. Unfortunately we are shit at doing that so native religion has to do it for us (not aware of Christianity being big on this one). It's not about 'liking something', it is about what happens if we desecrate, damage and destroy it.

Surely the answer to people trying to destroy sites protected for environmental reasons is not to let them do it. If we believe it is important to protect places for environmental reasons, we should do it. It's hypocritical to invoke the superstitions of a religion we don't believe for that purpose.

[SteveH]

Oh FFS! Is there no limit to human idiocy?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

An atheist has full human rights
Atheism is merely the lack of belief in Gods
Mount Taranaki lacks belief in Gods
Mount Taranaki is an atheist.
An atheist has full human rights.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Vlad,

Rather harsh old boy, that mountain could be sitting there contemplating God in all his guises

Dear Sane,

Very good story, I like this idea, thou shall not abuse Mother Clyde, treating Ben Lomond like some old venerated Saint, Christians believe God made this little planet we all inhabit so ergo ipso dipsy and lala, this planet is a Holy relic a new thought for me Well a old thought that has just bubbled to the surface

Gonnagle.

[jeremyp]

Dear Vlad,

Rather harsh old boy, that mountain could be sitting there contemplating God in all his guises

No, it couldn't.

It's a mountain. It's a massive lump of rock. It lacks the ability to contemplate.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, it couldn't.

It's a mountain. It's a massive lump of rock. It lacks the ability to contemplate.

!

[SteveH]

An atheist has full human rights
Atheism is merely the lack of belief in Gods
Mount Taranaki lacks belief in Gods
Mount Taranaki is an atheist.
An atheist has full human rights.

Atheism is a conscious rejection of belief in gods.
Mt Taranaki is not conscious.
Therefore, Mt Taranaki is not an atheist.

[Nearly Sane]

Atheism is a conscious rejection of belief in gods.
Mt Taranaki is not conscious.
Therefore, Mt Taranaki is not an atheist.

I would disagree. If you are capable of holding a belief in gods, but do not do so then you have a lack of belief in the concept, and are an atheist.

[SteveH]

I would disagree. If you are capable of holding a belief in gods, but do not do so then you have a lack of belief in the concept, and are an atheist.

That's more or less what I said! Mt Taranaki is not capable of holding a belief in gods, and therefore is not atheist.

[Nearly Sane]

That's more or less what I said! Mt Taranaki is not capable of holding a belief in gods, and therefore is not atheist.

Apologies, I was unclear here. I agree that Mt Taranaki is not atheist. I was disagreeing that to be an atheist one would have to consciously reject gods. I am assuming that you didn't mean to beg the question and have your god as an actual thing that was being rejected and wrote it in that way for the sake of simplicity However, the point I was making was that the concept doesn't have to be actively rejected. If someone who could believe in gods had never heard of the concept, and didn't believe in the concept, then they are an atheist - no rejection involved.

[SteveH]

Apologies, I was unclear here. I agree that Mt Taranaki is not atheist. I was disagreeing that to be an atheist one would have to consciously reject gods. I am assuming that you didn't mean to beg the question and have your god as an actual thing that was being rejected and wrote it in that way for the sake of simplicity However, the point I was making was that the concept doesn't have to be actively rejected. If someone who could believe in gods had never heard of the concept, and didn't believe in the concept, then they are an atheist - no rejection involved.

Well, we're only arguing about word-definitions, but I'd say that an atheist has decisively rejected belief, not never heard of gods in the first place.

[Nearly Sane]

Well, we're only arguing about word-definitions, but I'd say that an atheist has decisively rejected belief, not never heard of gods in the first place.

Of course we are arguing word definitions, words are important. If you don't have a belief in gods then you lack a belief and that makes you an atheist. Theist/Atheist for those capable of believing in gods is a binary position.