Subject:
|
Re: Nature of rights? (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 3 Jul 2001 13:34:18 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
736 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Kirby Warden writes:
> I have the ability to drink...the right to drink is mine, I have
> given this right to myself.
So you really do believe that ability == right. Why even use the word right
instead of ability? Ability has no confusing connotations to other members of
society, after all.
> If, this afternoon, I were to learn that the
> governments of the world have banned together to prohibit the drinking of
> Mountain Dew; Code Red, they would have successfully opressed my self-given
> right. The societies of the world might even decide to uphold this new
> prohibitve law, and pass it on to future generations, making it a poor moral
> decision to drink this beverage.
This I won't buy. I just zipped over to dictionary.com to show you how wrong
you are and found...that...you're...not. :-( But, never fear, I still won't
buy it! I need a word to describe being good that is not dependent on society.
I need it to mean basically 'not hurting others.' That's what I think of
morality, so that's how I'm using it.
Regardless of whether or not one or more governments tell you that drinking
that beverage has legal consequences, it isn't immoral to do so, merely
dangerous. (Unless of course there were other factors, like it's being produce
by slaves in Haiti or something.)
> The law of man can dictate a persons "rights". This we all know from
> experience and/or observation.
I think one of the points of this conversation is that we don't all _know_
this. Some people believe that rights are derived from God, or an inherent
part of being human. I happen to think that's clearly wrong, but others don't.
> To define what a "right" is, we need look no
> further than our own desires and abilities. If I desire to kill my neighbor
> for playing his music too loud, it is my right to do so according to my
> ability to do so.
Nah. Again, ability is one word and right is an other. I most like Dave
Eaton's (well, Mill's) stance that a right is something that society ought (or
will?) defend me in the possession of. I think the difference between 'ought'
and 'will' is pretty significant too. But in either case, society doesn't feel
that way about your ability to murder your loud neighbors. (Even if some of us
sympathize.)
> I may still feel
> it is my right to kick that neighbor in his head until he dies, however, I
Is it the same for you to "feel" that something is your right and for it to
actually be your right?
At root, it seems that we might be forgetting the word itself. It seems like
it must be that a 'right' is something that it is right to do. Is it possible
to have the 'right' to do something that would be wrong?
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
244 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
