Subject:
|
Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 18 Jun 2004 14:16:04 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2389 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
> I can accept your formulation more readily because it doesn't appeal to deus ex
> machina, but I'm not comfortable with the notion of "inherency." How is
> inherency identified/verified, and who gets to decide what is inherent?
>
> Hmm. Now that I think about it, I guess "inherency" in this context could be
> paraphrased as the "nature of the beast." I suppose I'm even more comfortable
> with that construction, though I still don't know how we can confirm any rights
> as inherent.
>
> Would it be acceptable to refer to "inherent preferences" instead of "inherent
> rights?"
The problem here is the conflation of legal notion with absolute reality.
Rights are the legal/political expression of an aesthetic that nearly everyone
(involved in the discussion) supports. While I wrote before that I was siding
with John, that was much too simple. The philosophical doctrine that invents or
supports rights in the United States is one of inherency. There are cases in
which the Supreme Court writes that the rights of men existed before the state.
But none of that changes the reality that rights are merely an ancient legal
construction.
So are rights really inherent? Yes. And no. Our system must treat them as if
they are so, in order to function properly. But are they really, really? The
simple fact that not all cultures through time and space recognize the same
rights seems like a pretty simple clue that they are not.
And I'm not sure that changing "inherent rights" to "inherent preferences" is
really worth-while without knowing your goal. Are we having a legal discussion
or a scientific one?
Chris
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
| "Christopher Weeks" <clweeks@eclipse.net> wrote in message news:HzICys.15Iv@lugnet.com... (...) as if (...) The (...) same (...) I've definitely had some trouble with the origin of rights. They feel inherent, yet it also seems generally accepted (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
| (...) This is a very nice summation, overall. (...) A good distinction to bear in mind. I don't think I have the ammunition to prove my case scientifically, so I should probably say I'm aiming for the philosophical angle. To clarify: By "inherent (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
| (...) I can accept your formulation more readily because it doesn't appeal to deus ex machina, but I'm not comfortable with the notion of "inherency." How is inherency identified/verified, and who gets to decide what is inherent? Hmm. Now that I (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
218 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
|
|
|
|
