|
UF Philosophy Corner - Ethics | by MatthewDBA | 2008-10-21 08:21:28 |
|
In order: | by werehatrack | 2008-10-21 08:35:19 |
|
I like all but the first. | by tallastro | 2008-10-21 08:48:31 |
|
I'd agree with tallastro's definition,... | by bitflipper | 2008-10-21 09:30:59 |
| Heinlein said it best, I think |
by subbywan |
2008-10-21 09:55:24 |
| though, I disagree with him somewhat on the final one. I think the universal condition is what makes it a right.
"Ah yes, [life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness]... Life? What 'right' to life has a man who is drowning in the Pacific? The ocean will not hearken to his cries. What 'right' to life has a man who must die to save his children? If he chooses to save his own life, does he do so as a matter of 'right'? If two men are starving and cannibalism is the only alternative to death, which man's right is 'unalienable'? And is it 'right'? As to liberty, the heroes who signed the great document pledged themselves to buy liberty with their lives. Liberty is never unalienable; it must be redeemed regularly with the blood of patriots or it always vanishes. Of all the so-called natural human rights that have ever been invented, liberty is least likely to be cheap and is never free of cost. The third 'right'?—the 'pursuit of happiness'? It is indeed unalienable but it is not a right; it is simply a universal condition which tyrants cannot take away nor patriots restore. Cast me into a dungeon, burn me at the stake, crown me king of kings, I can 'pursue happiness' as long as my brain lives—but neither gods nor saints, wise men nor subtle drugs, can insure that I will catch it." |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
Is it possible to have | by MatthewDBA | 2008-10-21 10:03:46 |
|
That's not what he's saying. | by subbywan | 2008-10-21 10:10:06 |
|
Well, I'd say that | by MatthewDBA | 2008-10-21 10:14:17 |
|
What gives them that right? (n/t) | by subbywan | 2008-10-21 10:15:39 |
|
Why must a right be "given"? | by MatthewDBA | 2008-10-21 10:16:14 |
|
Based on what? | by subbywan | 2008-10-21 10:21:40 |
|
That depends on | by MatthewDBA | 2008-10-21 10:33:23 |
|
scientific evidence, or faith-based? (n/t) | by subbywan | 2008-10-21 10:50:07 |
|
Are those my only two choices? (n/t) | by MatthewDBA | 2008-10-21 10:51:44 |
|
Not if you can think of more. (n/t) | by subbywan | 2008-10-21 10:52:47 |
|
Evidence that rights are | by MatthewDBA | 2008-10-21 10:56:36 |
|
That's a non-answer though. | by subbywan | 2008-10-21 11:06:32 |
|
Where did laws come into it? | by MatthewDBA | 2008-10-21 11:10:48 |
|
No, i think we have the same idea of "human" | by subbywan | 2008-10-21 11:16:39 |
|
That's not how I see a human. | by MatthewDBA | 2008-10-21 11:24:51 |
|
I have no argument with that. | by subbywan | 2008-10-21 11:28:31 |
|
Again, that gets into a definition of "soul" | by MatthewDBA | 2008-10-21 11:38:26 |
|
What makes them rights? | by subbywan | 2008-10-21 11:41:44 |
|
That's how I define the word, yes. | by MatthewDBA | 2008-10-21 11:48:56 |
|
Assuming that is true | by subbywan | 2008-10-21 11:51:13 |
|
Going with my definition elsewhere | by MatthewDBA | 2008-10-21 12:05:10 |
|
Which isn't germaine to the discussion though. | by subbywan | 2008-10-21 12:41:31 |
|
It's not irrelevant | by MatthewDBA | 2008-10-21 12:48:23 |
|
Then what makes it wrong to define a right | by subbywan | 2008-10-21 13:02:19 |
|
One could argue that for any word | by MatthewDBA | 2008-10-21 13:05:54 |
|
But other people can define it according to | by subbywan | 2008-10-21 13:25:36 |