|
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 |
|
Could there ever be a right | by MatthewDBA | 2008-10-21 08:53:44 |
|
Yes, I think so. | by tallastro | 2008-10-21 09:02:17 |
|
I'm not clear on one thing. | by MatthewDBA | 2008-10-21 09:07:59 |
|
I believe werehatrack's claim is that | by bitflipper | 2008-10-21 09:34:39 |
|
Disagree. | by werehatrack | 2008-10-21 09:55:55 |
|
Sure it is | by bitflipper | 2008-10-21 10:11:18 |
|
Is that a right though, or merely a universal | by subbywan | 2008-10-21 10:13:34 |
|
What is the difference between | by bitflipper | 2008-10-21 10:27:05 |
|
No, because "violation" is subjective. | by subbywan | 2008-10-21 10:52:18 |
| Sometimes, though, you don't |
by bitflipper |
2008-10-21 10:56:20 |
| One needn't even envision a scenario so impersonal as the rocks which imple one to find examples of this--to whom could the Kurds gassed by Hussein appeal? To whom could the Jews imprisoned, tortured, and systematically exterminated under the Third Reich appeal? To whom could slaves in XVIIIth Century U.S. appeal? History abounds with examples of the downtrodden whose most fundamental rights were quite evidently violated, and who had no recourse at the time. |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
I wanted to get away from the human examples | by subbywan | 2008-10-21 10:59:44 |
|
O-kay, but it still begs the question | by bitflipper | 2008-10-21 11:20:43 |
|
There isn't an appeal | by subbywan | 2008-10-21 11:25:20 |
|
Which is precisely why | by MatthewDBA | 2008-10-21 11:33:46 |
|
Which is exactly why I wouldn't :) | by subbywan | 2008-10-21 11:38:55 |
|
Of course it can | by MatthewDBA | 2008-10-21 11:47:55 |
|
Because if it can be taken away, it's conditional | by subbywan | 2008-10-21 11:52:24 |
|
But a right does not guarantee outcome | by bitflipper | 2008-10-21 12:08:10 |
|
Then it's not a right. | by subbywan | 2008-10-21 12:32:51 |
|
Precisely. | by bitflipper | 2008-10-21 12:51:28 |
|
It does only apply to a few. | by subbywan | 2008-10-21 13:14:48 |
|
History has demonstrated | by MatthewDBA | 2008-10-21 13:31:32 |
|
Exactly. What history has demonstrated | by bitflipper | 2008-10-21 13:36:04 |
|
Rights can't be taken away. | by subbywan | 2008-10-21 13:45:49 |
|
Then we come back to | by bitflipper | 2008-10-21 13:52:16 |
|
Which I argue is wishful thinking. | by subbywan | 2008-10-21 13:59:29 |
|
Then rights exist by dint of those same | by bitflipper | 2008-10-21 14:16:03 |
|
Nope. i made no such claim | by subbywan | 2008-10-21 14:30:24 |
|
I think we're dealing with | by MatthewDBA | 2008-10-21 12:52:15 |
|
Human and societal behaviour and norms. | by subbywan | 2008-10-21 13:16:58 |
|
Then what is your right to life? | by bitflipper | 2008-10-21 11:41:40 |
|
I don't have a right to life. | by subbywan | 2008-10-21 11:47:02 |
|
That would mean, then | by bitflipper | 2008-10-21 11:56:40 |
|
I will defend myself too, up to and including | by subbywan | 2008-10-21 12:34:25 |
|
But you would do so in the absence of society, too | by bitflipper | 2008-10-21 12:58:17 |
|
No. That merely makes it an instinct. | by subbywan | 2008-10-21 13:21:26 |
|
US citizens *do* have a right to life | by MatthewDBA | 2008-10-21 13:34:17 |
|
If you can take it away, it's not a right | by subbywan | 2008-10-21 13:39:51 |
|
And that's where I disagree | by MatthewDBA | 2008-10-21 13:41:47 |
|
I thought you prefaced the need for a soul | by subbywan | 2008-10-21 13:44:49 |
|
Maybe. | by MatthewDBA | 2008-10-21 13:49:15 |
|
fair dinkum. | by subbywan | 2008-10-21 13:51:06 |
|
It is not that your brother has a greater right | by bitflipper | 2008-10-21 13:50:01 |
|
Um, the laws are *not* written to apply evenly. | by subbywan | 2008-10-21 13:53:42 |
|
Actually, they *do* have the right to marry, | by bitflipper | 2008-10-21 14:07:54 |
|
Because the state is involved there. | by subbywan | 2008-10-21 14:39:47 |