|
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 |
|
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 |
To whom can the prey appeal, when the predator strikes? Your claim would seem to be that the prey has no right to life, because there is no court to which it can appeal when that right is threatened. And yet the prey will fight most vigorously to hang on to that non-existent right.
Similarly for people in a society--when our right to live is threatened, we will fight to defend it. When our freedom is threatened, we will fight for it. Every example I've mentioned from history was redressed with war before it has been brought before the courts.
It seems, then, that a right is not defined by what the law will eventually seek to redress, but by what people are willing to fight for in order to defend, be that fight through the courts and the law or by force of arms when the law no longer suffices. So a right, it seems, must be defined by the struggle for its defense, be that among humans, or among animals. |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
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 |