|
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 |
| There isn't an appeal |
by subbywan |
2008-10-21 11:25:20 |
I don't believe there IS a right to life, only a privilege.
The prey, therefore, has no one to appeal TO. It is on its own.
Fighting back doesn't mean there's a right to life. Fighting back is a conditioned response.
|
|
[ Reply ] |
|
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 |