|
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 |
| Then what is your right to life? |
by bitflipper |
2008-10-21 11:41:40 |
Why should your desire to live be respected?
If there is not a fundamental right to life, no other right you may have matters, for no other right can be exercised if you are not alive.
Similarly for freedom; if you do not have a fundamental right to be free and to make your own choices, no other right you may have can matter, for you cannot choose to exercise them.
If the law and the courts claim that you have no right to live or no right to be free--perhaps on the basis of the color of your eyes--will this remove those rights from you? Or will it simply establish inequitous laws against which people who hold rights to be basic to the human condition will fight, with arms if necessary?
If we have rights to life and liberty, how do animals not have them? They, too, live. They, too, strive to choose as they wish. They, too, will fight to the utmost limits of their abilities to hold on to their life and their freedom, against any who would take those basic fundaments from them.
The avenue of appeal is not necessary; it is the structure we humans establish so as to remove the necessary brutality of defending our rights. Our rights, though, exist and can be plainly seen, whether the law supports them or not. Society and its laws change over time; our inalienable rights do not. |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
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 |
