|
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 |
|
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 |
You have a right to be free. That does not guarantee some abductor will not capture and imprison you. It guarantees that you may struggle to be free.
You have a right to live. That does not guarantee your safety from murderers, starvation, or illness. It guarantees you can struggle to live.
An inalienable right is a condition inherent in your being. If I steal your freedom, you can no longer choose to be who you want to be--I will have stolen from you your ability to shape your own life. If I steal your life, well, quite obviously you will no longer be who you were while still alive. All inalienable rights are like this; to take them is to remove from an individual his ability to guide his own life in a manner that has a chance of bringing about his own happiness.
But no inalienable right guarantees happiness. The outcome is up to the individual, and how he exercises his rights. And, to some degree, it must be admitted, also up to chance. But, so long as no inalienable rights are violated, the individual does have that chance for happiness. |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
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 |
