|
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 |
|
Then it's not a right. | by subbywan | 2008-10-21 12:32:51 |
| Precisely. |
by bitflipper |
2008-10-21 12:51:28 |
That is what makes those traits inalienable; I cannot violate them, and still leave you as you.
What makes them rights, is that they are guarantees of our freedoms. But they are not guarantees of any results. There is nothing that cannot be taken away, destroyed, abridged, or abrogated. Therefore, by your definition, there would be no rights, at all--every trait is only a privelege.
But if it is only a privelege, it can only apply to a few; it does not apply to all, and it does not apply equally. Your claim, then, would be that the very basis of society is false: society cannot offer any protections to its members because nothing can be equally applied to all--there are only priveleges, and nothing to protect the unpriveleged from the priveleged.
I assert this is false. We can easily see that life is a trait that applies to all living things, is inalienable to any living thing, and allows its possessor the ability to make choices so as to direct his life. Freedom, the same way. It is the abridgements of these rights that is applied inequitably, not the rights themselves. We are born with them, but we surrender them or they are taken from us, in unequal measure. That is privelege. The right is basic. |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
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 |
