|
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 |
|
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 |
Therefore, it is not something inherent in society; it is inherent in you. That is what makes it a right, not a privelege.
Because it is a right, equitable societies seek to uphold it. And they seek to uphold it equally for all of their members, abridging or removing it only from those who have demonstrated their unwillingnes or inability to observe society's directives that the rights of its members be observed. It would be a societal privilege if and only if it were not equally upheld among all conforming members of the society, and that would result in an unequitable society. |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
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 |