|
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 |
|
I'd agree with tallastro's definition,... | by bitflipper | 2008-10-21 09:30:59 |
|
Heinlein said it best, I think | by subbywan | 2008-10-21 09:55:24 |
|
Is it possible to have | by MatthewDBA | 2008-10-21 10:03:46 |
|
That's not what he's saying. | by subbywan | 2008-10-21 10:10:06 |
|
Well, I'd say that | by MatthewDBA | 2008-10-21 10:14:17 |
|
What gives them that right? (n/t) | by subbywan | 2008-10-21 10:15:39 |
|
Why must a right be "given"? | by MatthewDBA | 2008-10-21 10:16:14 |
|
Based on what? | by subbywan | 2008-10-21 10:21:40 |
|
That depends on | by MatthewDBA | 2008-10-21 10:33:23 |
|
scientific evidence, or faith-based? (n/t) | by subbywan | 2008-10-21 10:50:07 |
|
Are those my only two choices? (n/t) | by MatthewDBA | 2008-10-21 10:51:44 |
|
Not if you can think of more. (n/t) | by subbywan | 2008-10-21 10:52:47 |
|
Evidence that rights are | by MatthewDBA | 2008-10-21 10:56:36 |
|
That's a non-answer though. | by subbywan | 2008-10-21 11:06:32 |
|
Where did laws come into it? | by MatthewDBA | 2008-10-21 11:10:48 |
|
No, i think we have the same idea of "human" | by subbywan | 2008-10-21 11:16:39 |
|
That's not how I see a human. | by MatthewDBA | 2008-10-21 11:24:51 |
|
I have no argument with that. | by subbywan | 2008-10-21 11:28:31 |
|
Again, that gets into a definition of "soul" | by MatthewDBA | 2008-10-21 11:38:26 |
|
What makes them rights? | by subbywan | 2008-10-21 11:41:44 |
|
That's how I define the word, yes. | by MatthewDBA | 2008-10-21 11:48:56 |
|
Assuming that is true | by subbywan | 2008-10-21 11:51:13 |
|
Going with my definition elsewhere | by MatthewDBA | 2008-10-21 12:05:10 |
|
Which isn't germaine to the discussion though. | by subbywan | 2008-10-21 12:41:31 |
|
It's not irrelevant | by MatthewDBA | 2008-10-21 12:48:23 |
|
Then what makes it wrong to define a right | by subbywan | 2008-10-21 13:02:19 |
| One could argue that for any word |
by MatthewDBA |
2008-10-21 13:05:54 |
Certainly: a word is what you define it to be. (You are, however, responsible for the consequences of differences between your definition and that of the local group.)
However, I'd argue that the aim of existence for all beings (as I said elsewhere) is to live up to one's full potential, and to define a "right" in such a restricted way severely constrains the ability of other people to do so - thus, it is wrong to define "right" in such a way. |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
But other people can define it according to | by subbywan | 2008-10-21 13:25:36 |