|
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 |
|
No. That merely makes it an instinct. | by subbywan | 2008-10-21 13:21:26 |
|
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 |
generally, by virtue of issuing a business license. The particular court case that decided that was against a bar, iirc. The bar claimed they had a right to hire who they wanted. The person sued claiming that because the bar had to have a state license to sell alcohol, the state was complicit in the discriminatory practices of the bar.
We define "rights" however we like. in our case (the US), we chose to like to create them in the forms of the various amendments, and such. We created them. We decided what and who they would apply to, as defined by our legal code.
Look at the current issue with Gitmo - There are those who argue US laws apply to them, because it's the US military, while the other side, to a greater though not completely degree, argues that 1) gitmo is outside US soil, and 2) as non-citizens, they're not subject to the same rights as US citizens. The courts even somewhat agree (look at how Walker Lin was treated after that ruling, vs the other inhabitants).
The reason the argument exists at all is because *we* defined what those "rights" are, and because of that, they're open to interpretation. Rights were *created* to address the inequalities of human nature (the Amendments).
I do admit though, that "factual" was perhaps not the right term for the basis. That they're codified does make them factual after all. My intent there was to demonstrate they were created by us, and cannot exist without us.
There is utterly no guarantee for happiness in ones lifetime, deserved or otherwise. Happiness is possible regardless of what we do to each other. Defining "rights" may make it easier to achieve happiness -- I will agree with that -- But it in no way guarantees anything.
|
|
[ Reply ] |
