Does one have a right to do evil ?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
This does not follow from finding that (1) and (2) are not inconsistent.

What follows from that finding is that given that you have some right, it is not necessarily the case that you ought to exercise it.

I was talking about the consensus view of the examples I posted. You are of course at liberty to come up with one of your own.

Originally posted by dottewell

But what does it mean to say I have a right that I shouldn't exercise (in those circumstances)?

The right is a red herring. It has no bearing on what you ought to do or refrain from doing.

I have a right to buy a blue car.
I have a right to not buy a blue car.
I have a right to buy a black car.
I have a right to not buy a black car.

None of these rights is a factor in deciding whether I ought to buy a car, what color it ought to be, or whether I ought to be criticized for my decision.


I do not have a right to steal a blue car.
I do not have a right to steal a black car.

These lacking rights, on the other hand, are factors in deciding whether I ought to steal a car, whether I ought to be criticized for my decision, or whether I ought to be punished for my decision.


The right in your question is a red herring unless it is a right that you don't have.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Reading the forums I can't help noticing that certain debaters hold the position that one has the right to do evil. One has a "right" to damage oneself and one has a right to damage others.

.... and all this in the name of human "autonomy" and human "freedom".

Do you agree with those debaters or do you hold a different position ?

The 'right' to harm others? I'm not sure I understand the statement, but in the Rights of Man, I think it's clearly stated that all man has free will. What he chooses to do with that is his own choice. Man has his right to do absolutely anything he likes. That's why we have laws in place to punish those who do wrong.

Originally posted by dottewell
But what does it mean to say we have such a right in the context of my examples? (Particularly the second.)

Part of what it means its that those children have no legitimate claim on your marrow in virtue of which you have an obligation not to destroy it. Your obligation (if you have one in this case) derives from, perhaps, a minimize-harm principle. If, however, you had promised those children your marrow, and then self-immolated, you would have acted in a manner to which you had no right, because by virtue of your promise you had ceded to those children a legitimate claim on your marrow. Consider cases of charity: I may be morally obligated to give to charity, but it is not as though I don't have the right not to give. After all, no particular charity case out there has a legitimate claim on my money such that if I fail to give they would have been wronged, or it would have been unjust.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
The "right" to offend/insult/verbally abuse and the "right" to use drugs that are damaging to your psyche and body.

Part of the problem is that people like Ivanhoe always try to denigrate the Fundamental Right in question by declaring it a "right" (always in quotes) to do a particular thing they feel is bad. This is misleading; the Fundamental Rights in question are far broader. I would answer his question this way:

1. Since people have no right not to be offended/insulted/verbally but they do have a Fundamental Right to free expression, the answer is pretty obvious.

2. Since you have the right to self-autonomy over your own body, the answer is obvious.

Instances of the first may be morally wrong under certain circumstances.

Instances of the second I fail to see how they can ever be morally wrong.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
If you read my posts in this thread you will understand why I didn't adress this specific question in your post. I allready gave the examples in other posts directed at other debaters.

The "right" to offend/insult/verbally abuse and the "right" to use drugs that are damaging to your psyche and body.


Do these examples count for you or do you w ...[text shortened]... to repeat them in a post specifically adressed to you ? You know I am here to serve ......

To say that I have a right to do X sounds like a descriptive claim to me. That is, it sounds like it is merely stating that at least within the structure of social convention, I reserve autonomy over my choice to X or not X. On the other hand, to say that I ought (or ought not) to do X is a normative claim. I see no direct logical connection between descriptive claims and normative claims; thus I do not think it is inconsistent to simultaneously claim that I have a right to do X and that I ought not to do X. My answer to bbarr's question would be no.

Concerning your examples, I guess I don't find them very "specific" as requested. In general, I agree that persons have the right to free speech and self-autonomy over their bodies; but, again per social convention, these rights only extend so far as they are not infringing upon the rights of others.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Reading the forums I can't help noticing that certain debaters hold the position that one has the right to do evil. One has a "right" to damage oneself and one has a right to damage others.

.... and all this in the name of human "autonomy" and human "freedom".

Do you agree with those debaters or do you hold a different position ?

Didn't God himself allow free will???He allowed the fall of mankind.He allowed the rebellion of the fallen Angels .Am I correct or not here?
Freedom to do good or evil is thefore a right of everyone. I feel God has set a precident by His prevous actions.

Originally posted by LemonJello
To say that I have a right to do X sounds like a descriptive claim to me. That is, it sounds like it is merely stating that at least within the structure of social convention, I reserve autonomy over my choice to X or not X. On the other hand, to say that I ought (or ought not) to do X is a normative claim. I see no direct logical connection between de ntion, these rights only extend so far as they are not infringing upon the rights of others.

If you have a right to X, then isn't there an obligation (defeasible perhaps) on others not to prevent you from X-ing? If so, then the claim that you have a right to X is a normative claims, as it has prescriptive or action-guiding implications.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Reading the forums I can't help noticing that certain debaters hold the position that one has the right to do evil. One has a "right" to damage oneself and one has a right to damage others.

.... and all this in the name of human "autonomy" and human "freedom".

Do you agree with those debaters or do you hold a different position ?

not unless you're Saddam Hussein.

Originally posted by bbarr
If you have a right to X, then isn't there an obligation (defeasible perhaps) on others not to prevent you from X-ing? If so, then the claim that you have a right to X is a normative claims, as it has prescriptive or action-guiding implications.

Yes, I see your point: if we say that I have the right to X, then that may imply that others ought not prevent me from X-ing. Additionally, to the extent that others may have the right to X, then that may imply that I ought not prevent them from X-ing. Yes, that seems plausible, and I see the normative connection with right as 'entitlement'. So according to this line of thinking, my holding the right to X carries prescriptive implications for the actions of others (and others' holding of rights carries prescriptive implications for my own actions). However, I still do not see any connection between my having the right to X and the question of whether or not I ought to X. My answer to your initial question would still be that I do not see any inconsistency.

Originally posted by Starrman
I'm not sure I understand your question.

My point was that I view rights as laws and therefore (in democratic countries) these are the rights that the majority wants to have and the rights that the majority doesn't want to have but is willing to tolerate (both for practical and ethical reasons).

The difference between both is that minorities are dependent on the good-will of the majority in order to have rights that the latter don't want the society to have.

In this structural vision of rights one can easily justify the existence of rights that some people believe shouldn't be exercised.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Give an example of an evil that has been claimed as a right.

it's ok to hate while talking about 'evil' people. i don't think so.

Originally posted by bbarr
Part of what it means its that those children have no legitimate claim on your marrow in virtue of which you have an obligation not to destroy it. Your obligation (if you have one in this case) derives from, perhaps, a minimize-harm principle. If, however, you had promised those children your marrow, and then self-immolated, you would have acted in a manner ...[text shortened]... y money such that if I fail to give they would have been wronged, or it would have been unjust.

So if I had not promised my bone marrow, but it was statistically likely I was the only match in the world for the children, I would still have a right to destroy my body.

Without wishing to retread ground from the "free speech" thread, are there good moral reasons to value this right in this case? (As opposed to pragmatic reasons not to legislate to restrict autonomy, where possible.) Is the value of autonomy fixed in every case in which it is a morally relevant factor, or does it depend on the use I intend to put it to?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Give an example of an evil that has been claimed as a right.

That's an easy one.

Blowing up INNOCENT civilians in order to establish Wahhabiism and Gods Government upon the Earth.

The people making (Ivans) described "Right To Do Evil" is "Al Queda"

The specific "Evil" is "Blowing Up Civilians to Obtain Political Power"

What "claim" is involved here on rhp by MANY and dare I say it... MOST? It is as follows: "It is just as wrong for the Iraqi government and it's allies to kill said evil doers as is the act OF the evil doers."


Do you want to argue the point?

Originally posted by StarValleyWy
That's an easy one.

Blowing up INNOCENT civilians in order to establish Wahhabiism and Gods Government upon the Earth.

The people making (Ivans) described "Right To Do Evil" is "Al Queda"

The specific "Evil" is "Blowing Up Civilians to Obtain Political Power"

What "claim" is involved? It is as follows: "It is just as wrong for the Iraqi gov ...[text shortened]... evil doers."

Who says this is "Evil"? Me.

Do you want to argue the point?

This "evil" method was also used by people in my country to gain freedom from the English.

Terrorism has many faces.