1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesThe word "right" is used in many different ways. Personally, I reserve it for those fundamental liberties that arise from the Natural Law and are limited to individuals. Thus, a smoker wouldn't have the "right" to any medical treatment at all under that definition. Others use the term "rights" to mean treatment which should be expected under an ethical view based on empathy; in that sense, someone has a ""right" to medical treatment as even less bright animals care for their sick. I'm not sure how you are using the word "right", so I can't say whether someone with cancer has a "right" to be treated by others or not under your view. I suspect not.
I completely agree with all of that, but that's not what we were talking about. We were talking about rights. Rights aren't things that arise out of majority votes.
A smoker doesn't have the right to have his bills paid for. This has no connection to the fact that as a matter of legislation, people can voluntarily vote to pay for his bills. I' ...[text shortened]... manner. I'm asserting that it's wrong to claim that the smoker has the right in question.
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderIt makes them completely immune to a significant portion of them.
Um, that hardly makes them "IMMUNE from the consequences of their decision", does it?
It makes them completely immune to that portion that can be feasibly put on the shoulders of others via legislation.
If it were feasible to legislate that everybody in society had to share in the physical pains as well as the monetary ones, you can be sure that your and bbarr's ethics would call for that, although I doubt society would be quick to vote for it, which highlights yet another flaw in the reasoning behind such laws.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesWe were talking about rights, broadly construed. You started talking about a particular range of rights; those rights involved in issues of distributive justice. The sketch I gave above was meant to illustrate how a society should go about deciding issues of distributive justice, and thereby decide how moral rights to primary goods ought to be instantiated. Nothing in the sketch above entails that our decisions about the distribution of primary goods ought to be determined on the basis of majority vote. I'm talking about what we would hypothetically agree to under particular conditions (were we rational, unbiased, and in positions of equal bargaining power), not what we would as a matter of fact agree to were we to have a vote about the distribution of primary goods.
I completely agree with all of that, but that's not what we were talking about. We were talking about rights. Rights aren't things that arise out of majority votes.
A smoker doesn't have the right to have his bills paid for. This has no connection to the fact that as a matter of legislation, people can voluntarily vote to pay for (or not pay fo ...[text shortened]... manner. I'm asserting that it's wrong to claim that the smoker has the right in question.
4 edits
Originally posted by bbarrOh, then I withdraw my agreement. I don't think the consequences of a smoker fall under distributive justice anyway.
I'm talking about what we would hypothetically agree to under particular conditions (were we rational, unbiased, and in positions of equal bargaining power), not what we would as a matter of fact agree to were we to have a vote about the distribution of primary goods.
I would be a dissenter in the hypothetical vote.
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles"Immune" is a poor choice of wording; you really should withdraw it.
It makes them completely immune to a significant portion of them.
It makes them completely immune to that portion that can be feasibly put on the shoulders of others via legislation.
If it were feasible to legislate that everybody in society had to share in the physical pains as well as the monetary ones, you can be sure that your and bbarr's e ...[text shortened]... d be quick to vote for it, which highlights yet another flaw in the reasoning behind such laws.
As I said, it must be a bitch for you to live in a society composed of intelligent, social animals who have empathy for their fellow men. They tend to build their societies (even before written laws existed) on the basis of such principles rather than on your Hobbesian view of human nature. Tough break; for you and Ayn anyway.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderBut that is just assuming what you are trying to prove. Of course a code of ethics based on empathy would call for empathy. But I don't accept such a code as being correct, and I doubt that you do either. So why bring it up or pretend that that's what you meant by "rights"?
Others use the term "rights" to mean treatment which should be expected under an ethical view based on empathy
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI don't want to waste time in semantic games. You keep using the term "right" in this context, not me. I didn't say the smoker had the right to be treated for cancer or the women had the right to maternity leave; if these were rights then society shouldn't debate them at all. If you are saying others use the term "rights" in a less precise manner than the way I think the word should be used, I agree. But that doesn't seem terribly important to the substantive point being discussed.
But that is just assuming what you are trying to prove. Of course a code of ethics based on empathy would call for empathy. But I don't accept such a code as being correct, and I doubt that you do either. So why bring it up or pretend that that's what you meant by "rights"?
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesDoes it make a difference to you what the rhetoric used is? If someone says "We all have the right to National Health Insurance" do you oppose National Health Insurance more than if they say "It would be a wise policy for the country to have National Health Insurance"?
Yep, but that's life. Full of tough breaks, but I don't claim that I am entitled to a different sort of life.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesHealth care is a primary good, and how we ought to structure access to health care is a question of distributive justice.
Oh, then I withdraw my agreement. I don't think the consequences of a smoker fall under distributive justice anyway.
I would be a dissenter in the hypothetical vote.
Originally posted by no1marauderI hold that both claims are wrong, but for different reasons.
Does it make a difference to you what the rhetoric used is? If someone says "We all have the right to National Health Insurance" do you oppose National Health Insurance more than if they say "It would be a wise policy for the country to have National Health Insurance"?
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesNo. I think they are using the term "right" in a manner I wouldn't. If I said that sentence it would be absurd given my definition of rights. Since their definition is more malleable, the statement is not absurd.
Oh, super. So do you agree with me when I claim that having the right to paid maternity leave is an absurd view characterisically held by feminists?