Originally posted by AThousandYoungOK. Instead of Liberty and Welfare Rights, I should have said Negative and Positive Rights.
Oh, you're right about the Right. The correct term is Claim Rights, not Welfare Rights.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_right
No, wait, that's not what I mean. That article suggests that the Right to Life is a Claim Right, because it obligates others to not kill you.
Hmmm.
Here we go I think. THIS is what I was talking about...I think.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights
A Person (e.g. our hypothetical Lion) may not kill another Person (our Gazelles) for food, because the Gazelles have a negative right to life against other Persons. That means the other Persons may NOT morally take away the Gazelles' life.
However, the Lion does not have a positive right to life against the Gazelle, i.e. the Gazelle is not obligated to keep the Lion alive. The Lion has a negative right to life against the Gazelle; the Gazelle may not take the Lion's life.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungYou're choosing intelligence as a factor, yet you didn't answer why that's your choice.
How many animals can perform cognitive functions that these people cannot?
I don't know. Do you?
It seems some suspect dolphins and great apes are persons because they are as smart or smarter than mentally retarded humans. That's kinda the point.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungListen, all im saying is that these so called "rights" you speak of, had no natural values before the society. The only thing we have is the ILLUSION of rights, let them create there own illusion, I believe it is there right.
Are you implying that it's ok to ignore the rights of the weak?
1 edit
Originally posted by joe shmoYou have legal rights, which are those conferred to you by law. Natural rights supporters tend to go from ought to is, in an attempt to avoid defending their moral absolutism explicitly.
Listen, all im saying is that these so called "rights" you speak of, had no natural values before the society. The only thing we have is the ILLUSION of rights, let them create there own illusion, I believe it is there right.
Of course, these supposed natural rights are just the expression of preferences, like all moral statements (yes, I'm a non-cognitivist).
Originally posted by PalynkaIm not entirely sure if you agree, but before your side note I was not aware of this philosiphy (non-cognitivism). So I looked at its tenets on Wiki, and I feel that this philoshipy coinsides with my own. Thanks for putting a name to a face!
You have legal rights, which are those conferred to you by law. Natural rights supporters tend to go from ought to is, in an attempt to avoid defending their moral absolutism explicitly.
Of course, these supposed natural rights are just the expression of preferences, like all moral statements (yes, I'm a non-cognitivist).
Originally posted by PalynkaI capitalize in order to emphasize the fact that I am using the philosophical concept of people as it relates to inalienable rights as opposed to the casual use. I'll stop if you want.
Is sentience even a binary variable? How does a new-born compare to a grown pig in terms of sentience?
Edit - Is all that capitalization needed? It's silly.
How to determine whether something is a person is definitely one of the weak points in Inalienable Rights Theory. I won't argue with that. I didn't make this stuff up.
1 edit
Originally posted by joe shmoI don't think you understand what an inalienable right is. They are moral judgements. If a right is violated, it still exists; it's just been violated.
Listen, all im saying is that these so called "rights" you speak of, had no natural values before the society. The only thing we have is the ILLUSION of rights, let them create there own illusion, I believe it is there right.
Now, you may not recognize the existence of such rights, but to someone who does, the rights exist independently of your belief in them.
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungBut what is moral is subjective, and if something is not universally true it is not inalienable. This Dolphin rights speel is analogous to an alien race coming and deciding to give us their "rights" without our consent.
I don't think you understand what an inalienable right is. They are moral judgements. If a right is violated, it still exists; it's just been violated.
Now, you may not recognize the existence of such rights, but to someone who does, the rights exist independently of your belief in them.
3 edits
Originally posted by joe shmoI think there's an implication here I should make explicit.
But what is moral is subjective, and if somthing is not universally true it is not inalienable.
In the opinion of those people who agree with inalienable rights theory, it cannot be made morally acceptable to violate those rights with respect to any person.
In other words, my country and I make the subjective claim that in our opinion it is always immoral to violate inalienable rights; thus they are inalienable - in our opinion.
You can NEVER convince us that it's ok to violate these rights, or that they do not exist, as long as we accept the inalienable rights model of morality - which, very, very significantly, is at the base of the US legal system.
Similarly, you can never convince a person who accepts the divinity and morality of the Ten Commandments that it can be moral to have other gods before the Abrahamic one, or that it can be moral to murder. To such people, the Ten Commandments are Inalienable.
Originally posted by joe shmoI also learned about it here. 🙂
Im not entirely sure if you agree, but before your side note I was not aware of this philosiphy (non-cognitivism). So I looked at its tenets on Wiki, and I feel that this philoshipy coinsides with my own. Thanks for putting a name to a face!