Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
This is inviting a diatribe of epic proportions. I'll only go so far as to say that a natural right is apparently quite subjective, and a legal right is something a bit more tangible. The former can be debated, the latter can be enforced.
|
By all means,
will. I enjoy your diatribes.
archetypal fool, i don't know if i agree with you that there is a true universal right. The definition of what it means to hurt someone physically, mentally or financially is really in the eye of the beholder, and as such, the idea that my rights begin where yours end is in many instances completely untenable, especially as a framework on which to hang a rigorously defined set or legal or personal rules. While it is fine to aspire to the golden rule, i don't think that it is necessarily universal or beneficial. The notion of universal rights also don't jibe with our(the u.s.'s) current system of criminal justice.
FoolThemAll
I see what you're saying, and it kind of reinforces my reasoning behind this thread. The idea that something is a right is often used to justify things when the person using it has no real rational means to justify it. This works so well because the prevailing opinion amongst most people(though perhaps not so much any more) is that rights are to be cherished and protected. What better way to claim moral high ground than to imply that all who oppose you are tyrants? The discussion then turns from a conflict between opposing- yet perhaps essentially valid- perspectives to a conflict between the noble patriot and the tyrannical forces of despotism. This isn't at all to accuse you of doing this, just that your perspective that rights are just externalized morality is in line with the subjective appeals to rights that often are made right here on this very forum.