Quote:
|
Originally Posted by filtherton
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.
|
Rational means only act as justification when there is a disagreement on observable reality. Once we've moved on to disagreements in theory - if this happens like this, is it wrong? - reason can't help justify, it can only help clarify. When we face two contradictory abstract beliefs, our emotions are the deciding factor.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Ah, I think I agree here. Like I said before, only the most ardent anarchist considers rights absolute. The rest of us are debating on where to draw the rationally arbitrary line. We don't want to get too close to tyranny, no, but anarchy's not an appealing neighbor either. It's not self-evident by any means that we should be closer to one or the other, nor that the dead center is inherently best. It's up to debate, debate that is clarified rationally but ultimately decided emotionally.
But as long as we avoid "you rights-hating nazi!", I don't see a problem with the language of 'rights'. It's just another useful way of talking about what we should and shouldn't do.