|
valour
Swordbearer

Registered: 03/02/02
Posts: 1,453
Loc: USA
Last seen: 18 years, 1 month
|
Re: Question RE: "Natural Rights" [Re: zappaisgod]
#2480853 - 03/29/04 05:23 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
LOL.
-------------------- "Remember, son, I didn't sell out- I bought in."
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 1 month
|
Re: Question RE: "Natural Rights" [Re: phi1618]
#2482149 - 03/29/04 10:26 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
phi1618 writes:
In the natural state, liberty is complete, but there are no rights. I have the freedom to kill you: you have no right to life. I have the freedom to rape you: you have no right to controll your own body.
and
Naturally (in the absense of society, and its corresponding social, moral, and legal codes), there are no limits on freedom. Therefor, there are no natural rights.
So, as I have said, the concept of "rights" is a null concept in the absence of multiple humans. What you are in essence saying is that "rights" are whatever other humans allow you to do.
Rights impose limits on freedom.
Of the most minimal kind. The only limits your rights impose on my actions are that I don't have the "freedom" to initiate force against you.
Since humans on their own (in nature) have no human-imposed limits on their actions, the goal is that humans in society (out of nature) should have the least possible amount of limits imposed on their actions -- hence the conclusion reached by the Enlightenment philosophers that each human has the inherent right to act as he chooses so long as his actions don't forcibly prevent any other human from acting as he chooses.
My rights impose no obligation on you except of a negative kind -- leave me alone. Your rights impose no obligation on me except of a negative kind -- leave you alone.
pinky
--------------------
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 1 month
|
Re: Question RE: "Natural Rights" [Re: TrueBrode]
#2482224 - 03/29/04 10:48 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
TrueBrode writes:
...your first statement is atypical to the "anarchical" or "natural state" that most philosophers characterize null law by, which is also independent of the the number of individuals.
"Most" philosophers? Let's have some names here. Name three who say that the concept of "rights" is a valid one in the absence of multiple humans. And it appears to have escaped your attention, but I was referring to a null concept, not a null law.
Your second statement asserts that "society" now follows the definition of two people on an island/shared geographical space interacting, which is a simplistic, non-relational definition.
I suggest you re-read my statement. Here it is:
The concept of "rights" requires the context of "society", where society is defined as two or more humans interacting within the same geographical boundaries.
What part of "two or more" are you having difficulty grasping? You are surely not trying to tell us that "society" consists of a single individual, are you? Or that "society" consists of five humans located on five widely separated continents who have no interaction with each other and may even be completely unaware of the existence of the others?
As for "simplistic", it is not necessary to enumerate all the various interactions which make up any given society in order to describe concisely the concept of "society" -- it is sufficient to say that the humans of any society interact with one another. The number, frequency, and nature of the interactions vary from society to society.
As for "non-relational", see above. The relation between the humans of the society is that they interact.
You might want to read a work or two on epistemology -- specifically "concept-formation" -- before continuing this discussion.
pinky
--------------------
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 1 month
|
Re: Question RE: "Natural Rights" [Re: phi1618]
#2482263 - 03/29/04 11:01 PM (19 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
phi1618 writes:
If you are stranded on a desert island, and I wash ashore, it is my hope that you will share what you have, and that we can cooperate in the future to improve our common lot.
One need not even be civilized in order to recognize the value of cooperation, particularly in such a situation as two humans alone against the wilderness.
In the "natural state", the man who comes along has the freedom to take what he can.
Correct. Yet multiple humans interacting are no longer in the "natural state", but the "societal state". You have the freedom to subdue me and steal my stuff, but not the right to do so.
Since there is no society, no moral code, no platform from which to judge the situation, there is no right and no wrong.
Ah, but there is a society -- albeit it a very small one. And there is a moral code or platform which applies to the situation, whether either of the actors recognizes it yet or not. There is a right and a wrong. The fact that one (or even both) of the players choose not to act rightly doesn't change that.
He would not be in violation of my rights to take what I produced, or even to kill me and eat my carcass.
Why do you say that?
Would you say the same thing if there were three humans on the island rather than two? Ten humans? A hundred?
At what number does the concept of "rights" become valid? Or are you saying it never becomes valid, that "might makes right" regardless of the number of humans involved?
pinky
--------------------
|
|