| Topic: |
Science > Philosophy |
| User: |
"George Dance" |
| Date: |
04 Nov 2005 05:50:18 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Rights In The Desert |
Dare wrote:
"tg" <tgdenning@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1130848715.733581.251180@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
In the desert, there is a cave containing an inexhaustible spring. An
ancient gate exists which is impregnable, and can be latched from the
inside. This cave has been unknown for 5,000 years.
Subject A comes on the cave and enters in, drinking water from the
spring. Some time later, subject B approaches, and subject A locks the
gate. There is a reasonable probability that B will die of thirst, but
as with all probabilities we can't be certain.
Does subject A have a RIGHT to lock the gate?
To me, it seems the "legal" right depends on the
human law of the land.
The "ethical" or "moral" right depends on the conscience
of the one judging.
The "de facto" right is whatever can they can get away with.
If A falls in the spring and is drowning, no one can help
him if he keeps the gate locked from inside.
Yep. A is locked in a cave with no one to help him, and apparently no
food. He could very well decide to let B in (assuming, of course, that
he has a right to do that.)
OTOH, B may (for all we know) be a notorious psycho killer, who's
outside the gate screaming at A to open the gate so he can kill and eat
him. In that case, A may very well decide to keep the gate closed.
tg's question was not, though, should A keep the gate closed, but does
A have a right to keep the gate closed: ie: if A does decide to exclude
B from entry to the cave, is it wrong for him to act on that?
OTOH, there's someone outside the gate who may be a psycho killer for
all we know.
.
|
|
| User: "Publius" |
|
| Title: Re: Rights In The Desert |
04 Nov 2005 01:09:28 PM |
|
|
"George Dance" <georgedance04@yahoo.ca> wrote in
news:1131105018.641955.159130@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
tg's question was not, though, should A keep the gate closed, but does
A have a right to keep the gate closed: ie: if A does decide to exclude
B from entry to the cave, is it wrong for him to act on that?
That inference has been drawn repeatedly in this thread. I.e., that if A
has a right to the spring, then it cannot be wrong for him to close the
gate. But that doesn't follow. One may have a right to X, and still act
wrongly if one refuses to share X.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dutch" |
|
| Title: Re: Rights In The Desert |
05 Nov 2005 01:23:53 AM |
|
|
"Publius" <m.publius@nospam.comcast.net> wrote
"George Dance" <georgedance04@yahoo.ca> wrote
tg's question was not, though, should A keep the gate closed, but does
A have a right to keep the gate closed: ie: if A does decide to exclude
B from entry to the cave, is it wrong for him to act on that?
That inference has been drawn repeatedly in this thread. I.e., that if A
has a right to the spring, then it cannot be wrong for him to close the
gate. But that doesn't follow. One may have a right to X, and still act
wrongly if one refuses to share X.
Then what validity does his so-called morally obtained property right have?
Where do all these considerations emanate from that can dictate to a moral
agent what he must do with with his morally obtained property if not from
some overriding unstated moral principle? This indicates to me that
"property" rights, as opposed to "person" rights, are *not* absolute, but
malleable social conveniences.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Publius" |
|
| Title: Re: Rights In The Desert |
05 Nov 2005 01:42:16 AM |
|
|
"Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote in news:d6Zaf.405400$oW2.364012@pd7tw1no:
That inference has been drawn repeatedly in this thread. I.e., that
if A has a right to the spring, then it cannot be wrong for him to
close the gate. But that doesn't follow. One may have a right to X,
and still act wrongly if one refuses to share X.
Then what validity does his so-called morally obtained property right
have? Where do all these considerations emanate from that can dictate
to a moral agent what he must do with with his morally obtained
property if not from some overriding unstated moral principle? This
indicates to me that "property" rights, as opposed to "person" rights,
are *not* absolute, but malleable social conveniences.
All rights are property rights. Your rights to your body and to your house
have the same basis. They are morally indistinguishable.
I've stated the "overriding principle" several times. It is, "Do no harm."
A's duty to share the water derives from a second principle, namely,
"Prevent harm to others if you can do so without significant harm to
yourself." It is called the Duty to Aid.
Notice that without a conception of property and rights, the Duty to Aid
would be incoherent. How can I give something of mine, if I can't tell what
is mine?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dutch" |
|
| Title: Re: Rights In The Desert |
05 Nov 2005 02:21:07 AM |
|
|
"Publius" <m.publius@nospam.comcast.net> wrote
"Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote
That inference has been drawn repeatedly in this thread. I.e., that
if A has a right to the spring, then it cannot be wrong for him to
close the gate. But that doesn't follow. One may have a right to X,
and still act wrongly if one refuses to share X.
Then what validity does his so-called morally obtained property right
have? Where do all these considerations emanate from that can dictate
to a moral agent what he must do with with his morally obtained
property if not from some overriding unstated moral principle? This
indicates to me that "property" rights, as opposed to "person" rights,
are *not* absolute, but malleable social conveniences.
All rights are property rights. Your rights to your body and to your house
have the same basis. They are morally indistinguishable.
So you assert. I say they are very distinguishable, like Black and White.
I've stated the "overriding principle" several times. It is, "Do no harm."
That's not an absolute principle, there are many situations where one may
morally do harm. And it still doesn't mean that the right to own my car is
not a different type of right than a right to the sanctity of my body, and I
say it is. For example I may miss a payment on my car and have it removed
from my possession, no such vulnerability exists with my person.
A's duty to share the water derives from a second principle, namely,
"Prevent harm to others if you can do so without significant harm to
yourself." It is called the Duty to Aid.
That's all very nice, but if fundamental rights have all these unspoken
corollories that overrule them then how "fundamental" are they really? otoh,
one's right to personal safety is not morally compelled by a Duty to Aid.
although many people do risk their lives, one cannot be blamed for not doing
so.
Notice that without a conception of property and rights, the Duty to Aid
would be incoherent.
...or unecessary.
How can I give something of mine, if I can't tell what
is mine?
If it were considered community property in the first place there'd be no
confusion.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Rights In The Desert |
05 Nov 2005 02:32:55 AM |
|
|
Publius wrote:
All rights are property rights.
Thats pretty good. NOTE: keeping this in the context of their being no
laws.
Your rights to your body and to your house
have the same basis. They are morally indistinguishable.
Thats also not bad.
I've stated the "overriding principle" several times. It is, "Do no harm."
Not so good.
The over-riding principle is *the non-initiation of force*
Treat others as they deserve.
A's duty to share the water derives from a second principle, namely,
"Prevent harm to others if you can do so without significant harm to
yourself." It is called the Duty to Aid.
Real bad.
There is no such *duty* associated with property rights. *A* has no
duty owing to anything or anyone, but to his own values, that duty is
called *virtue* his actions must not contradict his values.
If *A's* standard of moral value was human life, then he would
contradict that value by not offering B water (on the condition of
course he has no reason to suspect harm from B), HOWEVER there is no
*duty* to offer B water, based on any principle associated with
property rights.
Notice that without a conception of property and rights, the Duty to Aid
would be incoherent. How can I give something of mine, if I can't tell what
is mine?
Doesn't make any sense.
Michael Gordge
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dutch" |
|
| Title: Re: Rights In The Desert |
05 Nov 2005 04:10:37 AM |
|
|
<mikegordge@xtra.co.nz> wrote
Publius wrote:
All rights are property rights.
Thats pretty good. NOTE: keeping this in the context of their being no
laws.
That's bad, it serves no purpose to conflate property and personal rights,
and it leads to anti-social ideas, like valuing possessions above people.
Your rights to your body and to your house
have the same basis. They are morally indistinguishable.
Thats also not bad.
It's also bad. It's morally worse to take a person's life than to take their
house, or on another level, it's morally worse to assault or rape than to
steal a TV.
I've stated the "overriding principle" several times. It is, "Do no
harm."
Not so good.
It's the Doctor's Oath, not the overriding principle of rights. One morally
may do harm to another person as long as it is justifiable, such as
testifying against them in court or stopping them from doing harm.
The over-riding principle is *the non-initiation of force*
Unless they deserve it.
Treat others as they deserve.
Right, but according to whom?
A's duty to share the water derives from a second principle, namely,
"Prevent harm to others if you can do so without significant harm to
yourself." It is called the Duty to Aid.
Real bad.
Pretty subjective, but shows compassion, makes sense in a moral structure.
There is no such *duty* associated with property rights. *A* has no
duty owing to anything or anyone, but to his own values, that duty is
called *virtue* his actions must not contradict his values.
That's kind of circular. If his duty is to his own values, and he has none,
then he has no duties, or he can change them at a whim.
If *A's* standard of moral value was human life, then he would
contradict that value by not offering B water (on the condition of
course he has no reason to suspect harm from B), HOWEVER there is no
*duty* to offer B water, based on any principle associated with
property rights.
Notice that without a conception of property and rights, the Duty to Aid
would be incoherent. How can I give something of mine, if I can't tell
what
is mine?
Doesn't make any sense.
Not a shred.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Rights In The Desert |
05 Nov 2005 06:10:43 PM |
|
|
Dutch wrote:
Treat others as they deserve.
Right, but according to whom?
Not whom WHAT.
*Treat others ss they deserve* according to many concepts totally
foriegn to you,
*reality* as determined through another foriegn concept to you *the
application of reason* and of course according to another totally
foriegn concept to you, non-contradiction, and finally here's another
totally forieng concept to you, *the non-initiation of force* and or
fraud.
Michael Gordge
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dutch" |
|
| Title: Re: Rights In The Desert |
05 Nov 2005 06:40:17 PM |
|
|
<mikegordge@xtra.co.nz> wrote
Dutch wrote:
Treat others as they deserve.
Right, but according to whom?
Not whom WHAT.
As decided by whom?
*Treat others ss they deserve* according to many concepts totally
foriegn to you,
No kidding...
*reality* as determined through another foriegn concept to you *the
application of reason* and of course according to another totally
foriegn concept to you, non-contradiction, and finally here's another
totally forieng concept to you, *the non-initiation of force* and or
fraud.
I'm the one who declined to initate force against the negro at the water
fountain. You disagreed with me. Yet you decline to use force against an
animal abuser (also illegal), preferring to have a pint with him and talk it
over rationally. Your contradictions are showing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Rights In The Desert |
07 Nov 2005 03:47:26 AM |
|
|
Dutch wrote:
As decided by whom?
Not *whom* as decided by *what*, you twit, it doesn't matter *who* if
its real its real.
I'm the one who declined to initate force against the negro at the water
fountain. You disagreed with me. Yet you decline to use force against an
animal abuser
Oh ***** you childish context dropping twit.
Michael Gordge
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dutch" |
|
| Title: Re: Rights In The Desert |
07 Nov 2005 04:19:09 AM |
|
|
<mikegordge@xtra.co.nz> wrote
Dutch wrote:
As decided by whom?
Not *whom* as decided by *what*, you twit, it doesn't matter *who* if
its real its real.
That's a tautology.
I'm the one who declined to initiate force against the negro at the water
fountain. You disagreed with me. Yet you decline to use force against an
animal abuser
Oh ***** you childish context dropping twit.
Stop initiating ill-advised ad hominem attacks on me and I'll stop making
you look foolish.
.
|
|
|
| User: "tg" |
|
| Title: Re: Rights In The Desert |
07 Nov 2005 09:00:09 AM |
|
|
Dutch wrote:
<mikegordge@xtra.co.nz> wrote
Dutch wrote:
As decided by whom?
Not *whom* as decided by *what*, you twit, it doesn't matter *who* if
its real its real.
That's a tautology.
I'm the one who declined to initiate force against the negro at the water
fountain. You disagreed with me. Yet you decline to use force against an
animal abuser
Oh ***** you childish context dropping twit.
Stop initiating ill-advised ad hominem attacks on me and I'll stop making
you look foolish.
I think we are seeing where the attempt to utilize moral systems rather
than legal systems leads. There is no point in trying to have a
philosophical discussion with fundatarians, as is also the case with
Abrahamic fundamentalists, because they have a different sense of
reality from people who use reason and science. This phenomenon is
variously described as groupthink, talk-show psychosis, or simply
adolescent group dynamics.
There are particular concepts---'the Bible is true', or SIN, or Angels,
or 'initiation of violence', which are never questioned within the
group, even though they have no basis in material or logical
space---that place where the reality based community does its thinking.
So one can tell them that one disagrees with some fundamental premise,
and they will continue to use it because they are used to simply
repeating the group thinking to each other. Original thought, or the
ability to examine the language and concepts they have been taught, is
something they just aren't familiar with.
The case presented here is particularly difficult for them because they
have no opportunity to bring out the well-practiced arguments. To make
their case, they would have to justify their arbitrary foundational
paradigms, which is of course impossible.
-tg
ps I see that your patience is not infinite; if I believed in morality
I would feel less morally inferior. ;-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dutch" |
|
| Title: Re: Rights In The Desert |
07 Nov 2005 03:04:19 PM |
|
|
"tg" <tgdenning@earthlink.net> wrote
ps I see that your patience is not infinite;
Far from it...
if I believed in morality
I would feel less morally inferior. ;-)
What do mean by "believe in"? :>)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Publius" |
|
| Title: Re: Rights In The Desert |
07 Nov 2005 01:07:12 PM |
|
|
"tg" <tgdenning@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:1131375608.994520.96830@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
The case presented here is particularly difficult for them because
they have no opportunity to bring out the well-practiced arguments. To
make their case, they would have to justify their arbitrary
foundational paradigms, which is of course impossible.
Have you ever considered presenting a substantive argument?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Science Proves Aggression a Myth (was Rights In The Desert) |
07 Nov 2005 05:00:01 PM |
|
|
tg wrote:
I think we are seeing where the attempt to utilize moral systems rather
than legal systems leads. There is no point in trying to have a
philosophical discussion with fundatarians, as is also the case with
Abrahamic fundamentalists, because they have a different sense of
reality from people who use reason and science. This phenomenon is
variously described as groupthink, talk-show psychosis, or simply
adolescent group dynamics.
There are particular concepts---'the Bible is true', or SIN, or Angels,
or 'initiation of violence', which are never questioned within the
group, even though they have no basis in material or logical
space---that place where the reality based community does its thinking.
Yes people, you read that correctly. According to tg, there's simply
no such thing as the 'initiation of violence' - no such thing as
aggression (and of course, therefore, no such thing as self-defence).
Sure, there may be plenty of violence around in 'material space', but
it's illogical to think that anyone ever starts any of it. How does
tg know that? Because "people" have used "reason and science" to
prove it.
Stay tuned for Part 2, where tg explains who those "people" are, and
outlines just how they proved, using "reason" and "science", the myth
of "the initiation of violence."
<cue the chirping crickets>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "tg" |
|
| Title: The Nature of Fundatarians |
08 Nov 2005 11:21:49 AM |
|
|
tg:
I think we are seeing where the attempt to utilize moral systems rather
than legal systems leads. There is no point in trying to have a
philosophical discussion with fundatarians, as is also the case with
Abrahamic fundamentalists, because they have a different sense of
reality from people who use reason and science. This phenomenon is
variously described as groupthink, talk-show psychosis, or simply
adolescent group dynamics.
There are particular concepts---'the Bible is true', or SIN, or Angels,
or 'initiation of violence', which are never questioned within the
group, even though they have no basis in material or logical
space---that place where the reality based community does its thinking.
So one can tell them that one disagrees with some fundamental premise,
and they will continue to use it because they are used to simply
repeating the group thinking to each other. Original thought, or the
ability to examine the language and concepts they have been taught, is
something they just aren't familiar with.
The case presented here is particularly difficult for them because they
have no opportunity to bring out the well-practiced arguments. To make
their case, they would have to justify their arbitrary foundational
paradigms, which is of course impossible.
-tg
To expand on this a bit, we should consider some further similarities
between fundie sub-species.
One really obvious one is that they both require you to prove the
non-existence of something which they can't describe in any way which
is subject to any kind of test.
Fundatarians are so brainwashed that they think 'prove that initiation
of agression doesn't exist' and 'prove that God doesn't exist' are
different statements. This is why the only rule I would have in my
abundance-driven utopia would be that fundatarians must take refresher
courses in science and logic every year.
-tg
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bret Cahill" |
|
| Title: Re: The Nature of Fundatarians |
08 Nov 2005 02:38:12 PM |
|
|
< To expand on this a bit, we should consider some further similarities
< between fundie sub-species.
< One really obvious one is that they both require you to prove the
< non-existence of something which they can't describe in any way which
< is subject to any kind of test.
As DeTocqueville pointed out, the slave only knows how to obey the
master, not reason.
This is true for the products of a wage slave society.
< Fundatarians are so brainwashed that they think 'prove that
initiation
< of agression doesn't exist' and 'prove that God doesn't exist' are
< different statements.
Well they are different. Same illogic but different statements.
< This is why the only rule I would have in my abundance-driven utopia
would be
< that fundatarians must take refresher courses in science and logic
every year.
Why punish teachers with retarded students?
Besides I need liberdopes to undermine GOP economists.
Bret Cahill
.
|
|
|
| User: "tg" |
|
| Title: Re: The Nature of Fundatarians |
09 Nov 2005 08:03:29 AM |
|
|
Bret Cahill wrote:
< To expand on this a bit, we should consider some further similarities
< between fundie sub-species.
< One really obvious one is that they both require you to prove the
< non-existence of something which they can't describe in any way which
< is subject to any kind of test.
As DeTocqueville pointed out, the slave only knows how to obey the
master, not reason.
This is true for the products of a wage slave society.
< Fundatarians are so brainwashed that they think 'prove that
initiation
< of agression doesn't exist' and 'prove that God doesn't exist' are
< different statements.
Well they are different. Same illogic but different statements.
I have to disagree on that. What's between the quotes is a meaningless
statement. And it extends beyond even this simple fallacy.
IDers say that they aren't talking about God, just something that they
can't define or identify, but it isn't evolution.
If you ask a fundatarian if there are rights outside the law, they will
say yes, but they aren't God-given rights, nor are they moral rights,
but they are NATURAL rights. What's a NATURAL right? Well, that's a
right which exists outside the law.
I think that maybe the same think-tank people came up with these
strategies and, as you or deT point out, people who can't think for
themselves have to be told what to say. The authoritarian streak runs
through both groups, and your label of fascist is not as much hyperbole
as one would wish.
-tg
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Rights In The Desert |
07 Nov 2005 05:09:25 AM |
|
|
Dutch wrote:
That's a tautology.
You asked, reality decided who?
I am pointing out to you, that it doesn't matter.
When it comes to facts - reality, then who says or thinks what is
totally irrelivent, because what is real is real, it is independent of
anyone talking, or thinking.
Stop initiating ill-advised ad hominem attacks
When context dropping, know *****-all cockheads like you, drop context
of what I have said, to make it look as if I have said the exact
opposite of what I actually said, then I will retaliate, it is NOT
initiation you twit, it is retaliation.
on me and I'll stop making
you look foolish.
Dreams are free, you knuckle dragging git.
Michael Gordge
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dutch" |
|
| Title: Re: Rights In The Desert |
07 Nov 2005 03:00:19 PM |
|
|
<mikegordge@xtra.co.nz> wrote
Dutch wrote:
That's a tautology.
You asked, reality decided who?
Nope, I did not. Your original statement was, "Treat others as they
deserve."
I ask deserve according to whom? The answer is simple, according to *you*.
That begs the question though, is your judgment objective? Are you being
fair?
"Deserving" is a human value judgment, not a point of fact.
I am pointing out to you, that it doesn't matter.
I am pointing out to you that you're wrong.
When it comes to facts - reality, then who says or thinks what is
totally irrelivent, because what is real is real, it is independent of
anyone talking, or thinking.
"Deserving", or justice if you will, is not a point of fact, it's a value
judgment. In legal matters it is often decided by a panel of 12 or a
"judge".
Stop initiating ill-advised ad hominem attacks
When context dropping, know *****-all cockheads like you, drop context
of what I have said, to make it look as if I have said the exact
opposite of what I actually said, then I will retaliate, it is NOT
initiation you twit, it is retaliation.
You initiated a poorly thought-out attack on my character because you carry
a chip on your shoulder, and you ended up looking stupid. Not my problem.
[..]
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Rights In The Desert |
07 Nov 2005 03:34:16 PM |
|
|
Dutch wrote:
"Deserving" is a human value judgment, not a point of fact.
Well of course socialist masochists and sadists like you would say
that, you've read someone else say it, haven't ewe sheeple Dutch?
Someome who holds *human life as the standard of moral values* is
guided very clearly, knows what is right and wrong, good and bad by
judging any action against that standard.
I am pointing out to you that you're wrong.
And I am pointing out to you that you are a jerk, a jerk who cant think
for himself, a jerk who wants to treat humans like animals.
"Deserving", or justice if you will, is not a point of fact, it's a value
judgment.
Yes well only a socialist jerk would not want justice or something
deserving, to be based on facts.
Justice is supposed to be *objective* - deal in facts - it requires
*standards* that are NOT fucken whimsical nonsense or based on the
mob's *feelings.* FFS Dutch.
You initiated a poorly thought-out attack on my character
*My character* now that is funny Dutch, you Socialists dont have your
own characters, its aganst the socialists law to allow people to think
and act for themselves, to have their own charater.
because you carry
a chip on your shoulder, and you ended up looking stupid. Not my problem.
Chip on my shoulder? Shucks Dutch thats nearly funny, I am not the one
who runs around with a gun forcing people to conform to my invented
values, I am not the one who thinks justice should be left to how
people fucken feel, I am no fucken socialist Dutch.
Its EWEs socialist sheeple with the whole fucken tree on BOTH shoulders
Dutch, its EWEs who has such a low regard of your fellow man, its YOU
who has no self made charater who have the problems Dutch.
Michael Gordge
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Publius" |
|
| Title: Re: Rights In The Desert |
05 Nov 2005 06:11:07 PM |
|
|
<mikegordge@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1131179575.769264.177470@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I've stated the "overriding principle" several times. It is, "Do no
harm."
Not so good.
The over-riding principle is *the non-initiation of force*
Same thing. A nominal harm done to rectify a harm is not a harm. It is the
alleviation of one.
Treat others as they deserve.
You can't know what they deserve until you know what their rights are.
A's duty to share the water derives from a second principle, namely,
"Prevent harm to others if you can do so without significant harm to
yourself." It is called the Duty to Aid.
Real bad.
There is no such *duty* associated with property rights. *A* has no
duty owing to anything or anyone, but to his own values, that duty is
called *virtue* his actions must not contradict his values.
Several confusions there. The duty to aid is not associated with the right.
It is a free-standing duty with its own justification. And surely A can have
many duties to B --- respecting B's rights, for example, or honoring any
contracts he may have entered into with B.
And of course, as Dutch pointed out, if one's only duties are to one's own
values, then you have no means of resolving conflicts between persons who
hold different values. Which is what moral theory is attempts to provide.
HINT: Values have no role in moral theory.
If *A's* standard of moral value was human life, then he would
contradict that value by not offering B water (on the condition of
course he has no reason to suspect harm from B), HOWEVER there is no
*duty* to offer B water, based on any principle associated with
property rights.
And if that wasn't a value of A's, then he would not have that duty. For
you, one's only duty is to avoid contradicting one's own values. But other
theories would posit that A may have that duty whether he values human life
(or B's life in particular) or not. And while he could not have that duty if
he had no rights to anything, the rights do not entail the duty.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dare" |
|
| Title: Re: Rights In The Desert |
04 Nov 2005 07:21:52 AM |
|
|
"George Dance" <georgedance04@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:1131105018.641955.159130@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
tg's question was not, though, should A keep the gate closed, but does
A have a right to keep the gate closed: ie: if A does decide to exclude
B from entry to the cave, is it wrong for him to act on that?
I'm not sure what you mean by "wrong"...
does wrong mean he:
"should not", "could not" or "better not!"
Every action has consequences.....
JMHO....based on what I observe in this world.
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: Rights In The Desert |
04 Nov 2005 08:47:47 PM |
|
|
Dare wrote:
"George Dance" <georgedance04@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:1131105018.641955.159130@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
tg's question was not, though, should A keep the gate closed, but does
A have a right to keep the gate closed: ie: if A does decide to exclude
B from entry to the cave, is it wrong for him to act on that?
I'm not sure what you mean by "wrong"...
does wrong mean he:
"should not", "could not" or "better not!"
Yes, no, and perhaps. It's wrong for him to lock the gate iff he
should not (or ought not to) lock the gate; and in that case he has no
right to do so (in ethics, "x has a right to have/do y" means no more
or less than "It is not wrong for x to have/do y"). 'Could not'
describes his physical power, not his moral status. 'Better not'
sounds more like a prudential judgement; which implies a distinct
judgement though not a different one - moral and prudential
considerations could very well lead to the same conclusions.
Every action has consequences.....
Indeed. If anyone thinks what A is doing is wrong, and can interfere,
they probably will; and what A is doing is wrong, it is not wrong for
anyone to interfere with what he is doing. .
That last is quite relevant, now that I think of it. The only thing A
can be doing that is conceivably wrong, in this case; is interfere with
B's getting a drink; and that can be wrong only if B's act to get a
drink is not wrong - which means that B has a right to get a drink.
So, interestingly, the truth turns out to be the opposite of what tg
wanted to show (that there are no such things as moral rights). In
this case, there is most certainly a moral right - either A has a right
to lock the gate, or B has a right to drink from the spring.
JMHO....based on what I observe in this world.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
