Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

The right to die?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
    This is helpful. I think we have another disconnect, though. I don't know if there's a proper term for it, but I think of it as directionality. That is, a right to X doesn't necessarily imply a right to not have Y happen. If you had a right to turn around, that doesn't mean you have a right to not turn around (if that makes sense). I can protect one without the other.

    I use directionality because it brings to mind the focus of the law. Is the focus to preserve a certain thing or to prevent something else? A right to life focuses on preserving life, and therefore involves laws against murder. A right to not be murdered focuses on murder specifically. I can use a right to life to justify a lot of other things. I can't use a right to not be murdered the same way. Even though the end result is the same, the intent and implications are very different.
    In my position, universal rights are necessarily negative rights. (I find that positive universal rights lead to contradiction.) Thus a right to do X is the same as an obligation of everyone else to not forcibly prevent you. The right to life is just the right not to be murdered--thus obligation of everyone else not to murder you.

    I think this also answers your objection to Sea of Red, "Would you tell a snake that bites you that it violated your rights?". No because snakes can't understand the concept of obligations. Humans can.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Abigail View Post
      I agree with this DX, however as a Christian I find myself experiencing an uneasiness about some of the terminology used in articulating these discussions and there definitely needs to be more emphasis on the fact that de legislating does not mean something is suddenly 'right'. No one has a 'right' to take their own life as far a I am concerned. As I Christian I don't think I could spend my time seeking 'rights' for people to do things I believe are wrong. Surely as Christians we should be about our own business - the laws they pass or repeal outside the Church are only of interest to me in as far as I have a say in how I want society to operate and in that capacity I vote with my Christian conscience because I believe that will ensure the best society for all. If the vote goes against me then so be it, I know I have voted for what I believe will ultimately benefit all. My major concern is within the church. If the laws outside come into conflict with my way of life then I suffer as a Christian for my beliefs and am prepared to do that because they are important to me. Just like Christians before us have done.
      The problem is that the word "right" here is equivocal. You are using it in one sense to mean "moral" (right versus wrong) and in other to refer to things we inherently posses not do or not to do. We have the "right" to be completely unpleasant human beings. It is not right to be so.

      How we "want" society to operate does not give us the right to force others, neither is it right.

      And no, delegislating something does not make it moral. In fact, the LP Platform addresses this specifically:

      "Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and must accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make. Our support of an individualís right to make choices in life does not mean that we necessarily approve or disapprove of those choices. No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government."
      The State. Ideas so good they have to be mandatory.

      sigpic

      Comment


      • FWIW, I use my government name now.
        The State. Ideas so good they have to be mandatory.

        sigpic

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Joel View Post
          In my position, universal rights are necessarily negative rights. (I find that positive universal rights lead to contradiction.) Thus a right to do X is the same as an obligation of everyone else to not forcibly prevent you. The right to life is just the right not to be murdered--thus obligation of everyone else not to murder you.
          Yes.

          And so to enforce right means to enforce restriction on liberty on everyone else, and this is done by ruling power/government/state/whatever you call it. More rights --> more restrictions on everyone.

          Vive Liberty!!!
          Last edited by demi-conservative; 11-05-2016, 03:12 AM.
          Remember that you are dust and to dust you shall return.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
            You don't have a right to not be bodily harmed. It's absurd on the face of it. We don't want to be harmed, and we attempt to codify what will happen to someone who does harm us. Protection against harm isn't a mandate, though, even if it were possible to achieve.
            "Natural rights" by non-theists is trying to invoke bits and pieces of natural law without talking about natural law
            Remember that you are dust and to dust you shall return.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Joel View Post
              Going by the traditional understanding of justice:
              Justice has to do with the morality of human interactions--specifically interactions that physically interfere with one another without consent.
              Originally posted by Darth Xena View Post
              How we "want" society to operate does not give us the right to force others, neither is it right.
              Parenthood. So good it must be mandatory!!!

              (cue convenient redefinition of consent )
              Remember that you are dust and to dust you shall return.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by demi-conservative View Post
                "Natural rights" by non-theists is trying to invoke bits and pieces of natural law without talking about natural law
                I suspect you should be directing this to SoR. I've explicitly stated that I do not accept natural rights.

                ETA: Not that there's anything wrong with natural law. The concept doesn't necessarily overlap with natural rights claims.
                Last edited by Carrikature; 11-05-2016, 04:50 PM.
                I'm not here anymore.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by demi-conservative View Post
                  "Natural rights" by non-theists is trying to invoke bits and pieces of natural law without talking about natural law
                  Don't come back to this thread.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
                    There is no such right. This is what I mean by nonsensical claims. You don't have a right to not be bodily harmed. It's absurd on the face of it. We don't want to be harmed, and we attempt to codify what will happen to someone who does harm us. Protection against harm isn't a mandate, though, even if it were possible to achieve. Would you tell a snake that bites you that it violated your rights? Of course not.
                    No, I wouldn't tell a snake it violated my rights since it's not a human and isn't capable of morality or logical thinking.

                    Who do you think buys this stuff outside of Teal?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Sea of red View Post
                      No, I wouldn't tell a snake it violated my rights since it's not a human and isn't capable of morality or logical thinking.

                      Who do you think buys this stuff outside of Teal?



                      Mostly people who know what they are talking about. If you have a right not to be bodily harmed then that right is not limited by the cognition of the <insert noun here> doing the injury. The right to life means that the government can redress death by any unlawful cause - so a dog that mauls someone can be put down even though it does not belong to the court - the right to life supersedes the right to property. Those codified rights, as Carry puts it, are sufficient - dog doesn't even have to have killed its victim.

                      Legal protections against bodily harm are not the same thing as a right not to be bodily harmed.

                      "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot


                      "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                      My Personal Blog

                      My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Sea of red View Post
                        No, I wouldn't tell a snake it violated my rights since it's not a human and isn't capable of morality or logical thinking.
                        And where in the concept of natural rights is morality or logical thinking embedded? Natural rights are intrinsic to human existence. They don't stop being rights because other beings don't share our abilities.


                        Originally posted by Sea of red View Post
                        Who do you think buys this stuff outside of Teal?
                        Oh, you know, philosophers throughout history. Start with John Stuart Mill and expand from there. Just because you start with your own assumptions and go from there doesn't mean everyone else does.
                        I'm not here anymore.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                          Mostly people who know what they are talking about. If you have a right not to be bodily harmed then that right is not limited by the cognition of the <insert noun here> doing the injury. The right to life means that the government can redress death by any unlawful cause - so a dog that mauls someone can be put down even though it does not belong to the court - the right to life supersedes the right to property. Those codified rights, as Carry puts it, are sufficient - dog doesn't even have to have killed its victim.

                          Legal protections against bodily harm are not the same thing as a right not to be bodily harmed.
                          You proved my point. The dog being put down is because myself and others have a right to be protected from dangerous animals. Courts are not punishing the dog rather, they are euthanizing it because it will be unsafe as a pet, or as a wild animal.

                          Good job.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
                            And where in the concept of natural rights is morality or logical thinking embedded?
                            I wasn't implying anything about either. My point was animals are incapable of human reasoning. I figured you'd get the sarcasm, but I was mistaken.

                            Comment


                            • I've grown bored with this discussion guys - it's getting long in the tooth. I'm happy it lasted this long and that I've gotten to speak my peace on this issue. Maybe we can talk about this again in the future but I've had my fill for awhile, and I'd like to move on to other topics.

                              Let this thread be a free for all.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Sea of red View Post
                                Don't come back to this thread.


                                Originally posted by Sea of red View Post
                                Let this thread be a free for all.


                                Right, so:

                                Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
                                I suspect you should be directing this to SoR. I've explicitly stated that I do not accept natural rights.
                                Well, maybe he would take it badly (or so I thought)!! But then he did take it badly even if not directly addressed to him so

                                ETA: Not that there's anything wrong with natural law. The concept doesn't necessarily overlap with natural rights claims.
                                I have nothing against natural law. What is just funny is I see non-theists rejecting it then trying to introduce bits and pieces through back door in form of 'natural right', eg 'I declare this naturalright exists!!!! (even though I obviously can't prove existence of this right). But I *insist* it does!!!'

                                Remember that you are dust and to dust you shall return.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Reepicheep, Yesterday, 08:50 AM
                                8 responses
                                120 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post LeaC
                                by LeaC
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 01-16-2021, 04:20 PM
                                59 responses
                                449 views
                                5 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by Sparko, 01-16-2021, 09:35 AM
                                8 responses
                                92 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post LeaC
                                by LeaC
                                 
                                Started by CivilDiscourse, 01-15-2021, 06:39 PM
                                18 responses
                                161 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by seer, 01-15-2021, 02:30 PM
                                7 responses
                                67 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post seer
                                by seer
                                 
                                Working...
                                X