 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Economy Forum » What is a Right?... |
|
Page 1 of 8 Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Immortalist... |
 Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 12:34 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
....a right is a moral claim belonging to an individual that prohibits
all other persons from acting in certain ways toward that individual.
For example, your right to life prohibits all other persons from
killing you. Similarly, your right to liberty prohibits all other
persons from enslaving you, kidnapping you, or holding you prisoner
against your will. Such rights are often said to be moral fences: They
surround people and protect them from outside interference. They are
said to be "negative rights" in that they stipulate things that other
people may not do in their interactions with some individual. Your
right to life says that I may not kill you. My right to liberty says
that you may not enslave me.
Modern Political Philosophy by Richard Hudelson
http://www.amazon.com/Modern-Political-Philosophy-Explorations/dp/0765600226/
http://tinyurl.com/ModPolitPhlosophy |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Matlockz... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 12:36 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 24, 6:34 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]...a right is a moral claim belonging to an individual that prohibits
all other persons from acting in certain ways toward that individual.
For example, your right to life prohibits all other persons from
killing you. Similarly, your right to liberty prohibits all other
persons from enslaving you, kidnapping you, or holding you prisoner
against your will. Such rights are often said to be moral fences: They
surround people and protect them from outside interference. They are
said to be "negative rights" in that they stipulate things that other
people may not do in their interactions with some individual. Your
right to life says that I may not kill you. My right to liberty says
that you may not enslave me.
Modern Political Philosophy by Richard Hudelsonhttp://www.amazon.com/Modern-Political-Philosophy-Explorations/dp/076...http://tinyurl.com/ModPolitPhlosophy
[/quote]
too late jerk |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Immortalist... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 1:00 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 24, 3:36 pm, Matlockz <Veggy... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 24, 6:34 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
...a right is a moral claim belonging to an individual that prohibits
all other persons from acting in certain ways toward that individual.
For example, your right to life prohibits all other persons from
killing you. Similarly, your right to liberty prohibits all other
persons from enslaving you, kidnapping you, or holding you prisoner
against your will. Such rights are often said to be moral fences: They
surround people and protect them from outside interference. They are
said to be "negative rights" in that they stipulate things that other
people may not do in their interactions with some individual. Your
right to life says that I may not kill you. My right to liberty says
that you may not enslave me.
Modern Political Philosophy by Richard Hudelsonhttp://www.amazon.com/Modern-Political-Philosophy-Explorations/dp/076...
too late jerk
[/quote]
Too late for what Matlockz? Also, he he, didn't your girlfriend ever
hint that it is never reject an argument on the basis of some
irrelevant fact about the author (me) or the person presenting the
claim or argument, she should have been honest and relayed something
you appear to have missed about communication with other people;
namely that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do
not have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or
the quality of the argument being made).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAejavoI4Lc
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Michael Gordge... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 1:00 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 25, 7:34 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]...a right is a moral claim belonging to an individual that prohibits
all other persons from acting in certain ways toward that individual.
For example, your right to life prohibits all other persons from
killing you.
[/quote]
Without including a meaning for "moral" and explaining how moral is
determined from immoral, your statement is noithing more than an
arbitrary crock of silly meaningless Kantian regurgitation.
MG |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Immortalist... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 1:13 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 24, 4:00 pm, Michael Gordge <mikegor... at (no spam) xtra.co.nz> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 25, 7:34 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
...a right is a moral claim belonging to an individual that prohibits
all other persons from acting in certain ways toward that individual.
For example, your right to life prohibits all other persons from
killing you.
Without including a meaning for "moral" and explaining how moral is
determined from immoral, your statement is noithing more than an
arbitrary crock of silly meaningless Kantian regurgitation.
MG
[/quote]
Suppose there is a dispute about a standard of knowledge; for instance
how much we should include definitions of common terms. If the dispute
is to be settled rationally, there must be some means for settling it.
It would do no good of each side simply to assert its position without
argument. In order for you to say something is lacking you have no
choice but to be prepared to explain the standard or criterion that
you are prescribing.
So even if you provide an excelent standard of degree of explaination
how is it to be defended? It could only be defended by reference to
some standard or other. If the standard under dispute is invoked, then
the question has been begged. If another standard is appealed to, the
question arises again, to be answered either by circular reasoning or
by appeal to yet another standard. So either the process of invoking
standards does not terminate, or it ends in circular reasoning, and in
neither case would the dispute be settled rationally.
Here is a better description of the word game your attempting to gain
status over;
....a problem in any situation where a statement has to be justified.
According to this argument, any proposition requires a justification.
However, any justification itself requires support, since nothing is
true “just because”. This means that any proposition whatsoever can be
endlessly questioned, like a child who asks "why?" over and over
again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regress_argument
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=regress+argument
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwjpEAYtySU
What Justifies the Statement of meaning?
....Given that a natural language such as English contains, at any
given time, a finite number of words, any comprehensive list of
definitions must either be circular or leave some terms undefined. If
every term of every definiens must itself be defined, where should we
stop? A dictionary, for instance, insofar as it is a comprehensive
list of lexical definitions, must eventually resort to circularity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition
Suppose I want to say that a proposition, P, is true. But in order to
claim that P is true, I have to have a criterion of truth. What is a
criterion of truth? Well, it's something that will let us determine
whether a given claim is true or false. An example of a criterion of
truth would be: If I very clearly and distinctly understand that P,
then P is true. (That was actually a criterion that Descartes gave,
but I'm only telling it to you to give you an example.)
So suppose I've said that P, and I've offered some criterion, call the
criterion C, that tells me that P is true. So what more does Sextus
want? He says: but look, your criterion, C, is another claim. And so
it, too, can be judged true or false only by a criterion. And look, if
I apply the criterion to itself, I'm arguing in a circle; I'm begging
the question. That is, if I say that C is true because it meets the
criterion C, then I have presupposed just what I was trying to prove.
And what good is that? That's begging the question, which is off-
limits. So, Sextus said, you'd have to use some other criterion --
criterion D, say. But then D is yet another claim, and you need some
other criterion to judge it. Like criterion E. Well, you can see where
this is going. It's another regress and it looks like it can't stop.
Well, let's go back to the original claim, that P, and the original
criterion that we used to judge it, namely C. Maybe we could say: a
bunch of propositions are all known to be true; since criterion C just
summarizes why they're all true. They are all very clearly and
distinctly understood, say; so criterion C says, "Whatever is very
clearly and distinctly understood is true." Then we have argued for
criterion C without using another criterion -- we've just used a lot
of individual claims.
I think you might very rightly find this confusing. If criterion C
does summarize why a lot of individual claims are true, how does that
show that we still don't need a criterion to know that C is true? In
fact here's a good idea of what that particular criterion might be:
"If a criterion summarizes why a lot of propositions are true, then
the criterion is true." That's a criterion of truth that applies to
criteria of truth!
It looks like there's no way out of using a criterion of truth, if we
ever want to argue for a criterion of truth! And if Sextus Empiricus
is right, we always have to use a criterion of truth if we want to be
justified in saying that a particular claim is true. But then we are
faced with circularity or regress. Either we argue in a circle and say
that a criterion applies to itself, or we appeal to an infinite
regress of criteria.
Now this view is, I think, philosophical poison. It's really
insidious. If you think you must have a criterion, or some sort of
standard that you use to judge claims true, in order to be justified
in saying something is true, then you're going to end up facing
skepticism. I want to give you what I, and quite a few other
philosophers regard as the antidote to this poison. The antidote is
due to two philosophers we've encountered before: Thomas Reid, and G.
E. Moore. And this is called the method of common sense.
Reid pointed out that whenever we investigate anything at all,
whenever we start thinking about some subject, we have to make
assumptions. There isn't any way to avoid that. If you try to support
your assumptions with reasons, you're going to end up assuming
something else. So since we know in advance that we are going to have
to make some assumptions, whenever we do philosophy, then what we have
to do is clear: we have to assume those things that are most obvious,
the matters of common sense that no one ever seriously doubts.
http://www.infomutt.com/c/co/common_sense_and_the_diallelus.html |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Immortalist... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 1:18 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 24, 4:15 pm, Peter Principle <petesfe... at (no spam) SNIPITgmail.com>
wrote:
[quote]On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 15:34:08 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist
reanimater_2... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
...a right is a moral claim belonging to an individual that prohibits
all other persons from acting in certain ways toward that individual.
Um, no. Not even close. Not even in Lower Wingnuttia...
Rights are that which are due to anyone by just claim, legal guarantees,
moral principles, etc.
[/quote]
I said moral claim and you said "just claim, legal guarantees and
moral principles", then you implied that my use of "moral claims" is
contradictory with your definition. Can you please explain your
implication that it is impossible for my definition to sufficiently
contain your subjects? Friend, thats what you must do since your
implication is dangling.
[quote]Now, is this concise, authoritative definition clear enough for you or shall
we tattoo it backwards on your protruding brow for easy future reference?
[/quote]
Overconfidence will cripple you when the wrong person doesn't live up
to your expectations.
[quote]---
Welcome to reality. Enjoy your visit. Slow thinkers keep right.
------
Why are so many not smart enough to know they're not smart enough?
http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
© 1999 by the American Psychological Association
December 1999 Vol. 77, No. 6, 1121-1134
Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own
Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments
Justin Kruger and David Dunning
Department of Psychology
Cornell University
ABSTRACT:
...the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile
on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test
performance and ability. Although their test scores put them in the
12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd.[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Michael Gordge... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 1:44 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 25, 8:13 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]
Suppose there is a dispute about a standard of knowledge; for instance
[/quote]
For fucks sake, it was a straight forward simple request, you claimed
that a right was a "moral choice", which means absolutely nothing
without you also explaining the meaning of moral, how do your
distinguish moral from immoral, in the context that you have chosen to
use it.
Try 100 words or less and try even harder to make them your own.
MG |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Immortalist... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 1:45 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 24, 4:30 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]Immortalist wrote:
...a right is a moral claim belonging to an individual that prohibits
all other persons from acting in certain ways toward that individual.
Its much more complicated than that.
For example, your right to life prohibits all other persons from killing you.
It also means that you have a right to assistence to stop you from dying as well.
[/quote]
My claim in that sentence was about a "negative right" which regulates
extrinsic actions; "your right to life prohibits all other persons
from killing you" but your claim adresses "intrinsic needs" or actions
that are positive from outside the individual to help the individual
live a normal life, "a right to assistence to stop you from dying as
well" unless you can give an example that determines you statement as
negatively regulating peoples actions towards each other, as in
warfare, I would automatically think that your statement is like a
positive right where the government legislates an obligation for
people to attain at least some minimal standard of living.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_of_living
1. Negative right: Negative rights are rights from certain things,
usually freedoms from abuse or coercion by others, as opposed to
positive rights which are the rights or guarantees to certain things.
One example of a negative right is the 1st Amendment of the
constitution of the USA, which prevents free speech from being reduced
by laws.
2. Positive right: Positive rights are rights or guarantees to certain
things, as opposed to negative rights which are the rights from
certain things, usually freedoms from abuse or coercion by others. For
example, a right to an education is a positive right because education
must be provided by a series of positive actions by others. A school
system, teachers and materials must be actively provided in order for
such a right to be fulfilled.
The right to be secure in one's home, however, is a negative right. In
order for it to be fulfilled, others need take no particular action
but merely refrain from certain actions, specifically trespassing or
breaking into the home in question.
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Negative_right
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Positive_right
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Positive_Liberty
[quote]Similarly, your right to liberty prohibits all other persons from enslaving
you, kidnapping you, or holding you prisoner against your will.
Such rights are often said to be moral fences:
Only by fools.
They surround people and protect them from outside interference.
They are said to be "negative rights" in that they stipulate things that
other people may not do in their interactions with some individual.
Your right to life says that I may not kill you. My right to liberty
says that you may not enslave me.
Modern Political Philosophy by Richard Hudelson
http://www.amazon.com/Modern-Political-Philosophy-Explorations/dp/076...
http://tinyurl.com/ModPolitPhlosophy
Just another completely mindless steaming turd.
[/quote]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SaSDSnzGv4 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Immortalist... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 2:16 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 24, 4:44 pm, Michael Gordge <mikegor... at (no spam) xtra.co.nz> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 25, 8:13 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
Suppose there is a dispute about a standard of knowledge; for instance
For fucks sake, it was a straight forward simple request, you claimed
that a right was a "moral choice", which means absolutely nothing
without you also explaining the meaning of moral, how do your
distinguish moral from immoral, in the context that you have chosen to
use it.
[/quote]
OK how does Ayn Rand define "moral"? Is that what your nitpicking
about? If you would just relax, maybe it would be good for you to read
the junk I copied, edited and then pasted. But you want to make moral
choices about my hard art work there, peace out man.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVzcs9Ygb5Q
[quote]Try 100 words or less and try even harder to make them your own.
[/quote]
Why?
> MG |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Matlockz... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 2:26 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 24, 8:16 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 24, 4:44 pm, Michael Gordge <mikegor... at (no spam) xtra.co.nz> wrote:
On Oct 25, 8:13 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
Suppose there is a dispute about a standard of knowledge; for instance
For fucks sake, it was a straight forward simple request, you claimed
that a right was a "moral choice", which means absolutely nothing
without you also explaining the meaning of moral, how do your
distinguish moral from immoral, in the context that you have chosen to
use it.
OK how does Ayn Rand define "moral"? Is that what your nitpicking
about? If you would just relax, maybe it would be good for you to read
the junk I copied, edited and then pasted. But you want to make moral
choices about my hard art work there, peace out man.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVzcs9Ygb5Q
Try 100 words or less and try even harder to make them your own.
Why?
MG- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
vuk off jerk |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| turtoni... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 2:42 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Our rights are bound by the; to be, or not to be caged up: that is the
law of group consciousness. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| *Anarcissie*... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 3:08 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 24, 6:34 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]...a right is a moral claim...
[/quote]
That depends on the political framework you're using.
In liberalism, a right is an area of freedom and possibly
of entitlement within a legal framework that both limits
and protects it. But the political decision to employ
such a framework might be, say, utilitarian or
traditional rather than moral.
[quote]belonging to an individual
[/quote]
Rights could belong to groups or categories.
[quote]that prohibits
all other persons from acting in certain ways toward that individual.
For example, your right to life prohibits all other persons from
killing you. Similarly, your right to liberty prohibits all other
persons from enslaving you, kidnapping you, or holding you prisoner
against your will. Such rights are often said to be moral fences: They
surround people and protect them from outside interference. They are
said to be "negative rights" in that they stipulate things that other
people may not do in their interactions with some individual. Your
right to life says that I may not kill you. My right to liberty says
that you may not enslave me.
Modern Political Philosophy by Richard Hudelsonhttp://www.amazon.com/Modern-Political-Philosophy-Explorations/dp/076...[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter Principle... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 5:15 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 15:34:08 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist
<reanimater_2000 at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]...a right is a moral claim belonging to an individual that prohibits
all other persons from acting in certain ways toward that individual.
[/quote]
Um, no. Not even close. Not even in Lower Wingnuttia...
Rights are that which are due to anyone by just claim, legal guarantees,
moral principles, etc.
Now, is this concise, authoritative definition clear enough for you or shall
we tattoo it backwards on your protruding brow for easy future reference?
---
Welcome to reality. Enjoy your visit. Slow thinkers keep right.
------
Why are so many not smart enough to know they're not smart enough?
http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
© 1999 by the American Psychological Association
December 1999 Vol. 77, No. 6, 1121-1134
Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own
Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments
Justin Kruger and David Dunning
Department of Psychology
Cornell University
ABSTRACT:
....the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile
on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test
performance and ability. Although their test scores put them in the
12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Michael Coburn... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 5:30 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 15:34:08 -0700, Immortalist wrote:
[quote]...a right is a moral claim belonging to an individual that prohibits
all other persons from acting in certain ways toward that individual.
[/quote]
Prohibit = stop by force of law or moral convention or religion.
[quote]For example, your right to life prohibits all other persons from killing
you.
[/quote]
Yet they will do so anyway if not actually prevented by virtue of their
mutual respect. An unenforced right without mutual agreement is as
worthless as tits on a boar hog.
[quote]Similarly, your right to liberty prohibits all other persons from
enslaving you, kidnapping you, or holding you prisoner against your
will. Such rights are often said to be moral fences: They surround
people and protect them from outside interference. They are said to be
"negative rights" in that they stipulate things that other people may
not do in their interactions with some individual. Your right to life
says that I may not kill you. My right to liberty says that you may not
enslave me.
[/quote]
Notice how right is transferred here from the self to someone other then
the self as we move from life to liberty. The rich guy can't kill you
but you can't take is stuff either. The reciprocal is not mentioned.
Like he doesn't talk about his right to take your stuff so long as he
doesn't kill you. He doesn't talk you killing him or his taking of your
stuff. That part is not relevant.
[quote]Modern Political Philosophy by Richard Hudelson
http://www.amazon.com/Modern-Political-Philosophy-Explorations/
dp/0765600226/
http://tinyurl.com/ModPolitPhlosophy
[/quote]
The rightarded definition of rights as above?
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Rod Speed... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 5:30 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Immortalist wrote:
[quote]...a right is a moral claim belonging to an individual that prohibits
all other persons from acting in certain ways toward that individual.
[/quote]
Its much more complicated than that.
[quote]For example, your right to life prohibits all other persons from killing you.
[/quote]
It also means that you have a right to assistence to stop you from dying as well.
[quote]Similarly, your right to liberty prohibits all other persons from enslaving
you, kidnapping you, or holding you prisoner against your will.
Such rights are often said to be moral fences:
[/quote]
Only by fools.
[quote]They surround people and protect them from outside interference.
They are said to be "negative rights" in that they stipulate things that
other people may not do in their interactions with some individual.
Your right to life says that I may not kill you. My right to liberty
says that you may not enslave me.
Modern Political Philosophy by Richard Hudelson
http://www.amazon.com/Modern-Political-Philosophy-Explorations/dp/0765600226/
http://tinyurl.com/ModPolitPhlosophy
[/quote]
Just another completely mindless steaming turd. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Mon Dec 14, 2009 6:38 pm
|
|