It would be difficult without force to do so, as history shows. But you would need to convince them that the slaves were human just as much as the slave owners. Maybe force isn't always necessary, since the British slave trade was eventually abolished by those who opposed it in Parliament. — Marchesk
Explain this and what it has to do with our subject, please. — David Mo
A law is a prescriptive act: it defines what can and cannot be done and what must be done. Therefore, if immorality refers to acts, you cannot separate the law from the acts, and the law that prescribes immoral acts is immoral. — David Mo
One of the issues with natural rights is that they're more or less only extant or operant if a given group of humans endorses and enforces them (where force as moral maintenance tends to be less necessary the more universally agreeable the status quo is).
that address what is moral or immoral as they don't prohibit or allow or mandate actions that we would characterize as moral or immoral. — Ciceronianus the White
Accordingly, I do not understand that you separate the law from the legal right. What is the function of the law other than to define, guarantee or promote legal rights?Legal rights are a very small part of the law. — Ciceronianus the White
Positive law is not addressed to sanctioning the moral norm. But it can and does often cross, interfere with or hinder moral rights that a part of the population considers inevitable.I noted that there are very few laws, including those regarding legal rights, that address what is moral or immoral as they don't prohibit or allow or mandate actions that we would characterize as moral or immoral. — Ciceronianus the White
Your answer does not clarify your concept of the law, which is what I was asking. — David Mo
I thing people who are competent should be allowed to choose death (I'm a traditional Stoic, in this an other ways). That doesn't mean they have a right to do so. — Ciceronianus the White
The law is so enormous I'm not sure it's useful to attempt to define it. I — Ciceronianus the White
This is a definition that matches mine.The law is whatever legislation and regulations that have been adopted in the manner recognized in the system by federal, state and local governments, supplemented by interpretive judicial decisions, which address virtually all aspects of human conduct. — Ciceronianus the White
All the examples you mention define or regulate legal rights. For example: building codes regulate various rights for the exercise of a certain economic activity with respect to free enterprise, the environment, etc. that affect the rights of the builder, the clients and the inhabitants of the surroundings.Examples of laws which don't involve legal rights: Building codes; — Ciceronianus the White
As you know, I don't think such rights exists. If the law prohibits euthanasia, there is no right to a dignified death. I thing people who are competent should be allowed to choose death — Ciceronianus the White
That's the point. I don't know what you (Ciceronianus) mean by "rights". If you say that a person should be allowed to do X, you are saying that this person has the right to do X because the right is nothing more than the expression of the conditions of use of a capacity or the obligation to do something.What is the difference? — Marchesk
To accept a set of rights is to approve a distribution of freedom and authority, and so to endorse a certain view of what may, must, and must not be done. — Wenar, Leif, Rights, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
All the examples you mention define or regulate legal rights. For example: building codes regulate various rights for the exercise of a certain economic activity with respect to free enterprise, the environment, etc. that affect the rights of the builder, the clients and the inhabitants of the surroundings. — David Mo
If you say that a person should be allowed to do X, you are saying that this person has the right to do X because the right is nothing more than the expression of the conditions of use of a capacity or the obligation to do somethin — David Mo
I did not mention natural rights, but moral rights. Therefore, the rest of your comment does not relate to my proposal.You must think that our world is full of natural rights or legal rights, — Ciceronianus the White
If you say there's a "thou shalt not kill" rule, it's because there's a right to live. What else is it based on?I don't have to accept that we all have a right to live to say that we should not kill one another. — Ciceronianus the White
If there is a duty not to do something to someone it is because there is a right of someone not to suffer from something. Duty and right are two sides of the same coin. You can't claim for one without recognizing the other.There can be moral duties without entitlements. — Ciceronianus the White
I did not mention natural rights, but moral rights. — David Mo
Furthermore, the examples you give referred to legal rights, which exist as soon as a law stipulates them. Not to moral rights that are of another order. — David Mo
Marchesk asked you a question that you have not answered: what is the difference between X can do Y and X has the right to do Y? You have not explained the difference yet. — David Mo
No. There are moral rights and legal rights. Whether moral rights are natural or not is another question.Now there are moral rights as well as natural rights and legal rights? — Ciceronianus the White
This is not an explanation of the question. The question began with "What is the difference between...?" You haven't explained any difference between being allowed and being entitled.Well, I think I did, in a reply to him a portion of which you quote.
I mention once more virtue ethics. — Ciceronianus the White
You haven't explained any difference between being allowed and being entitled. — David Mo
Indeed, because you have changed the instance from a question of right to a graceful donation. There are no recipient rights in a donation. That is not my point. My case is when the recipient has some right to something you have. Which is the same as saying that you have an obligation to do or should do something. You should give up this meal is a different case from you want to give up. The link between duty and right as two sides of the same act is what you can't explain with your theory of virtue.I allow someone to share food I'm eating. Or, someone takes some of the food I'm eating, and I don't prevent him/her from taking it. He/she isn't entitled to my food, has no right to it, in either case. — Ciceronianus the White
No wonder you're declining. Because you can't do it. If you stick to a concept of virtue without specifying you can do all the verbal filigrees you want. If you are forced to explain what virtue is, you find yourself with the unavoidable chain of virtue-well-duties and rights.But no, if you're now asking me to explain why being virtuous is good and not being virtuous is bad, I decline to do so. — Ciceronianus the White
I remember very well, but you have failed in two essential points of your explanation: you have not been able to explain how the obligation of someone to do or not to do x to Y does not imply a right of Y, and how one can be virtuous without this implying a duty to do or not to do.You beg the question by insisting I address a situation involving a right. I don't address circumstances where someone has a right to what I have because I don't think such a right, or any right, exists unless it's a legal right. Remember? — Ciceronianus the White
Aristotle is not my favorite (I prefer the Stoics, — Ciceronianus the White
Then, with your eyes fixed on your task, investigate it well and bearing in mind that your duty is to be a good man, and what man's nature demands, fulfill it without deviation and in the way that seems most just to you — Marcus Aurelius
I'm not sure what you mean. That legal right may not exist someday, as many think there should be no such legal right. Would that mean the right is no longer recognized, or that there was no such right? Will women continue to have it if that happens? In what sense? — Ciceronianus the White
As I said, one is obligated (has a duty) to live a particular way--i.e. virtuously--to live according to nature. That doesn't mean someone else has a right to one's virtuous conduct. — Ciceronianus the White
i think I understand you to be saying we have now outgrown all this language about rights and nature; that it's meaningless to talk about unrecognized rights. Since there is no monarchy in the US that threatens the liberty of citizens, maybe that's true. We have no background for the idea of natural rights, and so it becomes meaningless except as a fixture of history.
I wonder if we need a new words to deal with the challenges we face now. What do you think? — frank
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.