So, e.g. the billionaire has a right to his/her money and assets, and that right should not be restricted, legally or otherwise, because it is a right. — 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
Whenever one has a duty to another person, that other person has a right, specifically a claim right, because a claim right just is a duty owed to you by someone else. (In contrast with a liberty right, which is just the absence of having any contrary duty yourself).
Maybe not all duties are to other people, but when they are... — Pfhorrest
I think claiming duties exist only where a right exists is misguided. — Ciceronianus the White
Legal rights may be subject to restrictions, yes. I don't think I've questioned the existence of legal rights, nor have I claimed there should be no legal right. I doubt anybody thinks government has non-legal right to tax. I may just misunderstand you, though. — Ciceronianus the White
ou're free (have a right?) to define "moral virtue" (as opposed to "immoral virtue" or "piano-playing virtue" etc., I assume) as you see fit if it pleases you, — Ciceronianus the White
Well, it is conceivable that in principle one could have a duty that is not toward another person, — Pfhorrest
I think claiming duties exist only where a right exists is misguided.
— Ciceronianus the White
I didn’t say that, I said the other way around. Rights are analyzable in terms of duties. — Pfhorrest
Well, I don't think a non-legal right necessarily exists where a duty exists, either, so I'm afraid we still disagree. — Ciceronianus the White
Not that I should be good because someone has a right. It's that choosing to be good involves analytically recognizing the rights of others.Why not just be good, or do the right thing, without looking to some divine command or law, or something else beyond your control or belonging in some sense to someone else, as compelling you to do so? — Ciceronianus the White
And the moral good cannot be decided from my absolute and abstract interior. I am good in relation to others who are good in relation to me. The opposite is a metaphysical individualism that only leads to selfishness which, although it pretends to be rational, has nothing moral about it. — David Mo
I am good in relation to others who are good in relation to me. — David Mo
Not the proponents of eudaimonia, of course. Because they combine virtue with duties (See Aristotle or Marcus Aurelius). Your refusal to include duties, your extremist concept of virtue does.Proponents of eudaimonia and of virtue ethics don't decide what is good from their absolute interior, — Ciceronianus the White
I didn't mean to, obviously. I was pointing out a logical link between duty and right. You turn it into reciprocity as causality. Don't change the premises, please.This makes being good sound like an exchange, or bargain-- — Ciceronianus the White
Conflict is the essence of human relationships in times of scarcity. It will arise whenever individualism is encouraged against community. Rights theory, like any other theory, will encourage conflict when rights are seen only in an individualistic way and cooperation when the emphasis is on collective rights. A basic human problem is to find the right balance between them.For me, it's the concept of moral rights which invites selfishness, — Ciceronianus the White
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.