Wha? Everything we could do has to be laid out in law somewhere before it becomes wrong to interfere with it?Positive rights suck ass.
(,
Wed 10 Dec 2008, 12:14,
archived)
That's not what I said.Read the shapes I made with my keyboard and words.
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight,
Wed 10 Dec 2008, 12:16,
archived)
I bet it is what you said anywaybut I'll give it a go.
Edit: since you say below you don't like the concept of a right, perhaps what you're saying here is that there are no rights to anything, and therefore there is never any oppression. This leaves me in the dark about what you think there is.
(,
Wed 10 Dec 2008, 12:21,
archived)
Edit: since you say below you don't like the concept of a right, perhaps what you're saying here is that there are no rights to anything, and therefore there is never any oppression. This leaves me in the dark about what you think there is.
I'm much happier with talk of responsibilities... or of actions, laws, restrictions and so on that are kata ton orthon logon: in accordance with reason.
There's more to moral debate than appeals to rights. I don't think that such appeals to rights help; I suspect they get in the way of clarity.
The absence of rights doesn't mean that liberty is meaningless; nor does it mean that there's no such thing as oppression. Why should it?
(There's more to moral debate than appeals to rights. I don't think that such appeals to rights help; I suspect they get in the way of clarity.
The absence of rights doesn't mean that liberty is meaningless; nor does it mean that there's no such thing as oppression. Why should it?
Enzyme is powered by sunlight,
Wed 10 Dec 2008, 12:54,
archived)
So why is a law that interferes with smoking not oppressive?You mentioned the intent (it's for the smokers' own good), but is it at least unfair? Do you have no principle against coercing people for their own good? How would fines for hang-gliding shape up? Very bad for you, hang-gliding, lots of broken limbs, no merit other than enjoyment.
(,
Wed 10 Dec 2008, 13:02,
archived)