4 ms·

> Further, there'd be nothing to stop you from violating the terms of any contract or even murdering anyone--you'd have unlimited rights. There being nothing t

> Further, there'd be nothing to stop you from violating the terms of any contract or even murdering anyone--you'd have unlimited rights. There being nothing to stop you doesn't mean it's not a violation of an inalienable right or that I didn't have that right to begin with. The widely held belief is that freedom from murder is a right regardless of whether or not an institution is established to protect it. I believe it follows directly from our ability for higher order abstract thought, particularly our ability to empathize with others. So in some respects, you might say that our ability to empathize is what creates inalienable rights in the first place.

steamer25 11y ago
I didn't make it very clear in the parent comment but I don't consider murder to be an inalienable right either. My point was that it could be considered an 'alienable' right, if that makes any sense. I.e., because we ourselves don't want to be murdered and because we want to participate in civilization, we assent to limits on individual liberties--namely those in which individuals would infringe upon the rights of others. As I think about it now, I would say that our inalienable human rights are derived from the fact that we exist self-aware with the desire and general capacity to assert our rights. I.e., to whatever end or purpose, we wouldn't have those abilities absent some reason. If you're alive, you want to live and you're not hurting anybody else; who's to say that you should be denied that life? If anyone, it's just some other guy who's opinion isn't actually any more important than your own. One might say it should all be self-evident :) . At any rate, I think we're largely saying the same things.
Lawtonfogle 11y ago
>There being nothing to stop you doesn't mean it's not a violation of an inalienable right or that I didn't have that right to begin with. If there is no difference between the inalienable right existing or not existing, then it is a matter of faith to if they exist at all.

steamer25 11y ago

I didn't make it very clear in the parent comment but I don't consider murder to be an inalienable right either. My point was that it could be considered an 'alienable' right, if that makes any sense. I.e., because we ourselves don't want to be murdered and because we want to participate in civilization, we assent to limits on individual liberties--namely those in which individuals would infringe upon the rights of others. As I think about it now, I would say that our inalienable human rights are derived from the fact that we exist self-aware with the desire and general capacity to assert our rights. I.e., to whatever end or purpose, we wouldn't have those abilities absent some reason. If you're alive, you want to live and you're not hurting anybody else; who's to say that you should be denied that life? If anyone, it's just some other guy who's opinion isn't actually any more important than your own. One might say it should all be self-evident :) . At any rate, I think we're largely saying the same things.

Lawtonfogle 11y ago

>There being nothing to stop you doesn't mean it's not a violation of an inalienable right or that I didn't have that right to begin with. If there is no difference between the inalienable right existing or not existing, then it is a matter of faith to if they exist at all.