3 ms·

Sure, words mean whatever the consensus is that they mean. My definition above is just the original one. If we decide it's this new, broader thing, then so be i

by gipp 9y ago

Sure, words mean whatever the consensus is that they mean. My definition above is just the original one. If we decide it's this new, broader thing, then so be it. But if "rights" encompass things that a perfectly just, well-intentioned society might very well _not be physically capable_ of providing, simply due to lack of resources, then what the hell is the point of calling something a "right" at all? What does that accomplish? What does that mean? All I'm saying is that this new, pretty much meaningless definition we've given it of "stuff we want" is much less useful than the original.

gnaritas 9y ago
> My definition above is just the original one. And outdated and not accepted one. Don't be a prescriptivist, words don't have a single fixed meaning, just because Lock defined right to mean something long long ago doesn't mean that's what people mean when they use the word. > If we decide it's this new, broader thing, then so be it. That was decided by the masses long ago. Language evolves. This is not "new" nor is it meaningless. Rights means stuff we as a majority agree everyone should have, it's not less useful, and it's what rights have always actually meant. Anyone arguing about natural rights vs whatever is having a meaningless semantic argument with no one who matters. There are no natural rights, the concept is frankly silly; rights are inherently social in nature and have always been simply what people agree on.
- gipp 9y ago
  > Don't be a prescriptivist, words don't have a single fixed meaning, just because Lock defined right to mean something long long ago doesn't mean that's what people mean when they use the word. Yes, I know. I agreed with that in the comment you're replying to. > Rights means stuff we as a majority agree everyone should have, it's not less useful, and it's what rights have always actually meant. If "rights" are just "things we want people to have", then why is "internet access" a right, but not a yacht or a penthouse apartment? Wouldn't we be happier if everyone had those? I don't give a shit, really, if people go for a "Locke conception" of rights or whatever. I just don't really have a clue what it means anymore to say something is a "human right," if it includes super expensive stuff that a lot of countries can't afford.
  - gnaritas 9y ago
    > If "rights" are just "things we want people to have", then why is "internet access" a right, but not a yacht or a penthouse apartment? Wouldn't we be happier if everyone had those? Things we "agree" people should have. You won't find a majority of society agrees everyone should have a penthouse or a yacht, why... because rights are determined by reason and it's unreasonable to provide everyone with a penthouse and a yacht, it is not unreasonable to provide everyone with internet access. How do we define reasonable... through thoughtful discussion, debate, and law. You're trying to cut the human out of the equation and have some way to define right that's internally logically self consistent, but people don't work that way. Agreement that something is reasonable is how humans work. > I just don't really have a clue what it means anymore to say something is a "human right," i I don't think that's true, I think you can perfectly well see how these things are defined, you just don't like it for some reason.

by gipp 9y ago

gnaritas 9y ago

> My definition above is just the original one. And outdated and not accepted one. Don't be a prescriptivist, words don't have a single fixed meaning, just because Lock defined right to mean something long long ago doesn't mean that's what people mean when they use the word. > If we decide it's this new, broader thing, then so be it. That was decided by the masses long ago. Language evolves. This is not "new" nor is it meaningless. Rights means stuff we as a majority agree everyone should have, it's not less useful, and it's what rights have always actually meant. Anyone arguing about natural rights vs whatever is having a meaningless semantic argument with no one who matters. There are no natural rights, the concept is frankly silly; rights are inherently social in nature and have always been simply what people agree on.

gipp 9y ago
> Don't be a prescriptivist, words don't have a single fixed meaning, just because Lock defined right to mean something long long ago doesn't mean that's what people mean when they use the word. Yes, I know. I agreed with that in the comment you're replying to. > Rights means stuff we as a majority agree everyone should have, it's not less useful, and it's what rights have always actually meant. If "rights" are just "things we want people to have", then why is "internet access" a right, but not a yacht or a penthouse apartment? Wouldn't we be happier if everyone had those? I don't give a shit, really, if people go for a "Locke conception" of rights or whatever. I just don't really have a clue what it means anymore to say something is a "human right," if it includes super expensive stuff that a lot of countries can't afford.
- gnaritas 9y ago
  > If "rights" are just "things we want people to have", then why is "internet access" a right, but not a yacht or a penthouse apartment? Wouldn't we be happier if everyone had those? Things we "agree" people should have. You won't find a majority of society agrees everyone should have a penthouse or a yacht, why... because rights are determined by reason and it's unreasonable to provide everyone with a penthouse and a yacht, it is not unreasonable to provide everyone with internet access. How do we define reasonable... through thoughtful discussion, debate, and law. You're trying to cut the human out of the equation and have some way to define right that's internally logically self consistent, but people don't work that way. Agreement that something is reasonable is how humans work. > I just don't really have a clue what it means anymore to say something is a "human right," i I don't think that's true, I think you can perfectly well see how these things are defined, you just don't like it for some reason.