3 ms·

Rights are not limited to "legal" rights.

bhupy 7y ago
You're right, but the philosophical natural right is even more permissive. The law is our way of tempering the natural right.
- pmiller2 7y ago
  In neither case, do you have the right to promote or otherwise further actions that will unnecessarily cause the death of innocents.
  - bhupy 7y ago
    Incorrect, on both counts. Especially the latter, because morality isn't absolute. What you think is a moral right can be different from what I think is a moral right.
    - pmiller2 7y ago
      Under what moral framework do I have the right to cause the death of innocent people simply because I want a haircut? Or, because I'm a billionaire who wants to make more money? Do I have the right to kill you in self defense for suggesting so?
      - bhupy 7y ago
        > Under what moral framework do I have the right to cause the death of innocent people simply because I want a haircut? The same moral framework under which you have the right to contribute to killing 35,000 people/year because you want a quick/convenient way to get to work everyday.
        pmiller2 7y ago
        Except that I don't kill 35,000 people per year. Try again.
        bhupy 7y ago
        Yes, and a COVID-negative individual doesn't kill, in your words, "60,000+ people" if they want to go about their lives during a pandemic.
        pmiller2 7y ago
        Well, in fact, I have contributed to killing 0 people in a car accident by driving. Can you reframe your objection now? If I spread the coronavirus by going about my day as normal, how many infections would that result in, and how many deaths, hmm?
        bhupy 7y ago
        Well, in fact, I have contributed to killing 0 people by getting a haircut during COVID! Can you maybe try a little harder to grasp the analogy?
        pmiller2 7y ago
        There is no analogy to be had. When I get in my car, the overhwelming probability is that absolutely nobody will be killed by my action, including myself. If we resume "normal life," the overhwelming probabilty is that I will eventually contract the coronavirus, and there is a significant probability that I will be killed, or that my actions would kill someone else. Do you not see the difference? Try a little harder to grasp reality.
        bhupy 7y ago
        There absolutely is an analogy: in both cases, the risk you do as an individual in a vacuum is nearly 0. The aggregate risk of everyone engaging in that behavior is not only non-zero, but results in tens of thousands of deaths. If we all started driving our cars again, the overwhelming probability is that someone will eventually get into a car accident and die, and in aggregate we've observed that to be about 35,000 every year. If we all resumed a "normal life", the overwhelming probability is that 60,000+ people will die from COVID.

You're right, but the philosophical natural right is even more permissive. The law is our way of tempering the natural right.

pmiller2 7y ago
In neither case, do you have the right to promote or otherwise further actions that will unnecessarily cause the death of innocents.
- bhupy 7y ago
  Incorrect, on both counts. Especially the latter, because morality isn't absolute. What you think is a moral right can be different from what I think is a moral right.
  - pmiller2 7y ago
    Under what moral framework do I have the right to cause the death of innocent people simply because I want a haircut? Or, because I'm a billionaire who wants to make more money? Do I have the right to kill you in self defense for suggesting so?
    - bhupy 7y ago
      > Under what moral framework do I have the right to cause the death of innocent people simply because I want a haircut? The same moral framework under which you have the right to contribute to killing 35,000 people/year because you want a quick/convenient way to get to work everyday.
      - pmiller2 7y ago
        Except that I don't kill 35,000 people per year. Try again.
        bhupy 7y ago
        Yes, and a COVID-negative individual doesn't kill, in your words, "60,000+ people" if they want to go about their lives during a pandemic.
        pmiller2 7y ago
        Well, in fact, I have contributed to killing 0 people in a car accident by driving. Can you reframe your objection now? If I spread the coronavirus by going about my day as normal, how many infections would that result in, and how many deaths, hmm?
        bhupy 7y ago
        Well, in fact, I have contributed to killing 0 people by getting a haircut during COVID! Can you maybe try a little harder to grasp the analogy?
        pmiller2 7y ago
        There is no analogy to be had. When I get in my car, the overhwelming probability is that absolutely nobody will be killed by my action, including myself. If we resume "normal life," the overhwelming probabilty is that I will eventually contract the coronavirus, and there is a significant probability that I will be killed, or that my actions would kill someone else. Do you not see the difference? Try a little harder to grasp reality.
        bhupy 7y ago
        There absolutely is an analogy: in both cases, the risk you do as an individual in a vacuum is nearly 0. The aggregate risk of everyone engaging in that behavior is not only non-zero, but results in tens of thousands of deaths. If we all started driving our cars again, the overwhelming probability is that someone will eventually get into a car accident and die, and in aggregate we've observed that to be about 35,000 every year. If we all resumed a "normal life", the overwhelming probability is that 60,000+ people will die from COVID.