4 ms·
> Sorry, I can't get past this. If the word "right" is so fluffy we can use it anywhere, it doesn't have any meaning. Rights are simply those things that a soc
by pbourke 16y ago
> Sorry, I can't get past this. If the word "right" is so fluffy we can use it anywhere, it doesn't have any meaning.
Rights are simply those things that a society values and there are tradeoffs inherent in any articulated set of rights. You may believe that internet access or water is "fluffy" compared to some other rights, but is that not just your own cultural and/or cognitive bias at work?
> But if "health care", "internet access", "water", and all these other things are tossed out as rights, it takes away the entire reason that internet access may qualify. It's just a jumble of feel-good meaninglessness.
No, it's a set of choices and an expression of values. Let's be clear - these kinds of things are about the relationship of the rich portion of the world to the poor portion of the world. In particular, this type of language indicates that the rich portion should value access to {water, internet, health care} for everyone regardless of geographic or economic circumstance. Your values determine what goes in the set, and you call the members of the set rights.
- gaius 16y agoOK but even in the West we don't really believe that water is a fundamental human right and that's easy to prove: you get a water bill. So it's a vital service, sure, but it's not a right, a water supply is a service you pay for. Same with food, we don't really believe there is a basic right to food; if you want to eat you buy it from the supermarket.