3 ms·
Not directly commenting on the topic here, but headlines of the form "X fight for the right to Y" seem to presuppose that there is such a moral right, and they
by cubefox 3y ago
Not directly commenting on the topic here, but headlines of the form "X fight for the right to Y" seem to presuppose that there is such a moral right, and they are fighting just to bring it into legal recognition. When the question really starts with whether such a moral right exists or not, whether Y should be a legal right.
The problem with presuppositions is that they are preserved under negation. Whether you say you are for or against right Y, it seems that you presuppose that right Y exists in some capacity. But that's not what people who are "against" would want to assume, as they are probably denying it.
- beebmam 3y agoA legal right can exist without ethics.
- cubefox 3y agoBut the question of whether something should be a legal right is mostly an ethical one.
- justnotworthit 3y agoAnother way to say is "They don't already have that right?". Can't they already get/negotiate work-from-home jobs voluntarily with other equally free people? I'm not arguing against you, but you're giving the technical, logical explanation to a purposely a-technical and a-logical claim. The vast majority of people (not the ones who think like you or me) simply call the use of force against other people in order to get what they want (the social order they want, etc) "rights", whatever the moral implications (or even practical consequences).