4 ms·

Seems contradictory to your previous comment, but OK. What if there is enough water for only 50% of people? Or what if the water doesn't have an ideal mineral c

Seems contradictory to your previous comment, but OK. What if there is enough water for only 50% of people? Or what if the water doesn't have an ideal mineral composition, but for 1000 times the expense, society could obtain better water that will extend one's lifespan by an average of 2 months?

em-bee 3y ago
when i said "do everything in their power to keep me alive" then that was probably a bit to strong. i meant do everything that is also needed for everyone else. special treatment that takes an unreasonable effort is not the same thing. if the resource is so limited that it really isn't enough for everyone, then it obviously can not be given to everyone. but if everyone needs it, then they still have a right to it. we then just have to figure out how to deal with those that miss out. a more practical example: a sinking ship, and the rescue boat can not fit everyone. while it is a human right for everyone to be rescued, some will have to stay behind. but, that doesn't change that there was a human right violated. in either cases we really do need to do everything in our power to rescue these people or find ways to extend the use of the water. lack of resources does not abolish our obligation to do the best we can to change that, find alternatives, etc. a better medicine example: covid. everyone needs that vaccination (ignoring those who don't want it) so it becomes a human right to get access to it. no matter the cost. we can not abolish a right to something that everyone needs just because there is not enough of it.
- Georgelemental 3y ago
  OK, so you define "human right" as "thing you have a moral duty to do your reasonable best to supply fairly to everyone." The reason I feel strongly that we should use a different term for these, versus by-virtue-of-existing rights like free speech, is that using the same term for both weakens the latter. Free expression, fair trials, etc, are not "best-effort", and belong in a different category. Specifically, it makes more sense to discuss food, water, healthcare, etc with words like "duty" and "responsibility", which better take into account the burden imposed.
  - em-bee 3y ago
    that's fair. i don't care about the term used as long as we agree on the resulting actions that need to be done, and i agree that there is a difference between those categories. as far as i understand it, the definition of human rights includes both but that's an extended discussion. however on your last point, i would argue that despite the difference, free expression or fair trials do also create a duty or responsibility to provide these. for every right that is given, there exists a duty to provide or enable that right. it also works the other way around. if it is a duty to send my kids to school, then i have a right to a school within reasonable distance. if it is a duty to work, then i have a right to childcare. etc. so no matter how you look at it, right and duty are intertwined and can not be separated.

em-bee 3y ago

when i said "do everything in their power to keep me alive" then that was probably a bit to strong. i meant do everything that is also needed for everyone else. special treatment that takes an unreasonable effort is not the same thing. if the resource is so limited that it really isn't enough for everyone, then it obviously can not be given to everyone. but if everyone needs it, then they still have a right to it. we then just have to figure out how to deal with those that miss out. a more practical example: a sinking ship, and the rescue boat can not fit everyone. while it is a human right for everyone to be rescued, some will have to stay behind. but, that doesn't change that there was a human right violated. in either cases we really do need to do everything in our power to rescue these people or find ways to extend the use of the water. lack of resources does not abolish our obligation to do the best we can to change that, find alternatives, etc. a better medicine example: covid. everyone needs that vaccination (ignoring those who don't want it) so it becomes a human right to get access to it. no matter the cost. we can not abolish a right to something that everyone needs just because there is not enough of it.

Georgelemental 3y ago
OK, so you define "human right" as "thing you have a moral duty to do your reasonable best to supply fairly to everyone." The reason I feel strongly that we should use a different term for these, versus by-virtue-of-existing rights like free speech, is that using the same term for both weakens the latter. Free expression, fair trials, etc, are not "best-effort", and belong in a different category. Specifically, it makes more sense to discuss food, water, healthcare, etc with words like "duty" and "responsibility", which better take into account the burden imposed.
- em-bee 3y ago
  that's fair. i don't care about the term used as long as we agree on the resulting actions that need to be done, and i agree that there is a difference between those categories. as far as i understand it, the definition of human rights includes both but that's an extended discussion. however on your last point, i would argue that despite the difference, free expression or fair trials do also create a duty or responsibility to provide these. for every right that is given, there exists a duty to provide or enable that right. it also works the other way around. if it is a duty to send my kids to school, then i have a right to a school within reasonable distance. if it is a duty to work, then i have a right to childcare. etc. so no matter how you look at it, right and duty are intertwined and can not be separated.