5 ms·

I don't follow that argument. It seems like you're arguing that a right is something that you can choose to do, as long as it doesn't involve using force again

by javert 13y ago

I don't follow that argument. It seems like you're arguing that a right is something that you can choose to do, as long as it doesn't involve using force against someone. I agree with that, but it begs the question. Why _can_ you choose to do anything you want? And why _can't_ you initiate force against people? My earlier answer is a starting point that connects rights to ethics. Speaking of which, you're wrong that the question reduces to metaphysics and epistemology. I mean, it does, but only indirectly. Actually, the hierarchy is: metaphysics (what exists) epistemology (how we know it) ethics (what is good) <- you left this out government (what is good in a social context)

mindcrime 13y ago
Why _can_ you choose to do anything you want? And why _can't_ you initiate force against people? My earlier answer is a starting point that connects rights to ethics. Right, that question is exactly why I say that it devolvees into an argument over metaphysics and epistemology. Also, I acknowledge what you say about including ethics, although my opinion on that is that ethical discussions also - at some level - devolve into discussions of epistemology and metaphysics. "What is good in a social context" is a less important question to me. I don't believe in trying to "engineer" social good by manipulating our view of what is or isn't a "right" of an individual. Society, to me, is just an emergent aspect of the interactions of individuals. I believe you have to start with what individuals can or cannot rightly do, and accept whatever consequences that may entail.
- javert 13y ago
  > Right, that question is exactly why I say that it devolvees into an argument over metaphysics and epistemology. Also, I acknowledge what you say about including ethics, although my opinion on that is that ethical discussions also - at some level - devolve into discussions of epistemology and metaphysics. Well, you need epistemology and metaphysics to reason about ethics. I mean, if you deny basic facts of reality and/or have no means to valid knowledge, you won't get very far. Given those, though, ethics really hinges on looking at the nature of a human being. For a human being, is there any need or method to figure out what is "good" and what is "bad"? That is how you end up getting to my original point (a). > "What is good in a social context" is a less important question to me. I don't believe in trying to "engineer" social good by manipulating our view of what is or isn't a "right" of an individual. Society, to me, is just an emergent aspect of the interactions of individuals. I believe you have to start with what individuals can or cannot rightly do, and accept whatever consequences that may entail. I agree. But that's because of the implications of (a). And you still have to figure out how we're all going to get along. That's all I meant by, "What is good in a social context."

by javert 13y ago

mindcrime 13y ago

Why _can_ you choose to do anything you want? And why _can't_ you initiate force against people? My earlier answer is a starting point that connects rights to ethics. Right, that question is exactly why I say that it devolvees into an argument over metaphysics and epistemology. Also, I acknowledge what you say about including ethics, although my opinion on that is that ethical discussions also - at some level - devolve into discussions of epistemology and metaphysics. "What is good in a social context" is a less important question to me. I don't believe in trying to "engineer" social good by manipulating our view of what is or isn't a "right" of an individual. Society, to me, is just an emergent aspect of the interactions of individuals. I believe you have to start with what individuals can or cannot rightly do, and accept whatever consequences that may entail.

javert 13y ago
> Right, that question is exactly why I say that it devolvees into an argument over metaphysics and epistemology. Also, I acknowledge what you say about including ethics, although my opinion on that is that ethical discussions also - at some level - devolve into discussions of epistemology and metaphysics. Well, you need epistemology and metaphysics to reason about ethics. I mean, if you deny basic facts of reality and/or have no means to valid knowledge, you won't get very far. Given those, though, ethics really hinges on looking at the nature of a human being. For a human being, is there any need or method to figure out what is "good" and what is "bad"? That is how you end up getting to my original point (a). > "What is good in a social context" is a less important question to me. I don't believe in trying to "engineer" social good by manipulating our view of what is or isn't a "right" of an individual. Society, to me, is just an emergent aspect of the interactions of individuals. I believe you have to start with what individuals can or cannot rightly do, and accept whatever consequences that may entail. I agree. But that's because of the implications of (a). And you still have to figure out how we're all going to get along. That's all I meant by, "What is good in a social context."