well.


this has been a recent topic of debate. and that may just be a coincedental choice of words there. I don't believe that rights are constructed. I believe they simply are. which leads you down the road toward a tree falling in the woods......are rights there without someone to excercise or defend them?

BUT....you may have meant construct in the 'define' sense?

Yes, by construct I mean define and defend. Use my original language, if it's less loaded:

it seems that the conventional definition of 'rights' has, as you've inferred, some consideration for what is considered to be 'moral' behavior. That is, it is considered immoral to violate another's rights.

I guess what i meant when i said that there are no morals, is that I see morals as having their roots in societal opinion of acceptable behaviors. Therefore, you inherently sanction those morals by existing within a given society. If you choose to exist without that society, the morals that come with that society fall away. As is your right to do. (not saying i would do, or recommend this, btw)

If you exist outside of society and society's moral influence, you are left with only your own code to guide you. your personal morals. your rights.

I said there are no morals. there is also no spoon. know'm sayin'?

Wow epic.

Rights have no meaning in that context. A right is a boundary restricting the unjust actions of others toward you.

What possible meaning does the phrase "I have a right to life" mean if not "My possession of my life is fair and just, and others ought not act to remove it from me, and I am justified in acting to protect myself from those who do." What could it possibly mean to have a "right to life" if a person is in isolation?

is that right? that's kind of what i meant by this:

I guess i left out the part about the 'person to defend them from' ....although it was inferred in the 'defend them' part.....

in isolation, your rights do not evaporate though, do they? if the tree falls, it still makes a sound.....doesn't it?

in the context of the original question, my point was more along the lines of: A judgement of morality is only as meaningful as the judged allow it to be. If two same sex people find that they love each other...it is only their morality that applies. The reality is subjective. no spoon. no morals.
sorry i'm repeating myself...i'm sure you get what i'm saying. you're smarter than I am.

The Matrix has us? :D

But what about the morality with the confines of the society that they live in? The pressures and restrictions, dare I say, moral fiber which is within their society dictates does it not? They may be perfectly happy within the privacy of their own home, but once they venture out into "society" are they not then subject, rightly or wrongly, to the morality - the ethicality - that society has predetermined to be acceptable?

do your morals change because of those of the people you move among?

Personally? No of course not, yours?

I was trying to create the situation where two different sets of moral exist and collide. What is the outcome of that? Where in the outside world one set is more prominent whereas in another situation the inverse is true.

(Sorry, I am having a difficult time explaining/describing this)

wrong is in the eye of the beholder?

not always though

LJ, I think I understand what you're saying. What I'm trying to hit at is that invoking the idea "rights" means you're trying to introduce some governing principle into the interaction between two people. If someone is trying to kill me, saying "you ought not to do that; I have a right to live" and saying "I wish you wouldn't do that" are two very different things, no?

The appeal to "rights" says that something should limit the actions of others, something other than my preference.

If we can agree on that much (I hope I'm not presuming too much), then the next logical question is this: is there any good reason why we should call that external thing "moral"? It sure waddles and quacks like morality.

I assume?

well, no...i guess not....

you're just pointing out that rights are based on 'moral' precepts? and so a violation of a right is a violation of a moral?