Bush Asks for Action on HIV/AIDS

[Imran Siddiqui]

And I suppose there is no such thing as an absolute right or wrong either, huh?

You got it. But I'm not absolutely sure on that .

[David Floyd]

As I've pointed out before, the position that no absolutes exist is pretty much indefensible. No need to rehash that argument, unless you just want to, but suffice it to say that that position makes no sense.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Sorry, but the position that absolutes do exist is indefensible . It simply makes no sense at all.

[David Floyd]

I think we've just about exhausted all rational debate for the evening

[Ben Kenobi]

A hermit who lives off the land might indeed by truly free. However, this is not the only way one can be free. Freedom is simply the lack of coercion - one does not exercise freedom by murdering another person. Murder is a coercive act and anti-thetical to freedom. Of course you have to take other people into the account, to the degree that you can't violate their rights. This is obvious, and fits the definition of freedom easily.

So then, we have three natural rights:

Life, liberty, and property.

You argue the right to life is negative, ie, the right not to be killed. The right to liberty, you also say is the right to not be coerced. The right to property, then is simply the right not to have what you own taken away from you.

These are all negative concepts of rights. Surely the right to property also entails the right to buy property as well as the right not to have your property taken. This is a positive declaration of the right to property, in giving a privilege as well as a restriction. The same is with the right to liberty, expressed as a right to live your life as you choose.

The positive right to life entails not only the right not to be killed, but the right to the necessities of food and shelter.

In this, we see not only how the right is defended, but also, how the right can be expressed. A negative conception of rights does not show how the right can be expressed.

imply that one must give up individual liberty?

To a degree, one must sacrifice individual liberty to respect the liberty of others within a society.

Quite easily. Rights only involve human interactions, not interactions between you and a bear. A bear can't violate your right to life - it isn't human. And certainly the weather can't violate your rights. Thus, the need for food and shelter are natural. If you can't get them, you die of natural causes. But since your death was not caused by another human, you can't claim a right violation. It wouldn't make any sense.

Should then this be a natural right, if the need is natural? Does one not argue that the need for liberty and property is also natural?

So when a man shows up at your door freezing from, this is not a human interaction? I would argue that this is most definitely a human interaction.

So what? No one can live without a kidney, either, but that doesn't mean that I'm morally compelled to donate a kidney.

Good example. You point out how two person's right to life can conflict. The surgery to remove a kidney poses risks to one's own life. Therefore, you cannot be required to save the life of someone else at risk of your own. Such behavior is considered supererogatory, or as my old ethics prof used to say, for suckers only.

[David Floyd]

Surely the right to property also entails the right to buy property as well as the right not to have your property taken. This is a positive declaration of the right to property, in giving a privilege as well as a restriction. The same is with the right to liberty, expressed as a right to live your life as you choose.

No no, you're missing the point. Increasing your property isn't a privilege, it is simply utilizing your natural rights to liberty and property. Since none of these three rights may be violated, it's obviously implied that you can take any moral action to increae your property or improve your life situation.

That is, while you can't rob someone - because that would be coercive - you can certainly enter into a voluntary agreement with them to trade 2 gold stones for 2 pounds of broccoli, or whatever the hell you want and both agree to. This is not some extra privilege, but simply the logical utilization of the rights to liberty and property for all parties involved.

You are implying a distinction where none exists.

The positive right to life entails not only the right not to be killed, but the right to the necessities of food and shelter.

As long as food and shelter can be morally - ie, non-coercively - obtained, then of COURSE you have a right to them.

A negative conception of rights does not show how the right can be expressed.

I don't like the connotations created by the words positive and negative, and I feel they are incorrect representations of the nature of rights. However, this "negative conception" clearly shows how rights can be expressed, in that if someone can't violate your right to liberty, then obviously you can do whatever you want - that is, outside of violating someone else's liberty.

To a degree, one must sacrifice individual liberty to respect the liberty of others within a society.

No, because as I've already pointed out, it does not make sense to define freedom as the ability to violate the freedom of another.

Should then this be a natural right, if the need is natural? Does one not argue that the need for liberty and property is also natural?

One does not need property, or indeed even liberty, in order to exist, yet both of those things can be reasonably explained as natural rights. One needs the right to liberty and the right to property in order to be free, obviously, but freedom and existence are not the same thing. A person can exist, and be held in a state of unfreedom (although this state would be entirely unnatural, and simply at the whim of a stronger party, hence the need for government in order to protect individual rights).

Short answer? What's your point?

So when a man shows up at your door freezing from, this is not a human interaction?

Sure, but the actual cause of his death - freezing - is not the result of a human-human interaction, but rather a human-nature interaction. Hence, no violation, unless of course he was forced into the cold by another human, in which case that human, but not you, would be responsible. Bottom line for you, though, is that unless you created his situation, you are not responsible for his situation.

You point out how two person's right to life can conflict.

No I didn't. The right to life can't possibly extend to the right to my kidney, in the same way that it can't possibly extend to the right to my money, food, or house.

[Ben Kenobi]

I don't like the connotations created by the words positive and negative,

No connotations intended. Here's another example.

Positive Golden Rule

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Negative Golden Rule

Do not do unto others as you would not want done to you.

All negative means is the construction, restraining someone from doing something, ie, coercion.

it does not make sense to define freedom as the ability to violate the freedom of another.

But have I defined liberty as the ability to violate the freedom of another? I don't think so. I say that you need both the positive and negative parts of the definition for liberty.

Short answer? What's your point?

Nothing less than what does 'natural' law mean. I think that my argument in the previous post works just fine.

Bottom line for you, though, is that unless you created his situation, you are not responsible for his situation.

As soon as he comes to your door, it becomes your business. You now have the opportunity to ameliorate his condition.

No I didn't. The right to life can't possibly extend to the right to my kidney, in the same way that it can't possibly extend to the right to my money, food, or house.

Because to donate your kidney exposes you to the risk of dying. Suppose the man at your door has a knife? This changes the situation, because this puts your life at potential risk by allowing this man into your home.

Since none of these three rights may be violated, it's obviously implied that you can take any moral action to increase your property or improve your life situation.

How about another example. What about someone who steals food, in order to survive? Which right should take precedence, property or life?

[Berzerker]

Geez, Imran, according to your logic, Jews slaughtered by the Nazis got what they deserved because they had a choice in the elections that led to Hindenburg and ultimately, Hitler, even if they voted against them.

Obiwan -

The right to liberty, you also say is the right to not be coerced.

Liberty also means the right to determine the course one's life is to take, a right to act.

The right to property, then is simply the right not to have what you own taken away from you.

And to do as I wish with my property as long as I don't devalue your property.

These are all negative concepts of rights.

Why? They involve both a restriction on what I, or others can do, as well as the right to act.

Surely the right to property also entails the right to buy property as well as the right not to have your property taken.

The first is called freedom of association, not a right to buy property. If I have a right to buy property, then in order for government to protect my right, someone must be forced to sell me property.

This is a positive declaration of the right to property, in giving a privilege as well as a restriction.

Not really, that's the problem with trying to label rights as negative or positive. This "positive" right to buy property is also a "negative" right to freely associate with others, i.e., a right to not have others interfere with our contracts.

The positive right to life entails not only the right not to be killed, but the right to the necessities of food and shelter.

Not if this involves taking the labor of others. I can't enslave you to provide for what I consider necessary to live.

To a degree, one must sacrifice individual liberty to respect the liberty of others within a society.

Why? I know you think rights conflict, but only if you invent a right to other people's labor. And then that right becomes one sided with a recipient and a "donor".

Should then this be a natural right, if the need is natural?

A right to the labor of others?

So when a man shows up at your door freezing from, this is not a human interaction? I would argue that this is most definitely a human interaction.

If I refuse him entry, I have not denied him his rights since he never had a right to enter. If he has that right, then he need not wait for me if I'm not home. He can just break in...

Good example. You point out how two person's right to life can conflict. The surgery to remove a kidney poses risks to one's own life. Therefore, you cannot be required to save the life of someone else at risk of your own.

So you believe abortion should be legal to avoid this risk?

Positive Golden Rule

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Negative Golden Rule

Do not do unto others as you would not want done to you.

Did Jesus tell his followers to legislatively impose the Golden Rule on others?

But have I defined liberty as the ability to violate the freedom of another? I don't think so. I say that you need both the positive and negative parts of the definition for liberty.

There is only one definition of freedom, not two. The absence of coercion or constraint on choice or action, i.e., I cannot coerce or constrain you from acting. You seem to think if nature imposes "coercion" on you, the need for food and shelter, then you get to impose coercion or constraints on me to alleviate nature's coercion on you.

As soon as he comes to your door, it becomes your business. You now have the opportunity to ameliorate his condition.

A guy did that in Missouri and the guy he invited in murdered his daughter the next day. If you had forced him to "ameliorate" his condition, should he be allowed to murder you as payback for his daughter's life?

Because to donate your kidney exposes you to the risk of dying.

So if I'm dying and need money for an operation, I have the right to enslave others to raise the money? My life takes precedence over their freedom?

Suppose the man at your door has a knife? This changes the situation, because this puts your life at potential risk by allowing this man into your home.

I'm sure he wouldn't show the knife unless I turned him away, but I'd soon see the knife once I let him inside.

How about another example. What about someone who steals food, in order to survive? Which right should take precedence, property or life?

Rights cannot conflict, so none takes precedence. If I had exhausted all avenues of obtaining food thru moral means and had to resort to theft, I'd still apologise to my victim and offer compensation after the fact. Now, why would I feel the need to compensate my victim if I had a right to steal in the first place? Because I didn't have the right to steal...

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Interesting argument. Suggest a place I can go where I will be absolutely free of societal constraints, and I might say you have a point.

Of course, you don't have a point, because even if I go to Antarctica, I still won't be able to do as I please. There are international treaties to think of, you know.

But in any case, the point of government is simply to protect individual freedom, so how can joining a society run by a government (that is, a moral society/government) imply that one must give up individual liberty?

Says you. The point of government is to protect society first and foremost. Government wasn't invented way back when for protecting anyone's individual rights, it was to defends the well-being and best interests of the society as a whole. That we have created a government that takes a strong interest in protecting individual rights in addition to protecting society is a wonderful thing, but I hardly think that was it's primary goal.

Obiwan's point still stands. Look at it like being part of a neighborhood association. If you live in a particular upscale neighborhood, you have to pay the dues and abide by the rules they set. It's a social contract. If you don't like the rules they set, you better just go elsewhere. Nowhere else you want to go? Too bad.

Our representative democracy is a system that gives the lawmakers the power to enact what is (supposedly) the will of the people. Americans as a society decided they wanted social benefits and infrastructure provided by the government, be it social security, welfare, Federal roads, the military, etc. Americans also realized the only way to provide the services they want was by requiring "dues," or taxes. Society has also decided that, once those taxes are in the government hands, our government representatives may spend them as they see fit. And should society deem providing funding for AIDS research a worthy goal, then that's what we should do.

The *****ing about them coercing you to pay for something you don't want is nonsense. If you feel coerced, go to another neighborhood. Or just pretend that all of your tax dollars are going to the few government institutions of which you approve. Then we can all rest easier without the crying.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by David Floyd
No no, you're missing the point. Increasing your property isn't a privilege, it is simply utilizing your natural rights to liberty and property. Since none of these three rights may be violated, it's obviously implied that you can take any moral action to increae your property or improve your life situation.

No, it doesn't follow. Transfer of property ownership requires that such a transfer to be recognised by the society as a whole, which requires mechanisms that are not covered.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Geez, Imran, according to your logic, Jews slaughtered by the Nazis got what they deserved because they had a choice in the elections that led to Hindenburg and ultimately, Hitler, even if they voted against them.

I see that you ran afoul of Godwin's law.