|
0 members (),
13
guests, and
0
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums59
Topics17,128
Posts314,539
Members6,305
| |
Most Online294
Dec 6th, 2017
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 12,581
Pooh-Bah
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 12,581 |
Issodhos, the theory of natural rights is circular logic Phil, no it is not.:-) The "nature" of which you speak is primarily a philosophy born in the ancient Middle East and refined in the West. Prove it.:-) Yours, Issodhos
"When all has been said that can be said, and all has been done that can be done, there will be poetry";-) -- Issodhos
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 12,581
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 12,581 |
The right to life is indeed a natural right in that it cannot be taken from you by another except in self-defense. But, you do not have a natural right to water, food, and shelter because a natural right cannot require that another be obligated to provide it for you if you cannot do so or you wish not to. Note, however, that this does not restrict a people from voluntary action in assisting someone in need of these necessities of life.
Yours,
Issodhos is not inaction a choice? if you are able and choose not to assist, you have acted, and by so acting you have infringed upon the right to life. Yes, inaction is a choice. It has repercussions. They may be social, moral, or ethical, but it is not an infringement of his natural right to life because a natural right cannot obligate another to provide that right, and inaction is neutral in that regard. I think we are getting into semantics, here, Schlack. Yours, Issodhos
"When all has been said that can be said, and all has been done that can be done, there will be poetry";-) -- Issodhos
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,740 Likes: 1
veteran
|
|
OP
veteran
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,740 Likes: 1 |
Yes, inaction is a choice. It has repercussions. They may be social, moral, or ethical, but it is not an infringement of his natural right to life because a natural right cannot obligate another to provide that right, and inaction is neutral in that regard. how so? What are the "rules" governing rights? Are we allowed change these rules? where do they come from? how are they defined? who made the rules on what a right is and its shape, form, and attributes? do rights not have accompanying duties inherent in them? If a man has access to all the available water and chooses not share (sharing can take many forms, including selling it:-)) doesnt that take away anothers right to exist?
"The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words."
(Philip K.Dick)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 7,626
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 7,626 |
im jumping in the middle here but whoa on the inaction thing Iss. inaction is not neutral. it is a serious choice that may have serious consequences, depending upon the circumstances. in fact there are always consequences.
sure, you can talk to god, but if you don't listen then what's the use? so, onward through the fog!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 12,581
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 12,581 |
If a man has access to all the available water and chooses not share (sharing can take many forms, including selling it:-)) doesnt that take away anothers right to exist? Sorry, Schlack, but I try not to engage in reductio ad absurdum argument. Yours, Issodhos
"When all has been said that can be said, and all has been done that can be done, there will be poetry";-) -- Issodhos
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 12,581
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 12,581 |
im jumping in the middle here but whoa on the inaction thing Iss. inaction is not neutral. it is a serious choice that may have serious consequences, depending upon the circumstances. in fact there are always consequences. I wrote, "Yes, inaction is a choice. It has repercussions. They may be social, moral, or ethical, but it is not an infringement of his natural right to life because a natural right cannot obligate another to provide that right, and inaction is neutral in that regard." Yours, Issodhos
"When all has been said that can be said, and all has been done that can be done, there will be poetry";-) -- Issodhos
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 7,626
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 7,626 |
no Iss, you're backing away. you statement above was completely wrong and only has bearing in an antiquated western ideological world. Schlack's question has merit and illustrates that indeed inaction is far more than a neutral position and can have consequences both intended and not.
sure, you can talk to god, but if you don't listen then what's the use? so, onward through the fog!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 7,626
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 7,626 |
im jumping in the middle here but whoa on the inaction thing Iss. inaction is not neutral. it is a serious choice that may have serious consequences, depending upon the circumstances. in fact there are always consequences. I wrote, "Yes, inaction is a choice. It has repercussions. They may be social, moral, or ethical, but it is not an infringement of his natural right to life because a natural right cannot obligate another to provide that right, and inaction is neutral in that regard." Yours, Issodhos please illustrate because i do not agree and would enjoy a convincing argument. i believe inaction can indeed infringe upon one's natural right to life depending upon the motivation.
sure, you can talk to god, but if you don't listen then what's the use? so, onward through the fog!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 12,581
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 12,581 |
no Iss, you're backing away. you statement above was completely wrong and only has bearing in an antiquated western ideological world. Schlack's question has merit and illustrates that indeed inaction is far more than a neutral position and can have consequences both intended and not. No, you are completely wrong. Yes, Schlack's question had merit. I addressed it based on the concept of natural rights. I suspect you are both looking for a semantic escape. Yours, Issodhos
"When all has been said that can be said, and all has been done that can be done, there will be poetry";-) -- Issodhos
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,740 Likes: 1
veteran
|
|
OP
veteran
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,740 Likes: 1 |
Sorry, Schlack, but I try not to engage in reductio ad absurdum argument. your choice i suppose, to ignore what could become a real world possibility fairly soon, except with nations instead of men, we shall see what people think is a natural right worth fighting for then. Weren't questions like this similar to the ones philosphers asked themselves to test and expound their theories? Such tools are just too absurd
"The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words."
(Philip K.Dick)
|
|
|
|
|
