If I may, I think you misapprehend the idea Bricker was floating about rights and the law. You don’t determine rights by looking at the law and seeing if they are there per se. But, if the law does not enforce the “right,” functionally it doesn’t exist in that society. And, more to the point, if you are not willing to enshrine protection of the “right” in the law, then one has to consider that the “right” truly doesn’t exist.
I could be wrong, but I think the whole point to the OP and the position of Bricker is that, while any one person may have a belief about what is morally correct with regard to dolphins vis-a-vis humans, asserting that therefore dolphins have more “right” to live (or, for that matter, any rights at all) is to misunderstand the meaning of the term “right.” You speak of what is “right and wrong;” there is nothing that is “right” or “wrong” in all contexts. They are not absolutes, they are dependant upon the viewpoint. Which “right” (meaning morally correct choice) do you think legislation should reflect?
I disagree: a right may exist and not be enforced, if one believes in inalienable rights. A right is a moral construct, not a legal construct. If I have a right, your refusal to recognize it means that you are behaving immorally.
True, if society doesn’t punish you, then your immoral behavior and five bucks will buy me a latte. BUt that’s not the point: in the context of moral discussions, rights are constructs that help us figure out how people should behave. When we figure that out, we can figure out how we should behave. Our own behavior may include engaging in arguments, persuasions, or coercion; or it may include keeping our mouths shut. But a strong understanding of right and wrong can guide us effectively, and rights are one construct that can help us develop such an understanding.
I want to pull this out as something else I disagree with. Certain abstract behaviors–initiating fraud against a moral agent who has not initiated force or fraud against someone else, for the purposes of gaining something for yourself at their expense, for example–is wrong in all contexts.
I understand that you are not, but your belief that morals aren’t relevant doesn’t square with the established fact that all morals can be argued either way, and point of view is a determining factor, as well as circumstances of specific situations, etc. Standing there with your fingers over your eyes, and/or in your ears, and asserting that something isn’t so just because you don’t want it to be so, doesn’t make it not so.
As for “inalienable rights,” those are “rights” only so long as a society agrees to grant them. When the signers of the document with that memorable phrase agreed to that concept, they represented a wide cross-section of American society at the time. Had TJ written that phrase, and no one wanted to sign it, what value his own belief in that phrase?
Rights, in abstract, are meaningless. As Robert Heinlein himself put it, what right to life does the dying man have, marooned without food or drink? Or, to be more blunt and succinct, what right to life does the convicted murderer have as he is about to be killed by lethal injection? You and I may agree that he should not be killed, but how does that give him any “right” to anything?
I know that you, as a person, have a certain feeling about certain things that should or should not be done. I again ask you, as I did in the last post, what “rights” should a piece of legislation reflect? Yours? Mine?
Wait a minute–are you saying that, if something can be argued either way, there must not be an objective truth to it? Your last sentence, snide though it is, is actually exactly how I feel about the stand you’re taking :).
No, actually, that’s what the word “inalienable” means: they’re rights whether or not society agrees to grant them. When a society chooses not to grant them, it’s the society that’s at fault, and ethical members of that society are obligated to change that society. What you describe are alienable rights, not inalienable rights.
The value is that he’d have guidance to his own actions: he should work to change his society such that others believe in them.
That question is really ambiguous. I’ll take it to mean, “Whose conception of rights should a piece of legislation reflect?” The answer to that is that a piece of legislation should reflect the objectively correct conception of morality. We, therefore, not being omniscient, should work toward figuring out what that objectively correct conception of morality is. But the fact that we’re not omniscient doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist.
In keeping with a riddle offered earlier in the thread, here’s another one:
Q. What was the smallest continent before Australia was discovered?
A. Australia.
The fact that we don’t know something doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist; the fact that two people can argue contradictory sides of a position doesn’t not mean that neither of them are right or wrong.
So how does one establish that a given “right” is, in fact, inalienable? What is the process? What scale do we place the “right” upon, and what reading from that scale tells us that the right exists and is inalienable?
I’m sorry, Left, but you fail the test. Inalienable simply means that a society cannot barter the right away. In other words, the social contract simply cannot be read to imply the granting away of the right by a society.
But this simply puts the cart before the horse. If a society as a whole does NOT recognize a right, then just because YOU consider it inalienable doesn’t make it a right. In short, you cannot assert a right exists on the basis of the opinion of any one single, or small group of persons.
There is no such thing as an “objectively correct conception of morality.” If you truly believe such a thing exists, you are doomed to a sad life, watching human kind demonstrate the opposite. I suggest you read some more about the whole concept of rights and government and morals and such. You appear to be confused in a way that won’t allow you to be helped.
And thank the Goddess for that! How wretched would such a thing be, without soul, without spirit, without love!
Come to think of it, wasn’t there one such? Anne Rice? No, that ain’t it, but close, Ann something or other. Claimed a wholly rational system of morality Batshit pizza.
Moral guidance through an informed conscience, as you said.
Of course you can, given that we’re technically talking about beliefs, not opinions. You’re denying an objective system of ethics; I’m not. That’s the difference. If I’m correct–if there is an objectively correct approach to morality–then no amount of people who disagree matters. If you’re correct, then no amount of people who disagree matters.
I worry, Bricker and DSYoung, that you guys may not be aware of the sea in which you swim, the sea of moral relativism. It may be what’s taught in law school (indeed, it seems to be a great basis for law in a liberal society, although certainly not the only possible such basis), and y’all may be unaware that it’s a highly controversial philosophical position. Y’all may want to review a description of the position and read some of the objections to it before acting as though I’m ignorant for not accepting it as gospel.
Insufficient answer – it works for ME, since my conscience is fully and correctly informed. But yours is evidently not, since you appear to arriving at answers that differ from mine, and yet for some reaosn you refuse to acknowledge the fault lies with you. How do I go about proving your flaws to you?
No, the inalienable rights, (or unalienable if you prefer) are pre-existing, and thus outside the purview of government or society to grant them. At least, the founders understood it this way when they wrote the bill of rights, a negative system of rights, delineating what government cannot do, rather than the converse. “Congress shall make no law…” “The right of the people shall not be infringed…” etc. etc.
Just as you would persuade me of any other objective fact: marshal evidence and logic to convince me that my position is incorrect. At the same time, you must be willing to examine evidence and arguments that your position is incorrect.
Starting from the assumption that your conscience is fully and correctly informed is as irrational as starting from the assumption that you know all there is to know about any other field of study, e.g., biology. If someone suggests that something you assume about biology is incorrect, how do you evaluate their claim?
How familiar are you with the dispute between moral objectivism and moral relativism? I’m not super-familiar myself, but I’ve got enough of a passing acquaintance with the idea to recognize relativism when I see it, and to be suspicious that it’s not a useful or accurate approach to morality. I don’t absolutely reject it, but I don’t much like it, either.
