[removed]

[removed]

Negligence is a little difference as it involves an action first to create the situation in which walking away is immoral. Truly an exception that proves the rule, without prior action and intentions behind those action then any claims of rights violation are probably a form of rights violation themselves.

As in, claiming someone isn't your slave and giving you free food becomes a rights violation because you're fabricating their responsibility with the intent of depriving them of the ability to simply walk away. Something similar happens when states build walls to keep people in. This is why a standard of guilt is necessary in this argument.

And finally why I stand by my right to walk away until you prove this responsibility was voluntarily chosen with informed consent.

Or it's a veiled attempt to put the figurative foot in the door for an argument that leads into a discussion about the soul. In my experience this is usually the case. By making distinct the biology of consciousness from the experience of consciousness it allows for arguments to speculate the nature of incorporal things. Eventually leading to arguments justifying a belief in the supernatural and eventually religion.

Will do, appreciate the time taken to respond.

I am the mountain, I am the root, the source

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Be Respectful

>Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

It's Daniel Schmatenberger's idea. Check him out for the straight dope.

1. I argue that natural law is based on social contract theory and those rights would have to be within the powers of one's freedom
2. I wouldn't claim its an unalienable right (we allow government takings and adverse possession). Property rights require specification and prioritization, which social contract theory specifies.
3. There is no consensus that I'm aware of. Inalienable rights is misleading, since rights require specification and are subject to reasonable restrictions. They aren't trumps according to my conception of them. I use natural rights.
4. In Europe, before the enlightenment, natural law theory was based on divine providence, so god.
5. It may have depended more on power than reason, so the most powerful.
6. No, this is actual the strengths of contractualism/social contract theory. It can explain moral obligations and political legitimacy.
7. Yes, since rights implies duties.
8. Then reason must figure out an ordering of rights. This ordering may be universal (the social contract stage), based on national values (the political constitution stage) or based on the applicable law (the formal law creation stage).

Im not sure if you're being serious or playing devil's advocate. Could you reduce Bethoven to motions of atoms in the void, or Newtons equations to ink molecules on paper molecules? All of the internet is just various states of transistors?

It depends, There would be cases where one may not have a right to walk away (say, the person is being arrested for a crime) or someone else's rights might trump the right to walk away (for instance, if a parent is trying to walk away from a child).

The ethical standard we use to specify and prioritize rights are found in the social contract, which is based on freedom and justifiable reasons to require duties from others. The article explains that rights aren't intuitive. The thousands of pages of contract law, property law, criminal procedure law etc. aren't intuitive. They are based on reasons that justify imposing duties onto others.

> 3. I want to be on the same page as everyone as far as vocabulary is concerned, so, do we use inalienable rights or natural rights?

I'd use them interchangeably and get annoyed and yell semantics if someone disagrees. I know it's fun to make philosophy difficult but let's at least make the words simple?

Also, I might post back later and answer some of those questions as an exercise.

[deleted]

Hello. I think a dog has the natural right to defend themselves. Would this require a discussion on biological language? For example, if everything in the natural world is by default, self serving and trying to survive against anything that can threaten their life, does that imply everyone has natural rights if they are a living being? I suppose the tangent of owning a firearm is not, by any means, a natural right. I think. If this is true, would that imply we are slaves to nature and the rest of our biological processes as we continue to live? Forget Locke’s view, I would like to get to the bottom of this because this is the perfect time for this dialogue to gain attention.

Questions:

1. Is there a gap in understanding the actual natural right and the right that cannot literally be taken?
2. I can take someone’s property (Locke), but why does he claim it’s inalienable right?
3. I want to be on the same page as everyone as far as vocabulary is concerned, so, do we use inalienable rights or natural rights?
4. Prior to the Enlightenment period, who decided/managed the hierarchy of natural rights.
5. Who’s rights were more important?
6. Does this shift your view when this conversation is later considered in (let’s say) a political issue?
7. Are we obligated, by default, to allow everyone to enjoy their natural rights?
8. What happens when natural rights conflict? I have a lot more questions but I’m sure you would want to sleep soon. Lol.

Besides the consistent shade on libertarians, I can't find many firm claims to argue against. Just got to say, if someone says "please leave me alone" and they walk alone, the belief that this is an infringement of your rights would be bizarre. It's not a great answer, but I must have the right to walk away, I must have the negative right away from people who feel entitled to whatever I have.

This isn't "property rights" it's simply an argument against being a greedy dick... And it's the entirety of libertarianism.

In order to live, we need to breathe. So we have the right to breathe anywhere, anytime, and anyway we want. So we have a duty to make sure the air is clean and safe to breathe. But corporations don't fullfil that duty fully. This also applies to water and food and shelter. Corporations screw people in all these areas. We have the right to do something about it but if you do something to drastic other than voting and protesting (which obviously doesn't work or works wayyyy to slowly), than you get labeled as an environmental terrorist or something along those lines.

We’re not that unique.

Are you paying for it? It says the servers are busy when I try to use it.

Lol chat gpt

This is the correct answer. Even an idiot like me understood that to really try to differentiate the two you would be making shit up, they’re basically the same thing, although maybe the reason why someone would wanna try to explain the difference is so that others who don’t understand what the persons point is can learn the point.

Insofar that we're the only species on the planet who doesn't learn from experience and therefore continue to do the same stupid, destructive things over and over again?

Big words so it’s philosophy… cogito, ergo sum.

[removed]

It's the worm's DNA. A blueprint for what the thing is supposed to built.

The dude's post saying "Nuh-Uh!" does not a legitimate argument make.

The frog skin isn't cognitive like a brain, it's reacting as it ought as if it were on a frog. Which, hey, could be useful.

EDIT: GEEEEEZE, if you ask for an answer TAKE IT when it's given to you instead of saying "NUH UH!" over and over.

Sorry, that doesn't help me understand the difference in case of brain, biology, and experience.