From: michael.bast@convergys.com
Date: Mon Feb 25 2002 - 13:59:59 MST
I think you've finally hit on a formulation/wording for natural rights
that I can agree with, and would think you would find a much easier time
getting most people to agree to. I don't think it's possible to argue from
either absolutes or "human nature" (since people define that however fits
their agendas), but this wording makes the case very clear and very strong.
Except that I wouldn't say "by virtue of their specific nature", but
something along the lines of "historically, to get the results we seem to
want (more prosperity, health, a better working society, more freedom)
humans seem to need these rights, protections, etc".
I understand that making rights a legal creation (which I have to
admit to thinking that they are) makes their case much less strong, and
this might be the reason they're so often stated as inherent, but you
weaken the case for people who don't see them as anything more than
abstractions from evidence. (If that makes sense...) Your way achieves the
results much more cleanly.
Mike.
From: Samantha Atkins <samantha@objectent.com>
Subject: Re: sentient rights (was RE: Battleground God)
Agreed. It is a strange turn of phrase. To me the argument that natural
rights grow out of the fact that humans, by virtue of their specific
nature, require certain conditions in order to live and thrive most
optimally and a subset of those are basically rights to their own person,
property and pursuits - the so-called "negative rights" - comes closest to
a justification for natural rights.
-- NOTICE: The information contained in this electronic mail transmission is intended by Convergys Corporation for the use of the named individual or entity to which it is directed and may contain information that is privileged or otherwise confidential. If you have received this electronic mail transmission in error, please delete it from your system without copying or forwarding it, and notify the sender of the error by reply email or by telephone (collect), so that the sender's address records can be corrected.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:12:38 MST