= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
shminux comments on Open thread, Nov. 3 - Nov. 9, 2014 - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (310)
A right is a shortcut in consequentialism (or another normative ethics) turned into a lost purpose. Different rights can and do contradict each other, since they were derived in different circumstances. Thus you can argue for or against anything, by stretching the domain of validity of a suitable right. It all depends on how connected, influential and persuasive you are. Hence lawyers.
What'd be the difference between that and an ethical injunction?
I am not an ethics expert by any stretch, so I can only guess. It seems like the opposite of a right, restricting what you can do rather than enabling.
They are two sides of the same coin. "The right to circulation" tells people "you can go wherever you want", and tells States "you can't demand a travel permit every time someone wants to move". "The right to live" tells people "you may go on living if you want" but also "you can't stop people from living if they don't consent to it". The freedom to do something restricts another person's ability to stop you from doing that.
Yes, this is correct.
Ethical injunctions aren't things that are argued in front of courts. Courts argue about rights.