Dear 3WDave,
In your 10/5 21:22 -0500 definition I am definitely an egalitarian:
'an advocate or supporter of the belief that all people should have equal
political, social, and economic rights'.
You write that you are 'very leary of rights, particularly if they're yours
and they infringe on mine. Rights in my mind are absolute. They are also
extremely dangerous because they ARE absolute. In real human relations they
are often misappropriate, misunderstood, and misused as the ultimate
justification for morally questionable actions. Guess that would make me a
reverse-egalitarian.'
I don't think someone's rights can IN THEMSELVES infringe on someone else's
rights. Only the appeal to a right can infringe on someone else's rights. I
don't have to appeal to my rights if I don't need to (rights don't directly
imply duties). I should not appeal to my rights if I don't need to and if
appealing to them would infringe on your rights.
The best sets of 'basic inalienable rights' are formulated in a way that
minimizes this risk of mutual infringement if they are appealed to. For me
the 'right to dignity' (Jonathan 20/2 0:25 +0200, myself 5/3 10:46 +0200) or
the 'right to be able to uphold your intellectual values' (my definition of
'right to dignity') is still a good starting point to formulate such a
high-quality set of basic inalienable rights.
Roger formulated 24/3 8:36 -0500 the 'right to freedom' (more or less) as
'the right to the ability to influence reality'. Given my upbringing (which
I described 4/4 23:00 +0200 in this context) I will always wonder whether my
right to 'freedom' doesn't imply the right to equal ability to influence
reality for others that share that same
reality. My claim to a specific ability to influence reality implies for me
a duty to grant others that same ability to influence that reality to the
extent that we share it. (It doesn't imply that those others should appeal
to that right, should use that ability and should thereby get the same
influence on reality as I have. They also have a right to be dumb and lazy
...)
In short: a right never justifies a morally questionable action, an
infringement on someone else's right. If it seems to do so, the set of
rights of which it is a part needs reformulation. Rights are never absolute,
because they are part of a set of rights. Even sets of rights aren't
absolute, because they always need reformulation earlier or later when the
circumstances for which they were formulated change and the risk of wrong
interpretations and mutual infringements as a result of that grows.
With friendly greetings,
Wim
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:15 BST