More evidence that rights-based ethical systems have flawed foundations.

[richardhutnik]

Kantor said:

richardhutnik said:

This view, which looks like it resolves all sorts of conflicts, ends up missing a lot.  This view would end up saying the only issue with the Hunger Games (the games in the book) is that the participants in the games didn't volunteer to go there.  If they had volunteered, then the entire thing would be ok.  There is nothing unethical about people fighting to the death for fame and glory, so long as they freely choose to do so.

 

I have no issue with that statement.

There is nothing wrong with a group of people who have volunteered under no outside pressure to fight to the death for fame and glory, doing exactly that. They know what they signed up to do, and nobody is being hurt other than those who have willingly forfeited their right to life and safety.

An important part of a rights-based ethical system is that the forfeiting of rights is possible.

Actually, a Libertarian view of a rights-based ethical system is that it is possible to forfeit rights.  If you go with a Lockian view, then it is impossible for forfeit one's rights, because the rights are inalienable.  In the Declaration of Independence, the founding fathers considered the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to be inalienable.  So, no, being able to forfeit rights is not necessarily part of a rights-based ethical system.