Mnementh said:
richardhutnik said:
Mr Khan said:
It's ultimately a moot point. We should have universal health coverage, and the gutless government is doing so in a way that happens to force religious institutions to betray some of their values.
The Obama Administration shouldn't be doing this, but the "why" of it has little to do with religion. |
Another example I could of used is how a homosexual activist forced a Christian film development studio to develop a promotional film for homosexuality, by means of the courts. The activist argued they had a right to not be denied service, and pitted that said right against the owners of the company to say they didn't want to be involved with anything they saw as promoting sin.
EHarmony.com ran into another one. They offered their service for heterosexuals only, as their market. They were sued in court to require offering their matching services for homosexuals. To placate these requirements, eharmony.com ended up setting up a separate service. I know of eharmony, because Dr. Warren targeted his research at churches in the beginning.
Again, you see over and over what people considered rights in continual conflict with other people's rights. And these rights end up individual or collectively. The rights-based ethical systems don't provide any answers for prioritizing.
|
Both examples are again persons against non-persons. Again, if you prefer personal rigths it's clear which side wins.
And yes, rights of one side always can conflict with other rights. That's normal. We usually have priorities defined.
|
People were arguing a case that rights NEVER conflict ever. In this argument, the rights actually got reduced to one, liberty, and that being one of choice and coersion. Anything not coerced is right, and anything coerced is always wrong.
And what I had initially brought up is that rights-based ethics systems run into a problem with prioritizing. When in conflict, it is hard to get people to agree to what should have the higher priority. Rights-based ethical systems run into the opposite problems that Utilitarianism does, which is that conflicts go unresolved. Utilitarianism will come up with a formula and calculate the greatest good, and not respect basic rights, which pretty much need to be absolute, in order to be respected. And this goes into a reason why the foundation of rights-based ethics systems fall short.
Another one is sins of omission. People here are arguing they don't exist, and reduce moral wrongs to what you do to someone and fail to account for things one can do, but don't:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin_of_omission
