You seem constantly changing the point this thread is about. Originally you posed this quesiton:
|
richardhutnik said: I would be interested in seeing individuals who want to argue for rights-based ethical systems to be able to end up coming up with the best solution to this current issue regarding contraception and effectively argue that rights-based ethical systems can work. |
I came up with a resolution, as a personal right here is opposed to groups. So one side is not covered in the area of personal rights, the groups (in this case the church as an employer) cannot claim individual rights. So no conflict. Also, a rights-based-system must not include every thinkable right, so we could discuss, if a right to get contraception paid from the employer should be part of the ethical system of choice. It is not part of the human rights for instance.
What you did over this thread: you claim individual rights for groups - no, as they not individuals, they get no individual rights.
You invent new rights and add them to other rights-systems - there are many rights-systems out there, that are consistent in itself. You can always destroy them, by adding nonsensical rights. You can define different rights-systems that can lead to completely different ethics. But they are different rights-systems.
You claim, that rights-based system can contain contradictions. Yes, so does EVERY ethical system. But usually the problematic cases are not common in reality.
You claim, that duties cannot be derived from individual rights. So what? Does every ethical system have to include duties? You only asked in the OP, if the system may work, not that it includes everything you want. You may not prefer a rights-based-system, but that doesn't mean it isn't working.
You say: "But a rights-based system doesn't provide food for homeless people." Maybe, but that's not the point. An ethical-system can come to the conclusion that food has to be provided for the homeless - or not. That doesn't mean it isn't a working and valid ethical system. Heck, the slave-traders had a working ethical system. We may not approve of it, but they had one.
So, that an ethical system doesn't do what you want, doesn't mean it isn't working. It only means you may prefer another ethical system. No problem with that. I also would add some rules to rights-based ethical system to make it complete. But that's a different point. That would be asking for 'which ethical system are you prefering'. And such a thread could get complicated, as there are tons of ethical systems.
You ask, if I can argue, that a rights-based-system can work. I think I argued that enough. The declaration of human-rights is a rights-only system. I would add some more rules to create up a society, but I think it's a great base. So my question to you is: can you show that the system of human rights doesn't work?
