| Mnementh said: You seem constantly changing the point this thread is about. Originally you posed this quesiton:
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. ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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? |
Note: I edited this down, and stuck a line between the middle, to discuss the two points separately.
First, this thread has deviated some from the original topic, looking at rights themselves. In light of this, other things were discussed, and continue to be. Of course, the time things can stop being discussed, and this thread would end.
In regards to your second point, it would depend on what is meant by working. If working means, "provide some framework to answer ethical questions" then yes, a rights-based system can work. If it means "to be able to resolve ethical questions, without there being contradictions, and sometimes being on par with having no ethical system but have something akin merely the most resourceful in a fight and doesn't have flaws in its foundation" then no, a rights-based ethics system doesn't work.
What has been discussed here is that, if you advocate for positive rights, then rights will conflict. If you end up merely having purely negative rights (assuming that they are merely negative), then you can't show any sense of duty, unless the exercising of the rights are considered mandatory.
I could end up arguing here that, in the case of negative rights, they either end up acting as positive rights, or end up being duties. Take the example of criminal acts with victims. In this, if you have a rights-based ethical system, based on negative rights, that would argue that there is a right to not be a victim, and this is a said negative right, and is a reason for a society to exist. Well, to make this work, an individual would then come to expect upon society they live in to keep themselves free of criminals. This would then call upon society to come up with law enforcement, pass laws and so on, to protect people from criminals. In doing this they would end up taxing people, taking their money against the will of people to do this, because it is agreed that people not have this. The right to not be a victim ends up becoming a positive right, that would infringe on the rights of others to their own property and not theft.
In this, one then can end up saying, "But this doesn't need to happen. People can end up paying for their own law enforcement and protection, why have taxes and fees and provide it for everyone?" At this point, you no longer even have a negative right for everyone, to not have harm done to them, but you have a duty you impose on everyone. It is a restriction on behavior. It isn't a right, it is an obligation that people don't harm others. Also, for a person who wants to be protected, they need to do it themselves, and that also becomes a duty. It is very little different than a system where there is no morals or ethics either, because this exact state of self-protection, and use of aggression are seen as the rule of the wilds, with the stronger picking on the weaker failure to protect oneself means you failed in your own moral duty to protect yourself, so it is more of the consequence of a failure to meet one's own duty, than it is that one had their own rights violated.
In this, you end up with either rights in conflict due to them being positive rights without any means of harmonizing and the ethical system in conflict with itself, or you end up with something merely reduced to demands placed on individuals that need to be met, and failure to do so results in consequences, and not rights at all.
