What kind of right? Natural right? Legal right? Physical right?
What kind of right? Natural right? Legal right? Physical right?
Well, I can't argue against the existence of legal rights, because they clearly exist. I don't know WHAT a physical right is. So what I'm talking about is "natural right", I suppose -- I haven't studied this. Things like a "right to life". In any case, since I'm out of my depth with the question, I'll skip that bit.Originally Posted by benzss
Say you have a sandwich. You are quite satisfied by your lunch but it's just sitting there. Along comes a starving man who, if he does not get that sandwich, will probably die. It's yours in every possible way -- you bought or grew the components and compiled it yourself. According to every conception of property right I can think of, you have every right to do as you please with it, even throw it away. Furthermore, he has absolutely no right to your sandwich. However I suggest it is immoral to do anything other than give him the sandwich, and you therefore have no right to do anything else with it.
This depends on each persons personality. My mind is wired to treat issues of "ownership" and what to do with it on a case by case scenario. In this case I would give him the sandwich, I am more than well-fed and I would feel bad the I let a man die, even though it is not my fault he has no regular access to food. I wouldn't say I have no right to do anything else with it, I have the right to do whatever the hell I want with it, but my conscience would not allow me to do it, I would give him the food. But I would also have to know that he hasn't eaten in so long that if he doesn't get this sandwich he would die. Even after the I gave him the sandwich I would consider that I gave him the sandwich even though I owned it, and I had every right to do whatever I pleased with it.
I pass homeless people all the time when I am downtown, and if I gave money to every single person I saw, I would be broke myself, and of no use to anyone. If he wasn't going to die from not eating that day, and would just eat out of the trash later or something, I might not give him the sandwich depending on the exact circumstances and what I knew.
I imagine there are people despicable enough (based on my view of morality) to let the man die even IF they knew he would die if he did not get that particular sandwich right away.
That's why I made the example the way I did. There's a difference between a sandwich you don't even need to eat (I said you were "satisfied") and money which you need to survive and build a life.
How can you be despicable for exercising rights? You have a right to be despicable?
You used at least two different definitions of what a 'right' is in here. What you say makes sense until the last sentence. How did you change your definition of what a 'right' is in your last sentence compared to previous ones?
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks