Quote Originally Posted by gwahir View Post
In my mind, the only sensible definition of "right" is "something which I am ethically permitted to do". That varies from case to case, so actually thinking of any "rights" is near to impossible. Therefore, it is my position that we should abandon thinking of rights, instead thinking about responsibilities (i.e. the responsibility held by all to act for the best consequences, or something).

I used the sandwich example to illustrate why I think the widely held rights definition is unviable. If I am acting within my rights, what I'm doing should not be considered unethical. But it is unethical to let a person starve because you simply want to throw a sandwich at a wall, or eat it yourself when you are already satisfied. Therefore, by doing anything other than giving the staving person my sandwich, I'm acting unethically, but I'm acting within my rights, so it's ethical. Ditching the idea of rights allows us to more easily get to the bottom of the ethical permissability of taking lives, using other people's property, etc.
Ok well that makes sense. I certainly agree that it's ethical to give a starving person your sandwich assuming there aren't any other factors that would make such a choice possibly not the best one (like ten other starving children you could help instead or whatever). Though, while it may be the best ethical choice in that situation, I would argue that it is unethical for someone else to force that man to give his sandwich to the starving man.