Originally Posted by
gwahir
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.
Bookmarks