[extropy-chat] # What the #$?! are rights anyway?

[Lee Corbin]

Amara writes

> A "right" is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man's freedom
> of action in a social context.

Nice definition.

Suppose we translate "The Unborn have a right to life!" and "Women have
a right to choose!".

They become  "There is a moral principle protecting any human tissue
from arbitrary destruction", and "There is a moral principle sanctioning
the freedom of a woman to choose!".

Now, it's clear that there is still an underlying problem, and that it
will not go away so easily. The speakers are still talking past each other.

The real problem is that it sounds so righteous to declaim either of those
sentences, especially if done with passion!  Even when very little at all
is being said!

I agree with Robert and the others that "rights" better are thought of
as not existing---the concept just seems to throw a monkey-wrench
(i.e. spanner) into the discussion. The language, horribly, prevents
instead of facilitating communication.

More progress is made by trying to anticipate consequences of enacting
laws. For example, one side might say "Every step towards the cheapening
of human life can have unpleasant future effects on our civilization",
"it's better for as many people as possible to be rescued from non-
existence".

The other side can say things like "Who should decide? Do you propose to
use force on a woman? Whose business is it?", and "what are the risks of
adding this loss of freedom to gun control, helmet-wearing, zoning,
government surveillance, and the myriads of other limitations on our
liberty? Think about those effect on our future civilization."

So: isn't it true that by avoiding questionable terms like "rights" we
forward the discussions?

Lee