CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Can you delegate a 'right' to someone else that you don't have?
A question people do not stop to consider, especially, when it comes to politics. This is the first question with more to follow.
This is an edited and updated version of the question I presented. The responses so far seem to not really understand what I am asking so, I will clarify by asking the same question, but worded differently:
If there is something that is morally wrong for you to do (such as, committing murder, theft, robbery, rape, assault or fraud), can you make it okay or 'right' for someone else to do it?
I updated the question because I am not talking about voting, yet. But just for the record, the founding fathers did not give me the 'right to vote'. In the historical context it was primarily merchants and businessmen who were recognized as qualified to vote. The rest of it came later on.
If my co-worker gets robbed and killed - would it be morally wrong for me to (attempt to) track down the perpetrator and kill them?
First of all, that is not the question I asked. I asked if there is something that is morally wrong for a person to do, for example murder your co-worker, can that person make it okay for someone else to do it, as in hire someone to commit the murder for them? And yes, if you were to go after that perpetrator, you would be well within your rights to do so. Even if you do not have the ability yourself, you can hire someone to track the person down. That really is no different than hiring a private detective or what "law enforcement" was supposed to be. Anytime you call the cops for any reason you are taking the law into your hands to seek some sort of justice for a wrong committed against you.
Don't we delegate that "right" to the state?
"The State" is not the issue in question just yet. This is a question on a personal level. Whether you can take a wrongful action and turn it into a right one; like murder is wrong no matter who does it.
Is it rational to believe that my inexperience, zeal, etc. would make me a less apt arbiter of justice in this instance?
I don't know, does it? It sounds like you are avoiding answering the question I asked. It is a simple answer but, it has a wide array of implications that you may not like. But I dare you to answer it and see where I am going with this.
It most certainly is. I am taking an immoral action (or at least a questionable one) - vigilante justice, and delegating it to others (in this case the state)
what "law enforcement" was supposed to be.
Tracking down was only the first part - killing was the second. We currently delegate the parts to two separate branches of government.
Anytime you call the cops for any reason you are taking the law into your hands to seek some sort of justice for a wrong committed against you.
In this case the wrong was specifically not against me. I deliberately contrived the scenario to not harm me or even direct family.
like murder is wrong no matter who does it.
Was killing Hitler or Osama bin Laden wrong no matter who did it?
does it?
Yes - it is likely that I am not as capable to enforce the law as a team of professionals selected for such purpose and which has sufficient checks (transparency, separate branches, input from voters, etc.)
If I am not as capable, does it become my moral obligation to delegate rather than pursue it myself - either by hiring a PI or calling the police?
It most certainly is. I am taking an immoral action (or at least a questionable one) - vigilante justice, and delegating it to others (in this case the state)
No, pursuing a murderer is rightful action. Whether you do it or someone else. But my question is, knowing the act of murdering someone is a wrongful action, can you make it okay for someone else to do it when it is wrong for you to do it, yourself?
Tracking down was only the first part - killing was the second.
So? How does this answer the question. It sounds like you are complicating a simple question that only requires a simple yes or no answer.
We currently delegate the parts to two separate branches of government.
I am well aware of how the 'system' is set-up. This still does not answer the question I asked.
In this case the wrong was specifically not against me. I deliberately contrived the scenario to not harm me or even direct family.
It does not matter how you contrived your scenario. My point still stands. If you call the cops on your neighbor to complain about their loud music you are still seeking some remedy and have sought out a third party to take care of the problem. This would not be necessarily wrong either. But if you asked the cop to go and kill your neighbor, now the line has been crossed; would you agree?
Was killing Hitler or Osama bin Laden wrong no matter who did it?
Hitler killed himself and it is highly questionable as to whether Osama Bin Laden was killed because for one thing no body was produced. Also, there is evidence suggesting that he had been long dead; dying in December 2001 from kidney failure.
If they had been killed for the crimes they committed in ordering others to carry out mass murder, I would say no it would not have been wrong. But, again, this does not answer the question that I asked.
Yes - it is likely that I am not as capable to enforce the law as a team of professionals selected for such purpose
Okay, well you know for yourself what you are capable of and what you are not. I personally, would rather protect and defend myself, and do. If someone hurts my family or tries I would do everything I could to stop them.
If I am not as capable, does it become my moral obligation to delegate rather than pursue it myself - either by hiring a PI or calling the police?
You can answer that for yourself. But that is in pursuing the murderer from your example. It is not relevant to the question I asked. I will ask it again: If there is something that is morally wrong for you to do, like murder, can you make it okay for someone else to do it?
If you want a relevant scenario, it would be someone hiring the murderer in your scenario to rob and kill your co-worker. Would that be okay with you?
pursuing wasn't the only action was it? Is killing the person I believe to be the murderer moral?
a simple question that only requires a simple yes or no answer
simplicity - which is probably the fulcrum that your test rests upon - is rarely applicable in such cases.
I personally, would rather protect and defend myself, and do.
Do you also protect and defend all of your co-workers?
But that is in pursuing the murderer from your example. It is not relevant to the question I asked.
It is very much at the heart of the question. If there is a better method of pursuing justice available - does its mere existence make not using it immoral? (Thereby making your action immoral and delegated action moral.)
pursuing wasn't the only action was it? Is killing the person I believe to be the murderer moral?
Perhaps, if you are attempting to bring them back to answer for the crime and they continue leaving a trail of bodies. Then, you finally are catch up to them and they try killing you. The killing of them would be justifiable. If it was me and they gave themselves up to be brought back, I would bring them back alive; at least, I would give them the chance to stick to their word of not running. Yet, it would be unlikely that they would give themselves up if they were continuing their murder spree, in which case, I would be left with little choice.
simplicity - which is probably the fulcrum that your test rests upon - is rarely applicable in such cases.
Keeping it simple is the best way to see and understand the truth of something. And it is applicable to the question that I posed. While there may be a variety of factors involved, keeping it simple helps to make the right decision, even when it is a tough one. Complicating things just serves to twist and distort the truth, in my honest opinion.
Do you also protect and defend all of your co-workers?
As matter of fact, yes. The job I have paid me to do exactly that; I work in private security as a Nuclear Security officer.
It is very much at the heart of the question. If there is a better method of pursuing justice available - does its mere existence make not using it immoral? (Thereby making your action immoral and delegated action moral.)
No, I asked if there is something that is wrong for you/me/any other person on the planet to do, can you make it right for someone else to do it? I imagine we all know that murder is wrong, so can a person ask or tell another to commit murder, claiming that to do so is their right?
It seems like you do not want to give an answer. You continue to avoid answering a simple question; why? As I said to another person who posted on this debate, it does not really matter what I think. But I would hope it matters what you think of what you do, support and believe. If you do not want to give your answer that is fine.
Keeping it simple is the best way to see and understand the truth of something
As you can see from your own answer to the first question - simplicity might be useful for persuasion, but rarely reflects reality.
As matter of fact, yes.
Does that include protecting them when they go home?
can you make it right for someone else to do it?
You can certainly convince someone they should do it - and, through their ignorance, they may later be deemed only partially culpable with additional culpability assigned to the instigator of the act.
It seems like you do not want to give an answer.
I think there may be a semantic issue with how you are phrasing the question, so I am exploring in order to give it a full response.
Your opinion on my question from above:
If there is a better method of pursuing justice available - does its mere existence make not using it immoral?
As you can see from your own answer to the first question - simplicity might be useful for persuasion, but rarely reflects reality.
Actually, in my experience, keeping it simple is the best reflection of reality. The Truth of something tends to be hard to take when first recognizing it. Yet, just because you keep things simple, as best that you can, does not mean it is easy. The simple Truth may still be hard to take. If you are told something is true all of your life and later, under further investigation you find that it is a complete lie, that will likely cause all kinds of difficulties for you. Now things are obfuscated and complex because you cannot tell truth from falsehood and you begin questioning your own judgment.
Yet, if you had used your judgment to begin with you would have seen the lie from the get go. Simplicity as you call it is just a method to keep things straight. That is what I mean when I say keep it simple. It is good to look at something from as many angles as you can but, you have know where to draw the line, otherwise, it becomes counter-productive for you in determining the correct course to take.
Does that include protecting them when they go home?
This seems a bit obvious. But to answer anyway, no, I do not provide them with full protection when they go home; unless, you count keeping pertinent information about defense measures, guarded while I am not on shift. However, as I am not the only one involved with that job, they are still provided protection because there is someone there 24/7 doing the same job I hired on to do. Does this answer your question?
You can certainly convince someone they should do it - and, through their ignorance, they may later be deemed only partially culpable with additional culpability assigned to the instigator of the act.
Yes, I agree and this is my point to asking the questions I posted. Yet, the order followers, to me, are more morally culpable, than are the order givers; imagine if no one had followed Hitler's orders? The latter is just one example of blind obedience to 'authority'. I will be addressing that in another question I intend to post, soon.
I will add that, those who are willfully ignorant are worse than those who simply were not aware. Children could fall into that category. But if someone is well aware of some wrongs being committed and they do nothing they are as wrong as those I spoke of concerning order givers and followers.
If there is a better method of pursuing justice available - does its mere existence make not using it immoral?
I feel like I owe you an apology. I meant to address this point and missed it.
To answer, no, I do not believe that the mere existence of a better method would make not using it immoral. For one thing, a person may not know of such a method. However, having such a method available certainly helps to achieve the intended goal of bringing a murderer to justice. And I doubt there are very many that would actually want to take the person's life even when pursuing them.
To take a human life, to a decent person, is just not desirable. Not even in self-defense. If it has to be done then, so be it, but that does not mean one has to like it. I hold myself in that category. Yet, I think this is why people get so angry when a murder is committed because the one who did it is committing the ultimate theft. And the person who is murdered has no way to be made right. They are gone and it is the worst thing because we all have our life to live and any decent person, I would think, would hold their own life as sacred, and by extension hold others' lives sacred. That's how I see it, anyway.
Yes and no. Mostly no for reasons I will explain later in this argument, but also somewhat yes because elected officials without the right to kill, can permit others such as police officers to.
I say mostly no however, because 'rights' are just over glorified privledges, and whatever group is in charge, has the 'right' or privledge to do whatever it wants, even kill. They just don't say they can, but if the government wanted to establish it's group as a group with rights above average citizens (it wouldn't be fair, and a revolution might happen, but it would be possible) they can.
I say mostly no however, because 'rights' are just over glorified privledges, and whatever group is in charge, has the 'right' or privledge to do whatever it wants, even kill. They just don't say they can, but if the government wanted to establish it's group as a group with rights above average citizens (it wouldn't be fair, and a revolution might happen, but it would be possible) they can.
I disagree that 'rights' are just over glorified privileges because a 'right' is something that is inherent or you have by the fact of being human. The first line in the declaration of Independence stated this and the PTB hate even to this day. A privilege is a permission to do something that a person could not just do themselves.
But what you pointed out is one reason for the question because those politicians do not have a valid claim to do anything they want, even kill. Yet, the problem is in your point there; that someone or group is 'in charge'. And the belief that they have the 'right to rule' is, also, part of the problem.
It is as if everyone is forcing what they think others should do upon everyone else. It really boils down to the desire to control others; which is impossible without the threat or act of violence used upon them.
What you described to be a right, is literally a privilege. You say a right is something that is inherent of being a human. I ask what is inherent, and can't be taken away? I can think of simply 'being able to kill' simple as that, is inherent of being a human, yet we do not generally have this as a right, in fact only a select few are given this privilege under specific circumstances (soldiers in war time, and police with a hostile criminal). Or how about our very own lives, those are entirely inherent to us being humans, thus we have the right to do as we please with it right? Wrong. We can't drink or smoke before a certain age, on the grounds that we would be shortening our own lives before we even understand the repercussions of drinking and smoking. We must wear our seat belts and helmets because if not we're risking our very own lives. And the bit to sum it all up, we can't simply kill ourselves, if we even attempt to do so, we'll be detained and deemed mental. I feel these things we call rights, are only different than what we call privileges because we in some countries write them down and call them such.
What you described to be a right, is literally a privilege.
Not true because a 'right' cannot be taken away but can be violated or infringed upon. A privilege is granting permission to do something a person would not otherwise be allowed to do like, being a guest in someone's home. They have granted permission to be there and may have rules that they wish to be adhered to. But the guest cannot come into the home without that permission first, or it would be intrusion.
The guest does not have to agree the rules, of course, and the owner of the home is within his rights to expel them from his property, his home and the land he has ownership of.
However, the home owner cannot hold their guest prisoner against their will; that would violate the guest's right to leave of their own choosing.
I ask what is inherent, and can't be taken away?
First, inherent means by definition: "being an essential part of something." In this case an Individual natural living human person. Next, if you own yourself, then, no one else can claim ownership over you, or your body. Without your explicit consent, there is no valid claim to rule you. Now with that being said, I did not say that this is respected. The point of asking the question is to address that.
You made some points concerning what I just pointed out. I will address them:
I can think of simply 'being able to kill' simple as that, is inherent of being a human, yet we do not generally have this as a right, in fact only a select few are given this privilege under specific circumstances (soldiers in war time, and police with a hostile criminal).
We all have the capability, but no one has a right to take another person's life, without just cause, as in self-defense or protecting others from the actor of the lethal act; that is in stopping the initiation of the act of murder in the first place.
Murder is a wrongful act and can not be turned into a rightful one; it does not matter how it is colored or what you call it, it is what it is. With the right of self-defense (it could be recognized as self-preservation, which is instinctual) permission could be given to others for protection, but it must be voluntary or this falls apart.
The soldiers in war time and the police officers arguably were intended this way, but it seems nowadays are stepping out of bounds, more and more.
Basically, they have no 'special rights' to do anything that you do not have a right to do, yourself. I mean think about it, a privilege has to come from someone having the valid claim to give it, right? Without that valid claim no privilege can be given and does not exist. But things have been deliberately obfuscated and confused. Deception is used constantly, and the so-called education system is really just an indoctrination center that pushes blind obedience to 'authority' instead of guiding towards self-respect and by extension respect for others.
Children seem to grasp the concepts of self-ownership and such that I covered, then, they hash it out amongst themselves; even if they get into fist fights. Sometimes that's all it takes, but these days, they are told by interfering adults that "it does not matter who started the fight. You shouldn't be fighting." But it absolutely does matter who started it because that one is the one who is in the wrong.
Okay, moving onto your next point:
Or how about our very own lives, those are entirely inherent to us being humans, thus we have the right to do as we please with it right? Wrong.
No, this is true, as I have covered already. However>
We can't drink or smoke before a certain age, on the grounds that we would be shortening our own lives before we even understand the repercussions of drinking and smoking.
Yeah, because some politician scribbled on paper a bunch of threats if this or that is done. You barely touch the tip of the iceberg, huh? And they as do many adults think this is going to stop children from doing those habits. If nothing else it does more to drive them towards it. It has never worked very well because children are trying to gain their own independence and develop their personal autonomy. In order for this to be a success for them, they must make their own choices, both good and bad, so they can learn from them. Yet, blind obedience creates mindless drones. Many of whom become the enforcer for distorted reasons and no foundation.
We must wear our seat belts and helmets because if not we're risking our very own lives
Yet, we risk our lives every time we get up in the morning, get into the vehicle and drive, or walking around outside. This is massive overkill on safety, forced upon everyone by those telling us what they think we should or should not do with our own lives.
And the bit to sum it all up, we can't simply kill ourselves, if we even attempt to do so, we'll be detained and deemed mental.
Without digging into this one too much, I will say this; those who are truly bound and determined to do themselves in, will find a way to do so. But I wonder, have you ever seen those commercials with the medications? They list a bunch of side effects, to include thoughts of suicide. These are in quite a few and especially medications dealing with "mental disorders". I suspect those meds cause more mental illness to occur.
I feel these things we call rights, are only different than what we call privileges because we in some countries write them down and call them such.
Well, there is a difference between a "negative right" and "positive" one. In the Bill of Rights of the USA, the writers worded to simply recognize rights that were inherent and specified to Congress that they could not be infringed upon. But somewhere between then and now, things have been deliberately distorted. FDR wrote a "second Bill of rights" and essentially did just exactly what you said. And there is anything from a right to housing to free education, a job, etc. It is non-sense because all of those things a person can certainly go out and acquire for themselves, within reason, but no one can demand that someone provide that for them; that is slavery. This has created a parasitic mentality of people who are now dependent on "the government" to provide their needs and wants; all of course at the expense of others trying to live their own lives.
There is constant aggression and violent conflicts because there are those who flock to power. They want to dominate everyone else. Yet, it really is nothing but an illusion. It is false power based on the continued deception to convince everyone that they must obey 'authority' or the claim of the right to rule; something that does not exist outside of oneself; consent can be given but, it can also, then, be withdrawn. Contracts are made and those who sign on both sides expect the other to follow it, but these have expirations and limitations. They are based on people working with one another to achieve a common goal and mutual benefit. But it can only be enforced upon those who signed and agreed. They cannot sign for someone else who has nothing to do with either parties involved.
Unfortunately, this concept gets twisted and distorted.
I wrote quite a lot here, so I will stop now. But I was wondering, it did not sound like you agreed with anything your wrote? What I mean is that you pointed out a variety of things that happen but, you did not sound like you were none to happy about them?
What objectively makes taking away a privilege different than infringing on a right? I have the right to enter my own, I have the privilege to enter a neighbor's home. If I'm barred from both of those places at the same exact time, one's an infringement, one's a denial of privileged. Sounds the exact same to me. Both were taken, easily, and both are stopping me from entering a place that I have the physical capabilities to. Only actual difference, is what we call them, nothing objective.
What objectively makes taking away a privilege different than infringing on a right? I have the right to enter my own, I have the privilege to enter a neighbor's home.
One is a violation and one is not.
You have a right to enter your own house because you have a valid claim. You do not have such a claim to your neighbor's home. That permission can be taken away on their say so because they have the say in what will be done with their property.
The same applies to your own house and if someone is barring you from entering your home then, you have a valid case against them. They are stealing from you because they have no rightful claim to your house. That is where the infringement or violation is.
The privilege to your neighbor's home is given objectively or outside of you. You cannot be given that permission unless they see fit to give it. You have the valid claim to your house as your neighbor does.
Tell me, if a person initiates a violent aggressive act upon you personally, is it their privilege to do so?
A violation is simply the legal term for doing something you are not allowed to do. the only reason you are not allowed to do it, is because the government said no, which brings us back to the government being who decides what a right is, making them invalid as objective constructs.
What makes the claim to enter my own house valid? What makes it my home? Why don't I have that claim to my neighbor's home?
If a person tries to become violent with me yes it is their privledge to do so, I don't understand what this question is supposed to be affirming though.
I take you back to the point I've reiterated since the beginning, rights and privileges are not inherently different, the only reason they are even considered different, and you actually agreed with me on this, is because rights are legally protected while privileges are not. The reason I say rights don't actually exist, is because though they are legally protected, that protection is very thin. Martial law is a legal action against your rights, legally stripping you of them. How can you be legally stripped of your rights, if rights are supposed to be legally ensured to you? The answer is, they do not exist. Rights are what the government created to make citizens feel safe, and the line between them and privileges was drawn to lend credence to rights, when they would inevitably be taken away.
What makes any right actually inherent to any person? The very concept of rights is a human cognitive construction, and there is absolutely nothing indicating that the idea of rights exists as an objective reality. There is nothing at all to even suggest that rights would continue to exist independent of and absent our conception of them.
The Declaration of Independence does not prove that rights exist inherent to the human condition and independent of our perception of the rights existing. The very fact that they had to be enumerated as existing to begin with speaks to this, not to mention the utter lack of evidence that rights exist independent of our perception of them.
People have been contriving ways to force their beliefs upon other people since we became capable of experiencing belief. Belief in rights is really just one more form of narrative construction that serves to manipulate existing power structures to the advantage of those capable of influencing the rights narrative. You have a right if, and only if, you or someone else is capable of asserting and securing that right.
What makes any right actually inherent to any person? The very concept of rights is a human cognitive construction, and there is absolutely nothing indicating that the idea of rights exists as an objective reality. There is nothing at all to even suggest that rights would continue to exist independent of and absent our conception of them.
All words are human cognitive construction. Concepts and ideas, such as 'rights' would not be around unless someone identified them. We do not know how other creatures think but, we do know through observation that they claim territory and protect it from predators.
The Declaration of Independence does not prove that rights exist inherent to the human condition and independent of our perception of the rights existing. The very fact that they had to be enumerated as existing to begin with speaks to this, not to mention the utter lack of evidence that rights exist independent of our perception of them.
Well, lets see, The first line of the document in question is:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men were created equal and endowed by their creator, with certain inalienable rights, that amongst these rights are the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. . .”
Now, the context of the times certainly has a factor in what they meant by “all men”; It means all human beings. This statement that they made is axiomatic; it cannot be proven nor dis-proven. We are all created equal, given that each and every one of us is conceived the same way. Then, we come into this world equally naked and vulnerable.
All they were doing by making this statement was to recognize this fact because it had been so convoluted by the ruling class of the day; the monarchy. This destroys the “divine right of kings” that had been used as excuse for tyrants to run rampant over people.
Belief in rights is really just one more form of narrative construction that serves to manipulate existing power structures to the advantage of those capable of influencing the rights narrative.
That is not true. That statement made in the Declaration of Independence served to actually destroy the power structure's claim over others. It is recognizing that there is no one who is born superior to any one else. The circumstances are different, but this does not change it. A baby born of a rich family is no better than one born from a 'poor' one. We are all fallible and so, the power structure had to come up with new ways to twist this fact.
You have a right if, and only if, you or someone else is capable of asserting and securing that right.
If that is the case, does that mean that if someone murders you, it is okay because they were able to overpower you thus, asserting their claim to dispose of your body as they see fit, without any regard to what you have to say about it?
All words are human cognitive construction. Concepts and ideas, such as 'rights' would not be around unless someone identified them. We do not know how other creatures think but, we do know through observation that they claim territory and protect it from predators.
All words are subjective human cognitive constructions, but only some of them describe actual objective reality. Other animals assert similar behaviors to humans with respect to establishing and altering their inter-member power dynamics. Rights are not an expression of these objective realities, however, so much as they are cognitive mechanisms for affecting those objective realities. Rights are a subjective narrative used to influence the objective reality of power, but do not themselves actually exist as objective phenomenon.
Well, lets see, The first line of the document in question is [...] This destroys the “divine right of kings” that had been used as excuse for tyrants to run rampant over people.
The Declaration of Independence made an assertion of inalienable rights to conceptually and politically justify its secession from the United Kingdom. That notion of inalienable rights did not exist prior to the writing of the Declaration, because after the subjective nature of rights the "divine right of kings" constituted the prevailing definition of what rights were.
Additionally, at the time "all men" did not mean all human beings; it included only free, propertied men and did not extend to include indentured workers, slaves, women, or unpropertied individuals. This changed only after these excluded groups developed and were able to enforce their own, new conceptions of what rights were to include themselves.
That is not true. That statement made in the Declaration of Independence served to actually destroy the power structure's claim over others. It is recognizing that there is no one who is born superior to any one else. The circumstances are different, but this does not change it. A baby born of a rich family is no better than one born from a 'poor' one. We are all fallible and so, the power structure had to come up with new ways to twist this fact.
I agree that the Declaration of Independence facilitated the dissolution of pre-existing power structures. That is precisely my point. The definition of rights was changed - the narrative of what constitutes rights was altered - in order to change the objective reality of power distribution.
If that is the case, does that mean that if someone murders you, it is okay because they were able to overpower you thus, asserting their claim to dispose of your body as they see fit, without any regard to what you have to say about it? ^Truly curious to your answer to that question.
My statement was somewhat vague. What I intended to convey was that a right is only acknowledged as existing for you if you or someone else is capable of asserting and securing it within the power structure. If slaves had not been able to assert and secure their right to freedom, then that right still would not be acknowledged as existing.
Because the right to life is generally viewed as legitimate within at least the United States and comparable legal entities, one would still be perceived as having had the right to life even if it is violated. Because the right is perceived as legitimate, the power structure reinforces it against perpetrators and thus we arrive at the common practice of retaliatory punishment (e.g. the murderer goes to prison or is executed if caught).
Personally, I do not think we have any objective rights whatsoever. I appreciate the utility of the subjective moral narrative as a form of social control and interpersonal regulation. I would not personally say I actually have any rights, but I would act to assert the idea of them against others because it is in my best interest to do so. What others call a violation of rights I would personally understand as a failure of the rights narrative to function as intended by those viewing it as a violation.
I say mostly no however, because 'rights' are just over glorified privledges, and whatever group is in charge, has the 'right' or privledge to do whatever it wants, even kill. They just don't say they can, but if the government wanted to establish it's group as a group with rights above average citizens (it wouldn't be fair, and a revolution might happen, but it would be possible) they can.
I disagree that 'rights' are just over glorified privileges because a 'right' is something that is inherent or you have by the fact of being human. The first line in the declaration of Independence stated this and the PTB hate even to this day. A privilege is a permission to do something that a person could not just do themselves.
But what you pointed out is one reason for the question because those politicians do not have a valid claim to do anything they want, even kill. Yet, the problem is in your point there; that someone or group is 'in charge'. And the belief that they have the 'right to rule' is, also, part of the problem.
It is as if everyone is forcing what they think others should do upon everyone else. It really boils down to the desire to control others; which is impossible without the threat or act of violence used upon them.
I think he is asking if Obama can delegate rights to illegal immigrants that Obama himself doesn't have. For instance, granting the right to vote for illegals would be something that Obama does have because he can vote, but something like the right to have a million dollars a week would not qualify because Obama doesn't have that right.
I have updated the question to be more specific and apologize if there was confusion there or it was a bit vague.
To answer what you are addressing, no he does not have that 'right' but, then, I do not believe he has the 'right' to do really anything he does as "President".
Mine was a clarifying question, not an avoidance. The question is meant determine if rights can be delegated at all. If the ones you have can't be delegated, then none could be.
Mine was a clarifying question, not an avoidance. The question is meant determine if rights can be delegated at all. If the ones you have can't be delegated, then none could be.
Well, I got specific and reworded the question. Maybe, you did not catch it. I will ask it here: If there is something that is morally wrong for you to do, can you make it right for someone else to do it? One example would be committing murder or maybe less of an extreme would be theft.
As to your point, you raised an interesting question, but I was pointing to the rights we do not have. It is interesting that people constantly speak of having the 'right' to do this or have that, but no speaks to what we do not have a 'right' to do.
It is like the saying, "Your rights end where my nose begins."
My question pertains to giving of something to another that you do not have. Another example could be, selling your neighbor's car without his knowledge. You do not possess the vehicle, you didn't even steal it, but you managed to convince someone to give you money for it, fraudulently.
Hopefully, that clarifies what I am asking. It really does not matter what I think, but I would think it matters to you what you think about what you do and support. So I invite you to give your answer here on this debate.
Here is the question, reworded from the title of the debate:
If there is something that is morally wrong for you to do, can you make it right for someone else to do it?
Since you hit clarify on this side, it puts that as the position at the bottom of your comment. It won't add to the points of that side.
It would be morally wrong for me to perform laser eye surgery. Would not be wrong for a qualified doctor hired to do so. When considering the morality of an action, we must also consider the context.
Edit: to answer directly, yes. An Action that is immoral in one context can be moral in another.
Since you hit clarify on this side, it puts that as the position at the bottom of your comment. It won't add to the points of that side.
Yeah, it's all messed up because I wasn't disputing you, but trying to clarify. I made my argument already though. Anyway, I am not too concerned about points and maybe I should have put this on a perspectives debate; probably would have worked better.
It would be morally wrong for me to perform laser eye surgery. Would not be wrong for a qualified doctor hired to do so.
Not necessarily, if you were well practiced on laser eye surgery, and someone hired you to do it, I would say that is not morally wrong. However, if you advertised yourself as being experienced with laser eye surgery, but you were not anything of the sort, then yeah, that would be wrong; I think what we are looking for here is accountability. Also, what qualifies someone as a doctor? Say you were taught by an actual eye surgeon and you could do this procedure with great success, but you did not attend medical school. Are you still qualified if your teacher, the eye surgeon, gives the okay?
When considering the morality of an action, we must also consider the context.
Well, I did that just now and I thought I did that with the neighbor example. But how about this one:
Is it right if I were to go and rob my neighbor, but I went and gave the money I stole, minus administration costs of course, to the homeless man down the street? I know that would not be right. What if I had my friend go and rob my neighbor, then, give it to the homeless man? I know that would still be wrong.
It would be morally wrong for me to perform laser eye surgery. Would not be wrong for a qualified doctor hired to do so.
Response:
Not necessarily
My example works in most contexts for most people, though not in the very specific context you provided. Generally speaking though, it would be morally wrong for me to perform surgery and it would not be wrong for the doc. This is an example that answers your question with a very definitive "YES". It is possible that something can be morally wrong for me and morally right for someone else. Similarly it is morally wrong to lie most of the time, but right in certain situations given the right context.
You can go on to provide examples of something being morally wrong in one context as well as in another, but by providing an example to the alternative, the question has it's answer.
My example works in most contexts for most people, though not in the very specific context you provided. Generally speaking though, it would be morally wrong for me to perform surgery and it would not be wrong for the doc. This is an example that answers your question with a very definitive "YES". It is possible that something can be morally wrong for me and morally right for someone else. Similarly it is morally wrong to lie most of the time, but right in certain situations given the right context.
I missed this one and have covered what you wrote here in my other responses. The example does not answer with a very definitive yes because the question I asked was if something is wrong for you to do, i.e. perform Lasik eye surgery, by reason of not knowing how to do such a procedure, you cannot make it okay for another person who is also not qualified to do it either. As I pointed out in my other response further down, the doctor pursued that as a profession and you have every right to do so as well, should you choose to.
The people who have the need for such a procedure look for doctors who specialize in it, so it would not be likely for you to be able to perform the surgery unless you said you could do it but, actually cannot. This is where it is wrong and would be a lie.
I do not see where lying is good to do. But I think a person may tell a lie to someone to get away from them or some other instance where it is not harmful. The bearing of false witness is where it becomes harmful. Yet, doing it at all calls into question the trust of the one doing it. That is how I see it.
You can go on to provide examples of something being morally wrong in one context as well as in another, but by providing an example to the alternative, the question has it's answer.
Hmm, I do not see where you provided an example to the alternative or that there even is an alternative. The doctor who is skilled in performing the procedure and hence qualified pursued the study of medicine, but you were talking as if you could somehow make it right for him to do what you are wrong to do. That doesn't follow for reasons I have pointed out already. I mean, he did not come to you to give the go ahead.
Yet, consider this, if someone comes to you mistakenly thinking you were the eye doctor, for some odd reason, and you explained to them that you were not but, you knew someone who is and you sent them to that person then, that would be different. Maybe this is where you see how that would be the case.
It still does not answer the question that I asked with yes because you are not taking something that is wrong and turning it into something that is right.
Here is the thing, we all have to use our judgment to determine the actions we take. The question I asked has to do with intentionally initiating a harmful and hence wrong act upon another person but, then, asking someone else to do that same wrong and thinking it is okay. Whether it is direct or indirect it is still wrong to do.
Edit: to answer directly, yes. An Action that is immoral in one context can be moral in another.
So, just to keep in context here, murder, rape, robbery, theft, assault, or anything that violates another person's individual rights can somehow be turned into right actions to take?
It does not sound like you are very clear on this. Can you provide the context perhaps?
Just so I have made myself clear, I am not talking about someone who does any of those wrong actions I just described and believes the same should not be done to them; such as, murder. If a person murders another person, they have arguably given up the right to their own life.
The point to the questions I asked is this:
If it would be bad for you to do something, don't ask someone else to do it.
I do not believe that you can take an action that is immoral in one context and have it be moral in another. And as I said I am talking about true wrong action that is an intentional violation of another person.
The myriad of 'victimless crimes' are not what I am speaking of.
If there is something that is morally wrong for you to do, can you make it okay or 'right' for someone else to do it?
My answer is in the context of this question. I have provided an example where the same action that is wrong for me can be right for another. I didn't use any of the examples you provided because they are wrongs by definition even though the same fundamental action involved in each could be right under other conditions.
I'll elaborate below:
(such as, committing murder, theft, robbery, rape, assault or fraud)
Context is the difference between; killing and murder, sex and rape, theft and acquisition, and privacy protection and fraud. By using examples that are morally wrong by definition you are essentially asking "can something that is always wrong, ever be right?". The answer to that is "no" since by definition the thing is always wrong.
To reiterate my point, if one answers your question only as it is and considers situations outside of the examples you provided, then the correct answer is yes.
EDIT: Your question might be focused differently if you ask, "is killing always murder?" or perhaps, "under X condition, is Y action necessarily wrong?"
My answer is in the context of this question. I have provided an example where the same action that is wrong for me can be right for another.
But, then, if you went medical school, in the conventional way, and became qualified as a doctor, that action would now be right for you to do. The question I posed had to do with those specific actions and whether you can make it okay for someone else to do it.
I didn't use any of the examples you provided because they are wrongs by definition even though the same fundamental action involved in each could be right under other conditions.
No, and it seems like you are trying to distract away from the question. I got specific about the condition where it would not be right to do something. Essentially, I am talking about initiating violence, intimidation, or fraud upon another person. There is no condition that would make that okay to do. It is really, the first act of wrong doing that is in question.
Context is the difference between; killing and murder, sex and rape, theft and acquisition, and privacy protection and fraud.
Yes, I know that and I provided examples of what I spoke of. I do not know about you but, unless someone does not understand what I am asking, I give the benefit of the doubt that most people know the difference between right and wrong. Yet, no one asked so I tried to clarify my question and it is a basic, simple, obvious answer.
By using examples that are morally wrong by definition you are essentially asking "can something that is always wrong, ever be right?". The answer to that is "no" since by definition the thing is always wrong.
So? That is all I was asking. I am not looking to get complicated. I believe it is important not to get tied up in moral relativism; which, seems to be what you are pointing out. All I did was ask a fundamental question that has a fundamental answer. I agree it is important to look at all angles of something, but there has to a line drawn somewhere.
To reiterate my point, if one answers your question only as it is and considers situations outside of the examples you provided, then the correct answer is yes.
How so? Now you seem to be contradicting yourself. If murder is wrong or "the intentional act of taking another person's life, without just cause" how can anything suddenly make it okay? No matter how you spin it, you cannot alter morality.
EDIT: Your question might be focused differently if you ask, "is killing always murder?" or perhaps, "under X condition, is Y action necessarily wrong?"
Perhaps, but I didn't. I asked the question the way I did and it is still a valid question. There are a few different ways you could word the question and the answer would still be the same.
For example, "Can you make an act that is bad for you to do into an act that is good for somebody else to do? So, returning to your example, since you are not a doctor and you said it would be wrong for you to perform Lasik eye surgery, you could not find another person who is also not a doctor and have them go and do that action either.
The fact that the doctor is said to be okay to do the action that you are not is irrelevant to the question that I asked before and reworded just now; the answer is still the same.
Edit: It seems an awful lot like you have a problem with the fact that I asked the question in the first place.
That's a non-existent "if". The way it is here and now, it would be wrong for me to do the same thing that it would be right for a doctor to do. This is why my answer remains yes.
The examples you provided are wrong by definition. They are not the only examples in existence. A thing that is always wrong by definition, cannot be right (by the nature of it's definition), but that's not the question you asked.
It seems an awful lot like you have a problem with the fact that I asked the question in the first place.
The simple answer to the question, is yes. It seems you have a problem with this answer.
That's a non-existent "if". The way it is here and now, it would be wrong for me to do the same thing that it would be right for a doctor to do. This is why my answer remains yes.
It is an existing possibility. It would be wrong for you to perform the procedure of Lasik eye surgery if you are not studied on how to do it. And it would still be wrong for you to go and find someone else who is not studied on that procedure, either, to have them do it. But it is highly unlikely that anyone would ask you to perform the procedure unless you advertised yourself as knowing how to do it. Then, that would be fraudulent. Again, just because someone else who is studied can perform the procedure, i.e. an eye doctor, is irrelevant to the question I asked.
The examples you provided are wrong by definition. They are not the only examples in existence.
The examples I gave are consistent with the question I asked. The actions are done by human beings, therefore they exist. I got definitive about the particular actions I was talking about. I never said that there were not other examples and in fact, gave some examples that you disregarded. I at least considered your example and expressed what I thought of it and my points still stand.
A thing that is always wrong by definition, cannot be right (by the nature of it's definition), but that's not the question you asked.
That is precisely the question I asked. This is why the answer is definitely no. But if you do not think that is the question I asked, then please enlighten me; What question do you think I asked?
In your example you gave you did not turn around and proclaim it okay for the eye doctor to perform the surgery that you recognize you are not able to do at this time. The doctor, through his own faculties, pursued the study of medicine and eye surgery. You have the same 'right' to pursue that profession as well.
As I said, my examples were in line with the question, like selling the neighbor's vehicle without his knowledge or agreement to do so. The person selling the vehicle has no valid claim to that property and is wrong in trying to sell it.
The simple answer to the question, is yes. It seems you have a problem with this answer.
No, the obvious answer is no. I have no problem with your answer, if it is an honest one. It seems to me that you have a some contradictions to work out, though, in my honest opinion.
Again, I ask you to tell me what question do you think I asked?
The examples I gave are consistent with the question I asked
So is mine. Is there something that is wrong for me but not wrong for someone else? Yes, Surgery is wrong for me and not for someone else. This means that yes, something can be wrong for one and not for another. All of your examples are universal wrongs, I provided an example that is only wrong for some and not for others.
I take your point that what I would be doing is fraud, but lying about being a doc wouldn't be the only wrong, the surgery itself would be wrong, even if I somehow pulled it off.
That is precisely the question I asked
If your question had been "Can murder be wrong for one but right for another?" the answer would have been "no". But your question was whether or not something can be right for one and not for another, the answer to which is "yes".
What question do you think I asked?
I thought you had asked if a thing could be wrong for to do, but right for another to do. There may be another issue with the framing of your question that I ignored. You can't make something right. Nor can you make something wrong. I didn't think that was important to the question at first, but since you keep wording it that way I think there might be a reason. It's similar to asking "If it's day time for you, can you make it night time for someone else?" No you can't, but yes it is.
If you are asking if one can make a thing right or wrong, the answer is no. If you are asking if a universal wrong can be right, the answer by definition is no. If you are asking if a thing can be wrong for one and right for another, the answer is definitely yes.
So is mine. Is there something that is wrong for me but not wrong for someone else? Yes, Surgery is wrong for me and not for someone else. This means that yes, something can be wrong for one and not for another. All of your examples are universal wrongs, I provided an example that is only wrong for some and not for others.
But there is a problem with your example, much of which I have pointed out. If it is wrong for you to perform the surgery because you have no idea what you are doing, you cannot turn around and have someone who equally has no idea how to do the procedure; that follows in line with the question of whether you can turn something that is wrong for you to do, then, make it right for someone else to do it. If you had nothing to do with the doctor becoming experienced and therefore qualified to perform the surgery, then, you did not make it right for him to do something that is wrong for you to do. Something else to consider, how can it be okay for the doctor to perform the surgery when he has to show he can perform the procedure competently in order to be considered qualified? This is something anyone can pursue and would have to show they can do the procedure.
Also, in order for Lasik eye surgery or any other procedure to be a benefit to those who might need it, it had to be developed, which means they had to test out whether it is effective. There are a variety of factors we could get into but, I believe I have shown that your example is a poor one.
Now, you said it was an example showing something to be wrong for one and not for another and while it might show that to a degree, what I was asking did have to do with universal wrongs, as I see you pointed out. The question I asked and the examples I gave address those wrongs that can never be made right.
I pointed out that, while it might be wrong for you to perform the surgery, though how it is possible without some knowledge in that area is doubtful, it is right for you to pursue the study of medicine and specific to eye surgery; just as the doctor had to begin somewhere, so would you, that is not wrong.
I take your point that what I would be doing is fraud, but lying about being a doc wouldn't be the only wrong, the surgery itself would be wrong, even if I somehow pulled it off.
Well, lying about being a doctor is the only way you could be put into the position to perform the surgery, by your own choice and to advertise yourself, fraudulently as a doctor because it would lead people to believe you are when you are not.
Consider, if you will, the example from this angle, you are placed in a position that requires surgery to be done to save someone's life and you are the only other person there. Performing that surgery would not be wrong for you to attempt to do if you were doing everything you could to save the person's life; of course, having someone on the phone who knows how, such as a doctor, is very favorable, but it depends on the circumstances. Now, you have the choice, perform the surgery to hopefully save them, or do not perform it and let them die; what would you do?
If your question had been "Can murder be wrong for one but right for another?" the answer would have been "no". But your question was whether or not something can be right for one and not for another, the answer to which is "yes".
I do not see where your confusion is. I asked, "If there is something( some action) that is morally wrong for you to do (truly the only way it could be wrong is if you are intentionally attempting to do harm upon another person) can you make it right for another person to do it (meaning to do that same action)?
I thought you had asked if a thing could be wrong for to do, but right for another to do. There may be another issue with the framing of your question that I ignored. You can't make something right. Nor can you make something wrong. I didn't think that was important to the question at first, but since you keep wording it that way I think there might be a reason. It's similar to asking "If it's day time for you, can you make it night time for someone else?" No you can't, but yes it is.
Actually, if you wronged someone and you have admitted to doing so, trying make it right is acceptable. But I digress. No, you cannot, as you say, "make something right or wrong". Yet, I believe we do have inherent 'right's. As I see it all a right can be is a valid claim to something. Maybe, its a claim to a piece of property (I say the first property any person has is ownership over their body) and because a person has a valid claim to some piece of property, no one else has a valid claim to it unless and/or until the owner transfers that to a another person.
So, when I asked the question "Can you delegate a 'right' to someone else that you do not have? the answer would be "no". You can reword it the way I did, and still have the same answer because we are talking about having a valid claim. So, "If there is something that is morally wrong for you to do (no valid claim), can you make it right (turn it into a valid claim where there is none) for someone else to do it (they do not have a valid claim either)?" The answer is still "no".
Then, when you follow the logic, it goes, "Can you and one other person delegate (give) to another a right (valid claim) that neither of you have (that is where no valid claim exists to give)?"
We can reword it in the question I asked, "If the is something that is wrong for you to do, or any other person (no valid claim can be made) can you and one other person make it right for another to do it (an impossibility where no 'rightful' or valid claim exists)? The answer is still no.
So, following this no amount of people can give a right to do something that none of them have a right to do themselves. This conclusion begs the question, "How could Congress have gotten the right to do anything that you do not yourself have a right to do? (Like lay and collect 'taxes')
But I have written quite a bit and it is a lot to consider. This is where I am with the logic and essentially it boils down to "If it would be bad for me to do something, I should not ask someone else to do it."
If we use your example with what I just wrote it would look something like this, "The doctor, even though he is qualified to perform Lasik eye surgery, cannot force anyone (he has no valid claim) to under go the surgery."
I can see where your example would work here because you cannot claim to do surgery without showing you are knowledgeable and experienced, then, someone would have to ask you to do the surgery, hence giving permission to do it. Whereas the doctor has already done this, you cannot claim to be able to do that which you are unable to do, until you show otherwise; does that follow what you were saying? If so, I would add that the only way that anyone would be right to perform that procedure is by having permission to do so; in that sense we are talking about privilege or granted permission. There may be more here but, I think I have said enough for now and you deserve a chance to respond, so I will post this now.
I would also, like to add, no one can force the doctor to perform the procedure, either. Just wanted to point that out.
If it is wrong for you to perform the surgery because you have no idea what you are doing, you cannot turn around and have someone who equally has no idea how to do the procedure
No, but I can turn around and have a more qualified person do the procedure. That's the reason I chose my example. It illustrates that the same particular action will have different moral value when put in different contexts. What you just illustrated above is that a wrong action is still wrong when the context remains the same.
can you make it right for another person to do it
No one can make an action right or wrong (it is or it isn't), but a person could alter the context around which an action takes place.
My point is that you cannot drop context. Everyone may have the right to try to be a doctor, but everyone does not have the ability. Everyone does not have the right to do what a doctor has the right to do by virtue of his ability. This applies to many situations.
You said there was a point to the question. You made your case concerning what you believe to be the only possible answer. Was this not a leading question? If the answer provided does not lead where you wanted it to, does the question still serve a purpose?
The above questions are mostly rhetorical. I can assure you I am not confused in the slightest, though you may not see it that way. It’s clear that our respective positions have been concluded. That being said, there is nothing else to say on the matter.
No, but I can turn around and have a more qualified person do the procedure.
If you were the one deciding to have the procedure done on yourself, then, yes. Something that was not considered in your example is that neither you nor the doctor can make that decision for another person.
To illustrate my point, you said, "It is morally wrong for me to perform Lasik eye surgery but, it would not be for a qualified doctor." It is true, the doctor is the best choice to perform the procedure and you would not be a consideration. I already established what I saw as problems with your example, so, I will not repeat them.
To rephrase the example to show what I mean it might look something like this: “It would be morally wrong for you to do Lasik eye surgery on Joe, but you can ask Dr. Bob, by request from Joe, to perform the surgery, only if Joe wants it done and agrees to have Dr. Bob do it; you cannot speak for Joe, unless asked to. Dr. Bob can diagnose the need for the surgery, but cannot force Joe to agree to have it done nor can he forcefully perform the surgery on Joe." Joe has the final say no matter what because it is Joe's life and well-being.
That's the reason I chose my example. It illustrates that the same particular action will have different moral value when put in different contexts. What you just illustrated above is that a wrong action is still wrong when the context remains the same.
What I had illustrated was within the realm of the question, from what I can tell. Maybe, I am misunderstanding you, but you believe that your example shows that it changes the answer to my question to yes, somehow. I rephrased your example towards the beginning of this response to include a third ingredient that was not covered by you, initially; the person who is said to need the procedure.
No one can make an action right or wrong (it is or it isn't)
Yes, I agree and that would be the answer, period.
but a person could alter the context around which an action takes place.
I do not believe we disagree here, however, the question I asked is addressing an action that if done would be purposefully harming another person, by a direct cause or indirectly through a third person. That is why I did not think your example worked. I should've just pointed out that it was different because it is.
But I understand where the act of performing Lasik eye surgery is morally wrong for you but not the qualified doctor; it is relative to each person. It is the same as saying "What is wrong for you is not necessarily wrong for me." Some call this subjectivism, if I am correct. And they believe this applies to all aspects of what we call morality. Yet, it falls apart when faced with actions such as murder. They would have to say, "Well, murder might be wrong for you but, not necessarily wrong for me. After all I am qualified to be a contract killer and you are not." I do not think you would agree with that statement.
Yet, the person claiming that has no room when they are put down with deadly force in self-defense and/or what has been called justifiable homicide. And really they are just trying to excuse their actions.
As the saying goes "actions speak louder than words."
You had asked me to rephrase the question earlier and I thought I did. Tell me if this makes better sense:
"If there is an action that is morally wrong for you to do to Joe, without consent, can you make it right for Bob to do that same act on Joe?"
Would that have been a better question? Do you think the answer could be yes, using your example as you initially gave it?
As far as I could tell I never dropped context. You have not shown where I did this. I explored further in depth.
It was never intended to be a leading question, but more of a thought experiment. The question served it's purpose.
I laid out where I saw it going. If you see it differently, why not show that? Take what I wrote and show the flaw in the logic if you can. If I am not correct in what I said there, I might not see it but, you may. That is why I did that, so you know I have nothing to hide. That is the reason I bothered to post the question as a debate in the first place, though as I admitted it would have been more fitting in a perspective debate.
I didn't think you were confused, I thought we might have been misunderstanding each other, though. If you do not wish to continue with the discussion that's unfortunate. But whatever. There is nothing I can do on it other than to leave an open invitation, and I do.
If you read previous posts you will find that any response I may post has been posted in some form.
1) I didn't originally think that "making" something right was in the spirit of the question. If you specifically mean to word your question this way, then the answer is no, but only for the reason that you cannot "make" a think right or wrong. That's the reason I didn't think it was in the spirit of the question.
2) You gave examples that can be considered universally wrong, or wrong in every context. The answer can only go one way if the examples provided are the only examples there are. I gave a different one.
3) My example is one that shows how context can change the moral value of a particular action. If you tell a man with terrible knees that running is healthy and he responds "that's true for you, but not for me", he isn't being a subjectivist. He is maintaining context. Another example: One man commits murder and another kills in self-defense. You can then say that killing was wrong for one and not for the other. No one made killing right for the latter, it just is. In neither case does the victim consent.
)None of this needs to be complicated by introducing other moral concepts such as consent or motive. It's mostly a simple matter of the question asked. Is the word "make" a required aspect of the question you are asking? If it isn't are the example you provided the only applicable examples? If so, why?
1) I didn't originally think that "making" something right was in the spirit of the question. If you specifically mean to word your question this way, then the answer is no, but only for the reason that you cannot "make" a think right or wrong. That's the reason I didn't think it was in the spirit of the question.
Well, the title question seemed to leave it open with the question of "what is a 'right'? What does that mean?
So, reworded it narrows it down and what you just said here is exactly the point of the question. It is something that pretty obvious, right?
I wrote in the description that "it was something that people do not tend to consider when it comes to politics"; if they consider it at all.
2) You gave examples that can be considered universally wrong, or wrong in every context. The answer can only go one way if the examples provided are the only examples there are. I gave a different one.
I gave those examples to illustrate that point of the question. I suppose I can be called "Captain Obvious" but, I just wanted to be as clear and concise as I could. You probably could come up with all kinds of silly examples that would show the answer is still no. Someone says "I have 'right' to food and water. I have a 'right' shelter.
Someone should give those things to me." It's bogus, but many tend to think this way when it comes to welfare, etc. My point here is that it seems people get tied up in what they can or cannot actually do.
3) My example is one that shows how context can change the moral value of a particular action. If you tell a man with terrible knees that running is healthy and he responds "that's true for you, but not for me", he isn't being a subjectivist. He is maintaining context. Another example: One man commits murder and another kills in self-defense. You can then say that killing was wrong for one and not for the other. No one made killing right for the latter, it just is. In neither case does the victim consent.
Hmm, point taken. Your original example didn't seem to make that clear to me; this is why I dug in the way I did. I was not confused, but I guess I was not sure what you meant nor how that would change the answer. Moving on.
None of this needs to be complicated by introducing other moral concepts such as consent or motive. It's mostly a simple matter of the question asked. Is the word "make" a required aspect of the question you are asking?
Within what I just covered above pertaining to the question, I would have to say yes, "make" is a required aspect of the question. With your example, no one made the doctor qualified he did that himself.
If it isn't are the example you provided the only applicable examples? If so, why?
No, I don't think so. You could get into a variety of contexts and the question would serve to flesh out the details; that was something I attempted to do. I believe consent and motive are important to consider, but it doesn't have to complicate anything; it's a simple matter of working out the answer..
So, reworded it narrows it down and what you just said here is exactly the point of the question. It is something that pretty obvious, right?
My concern is that your rewording asks a different question. "Can you make something right/wrong?". (Making amends or providing compensation for a wrong doesn't actually make the wrong thing into a right thing.)
The structure of the reworded question seems to actually be asking "Can a thing that is wrong for you, be right for another?" This seems to be the spirit of the question though not the form. It is a very different question from "can you make a wrong thing into a right one".
I would have to say yes, "make" is a required aspect of the question
Then that answers my previous concerns...Now here is a dumb little example that I didn't think was in the spirit of the argument, but may pose a challenge anyway;
I walk into a room and murder a guy. Another man in the room turns around and kills me. In this example, my act of killing "made" the very same act justified when someone else did it to me. The original act was wrong, but in doing it, I made the same act right for another to do to me. What do you think?
I did and at first glance it looks as if that is what you did, within the example.
Your example reads:
I walk into a room and murder a guy. Another man in the room turns around and kills me. In this example, my act of killing "made" the very same act justified when someone else did it to me. The original act was wrong, but in doing it, I made the same act right for another to do to me. What do you think?
Upon further investigation, no you did not suddenly "make" it okay for him to do the same act to you. If nothing else he had no other choice because it was kill or be killed.
Let's say he does not know you and witnessed literally, you doing the act. In this he reacts and kills you. It would have to be because you saw him, after murdering your guy and swung the weapon to do him in; or this is what he could claim, perhaps.
In this example, my act of killing "made" the very same act justified when someone else did it to me.
I do not see how that is the same thing as “making it okay or right” to ask someone to initiate the act of murder for you and have that be okay or right. Perhaps, that is where the problem lies; the initiation of the act in the first place. That is considered always wrong when we are talking about “universal wrongs” as you put it.
In considering this and your concerns about the reworded question, let me see if this would suffice:
“If there is something that is morally wrong for you to do to another, could it then, be right to ask someone else to do that act for you in your place?
I'm not entirely sure, but it seems you may have pinned it down to what you are really getting at. By having another do something "in your place", you presumably maintain the same context, switching only the actor involved.
For some reason it has me on the side of Yes, but I do not agree with that so I am making that clear.
I am hoping people will answer the question instead of trying to distract away from the topic. I will give an explanation of what I mean by 'rights', if that will help.
I would define a 'right' as any action that a person does that does not violate another person. For example, it is right for someone to provide themselves and/or their families with food, water, shelter, clothing, self-defense. You have the 'right' to go and get those things. You might also, buy certain things for their entertainment value or some other useful purpose you have for those items. But, you do not have the 'right' to take from someone else. You do not have a valid claim to any property that is acquired in such a way. And that person would be 'right' in stopping you from doing that wrongful action.
So the question stands:
If there is something that is morally wrong for you to do, can you make it okay for someone else to do it?
If something is thought to be morally or legally wrong, it was been so labeled by some social convention or belief. You as an individual can not decide what is right for a whole group, unless the group has given you that right.
On a side note: You mentioned other questions you have for later. I'm starting to wonder if this is a leading question. Don't like leading questions. If you have some point to make, then please make it directly.
If something is thought to be morally or legally wrong, it was been so labeled by some social convention or belief.
As I understand it, moral action is different from legal. I mean, something that is morally wrong, like murder, theft, robbery, rape or assault, to me is wrong regardless of the legality of said actions. But, then, this was the point of the questions I asked because while on a personal level, an individual accepts that those are wrong actions; I believe it has something to do with "do not do unto others, what you do not want done to you." Yet, under the guise of "government" a person commits those acts and they are accepted as okay.
For example, I highly doubt anyone believes they can go and rob their neighbor and call it a 'tax', but those who work in the IRS do exactly that. So, when it pertains to politics it is as if those actions are okay, as long as they are done by someone claiming to be 'authority'.
You as an individual can not decide what is right for a whole group, unless the group has given you that right.
I agree, however, the group of individuals cannot give one person the right to do something that none of them have any right to do themselves. They could hire me to be a spokesperson for their group, and act in the interests of that group, but nothing that they do or I do can have any bearing on someone who is not a part of that group and did not agree to anything they decided on.
For instance, if everyone agrees to pay dues for their group to pay for expenses, etc. they have every right to decide that and follow through with it as long as it is voluntary. Yet, as soon as they try to force those dues upon others who did not agree to be a part of the group and therefore, not pay said dues, the group would be out of bounds. Even if they convinced me to go and collect those dues from those who are not a part of their group. I would be wrong to follow through with those actions and so would those in that group.
In other words, none of us in that group could claim the 'authority' to essentially rob those outside the group. We cannot turn robbery into a right action, even if it is used for benevolent purposes.
On a side note: You mentioned other questions you have for later. I'm starting to wonder if this is a leading question. Don't like leading questions. If you have some point to make, then please make it directly.
It certainly, was not intended to be a "leading question" but, more of a thought experiment. The questions I had were just follow up ones, but this one is the fundamental one. It starts with the Individual human being. So, if I cannot give a 'right' that I do not have to someone else, then, neither can I do this with another person and give a right that we do not have to a third person, etc.
Furthermore, an innumerable amount of people cannot delegate a right to do something that none of them have the right to do themselves as Individuals.
So this begs the question, how could Congress have gotten the right to do anything that any of us as Individuals do not have a right to do ourselves (like lay and collect 'taxes', etc.)?
The point to all of this is, if it would be bad for you do something, don't ask someone else to do it.
this is the crux of where the tax is theft argument fails - citizenship in the United States is voluntary, you can renounce it at any time.
No, tax is theft. You and I have no right to go to a third person and take his money, threatening him with the use of violence if he does not pay. That is extortion, another form of theft; even if we call it a 'tax' it does not change what it is.
Tell me, does being a natural born person in the land called America suddenly, make me a "citizen" of the U.S.?
Check out some legal dictionaries, you might be surprised at their definitions for what the U.S. is and where it's "jurisdiction" actually is.
Just curious- if you can entertain, for a moment, the notion that tax is not theft, but rather the price one must pay for the services provided by the government...
Can you come up with any kind of scenario where you would live within the borders of the US, while not gaining any advantage whatsoever from the services provided by the government and funded by taxation?
I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to the idea of excluding somebody from taxation, if it were possible for them to completely opt-out of all tax-funded government benefits- both direct ones and indirect ones.
I agree, however, the group of individuals cannot give one person the right to do something that none of them have any right to do themselves. They could hire me to be a spokesperson for their group, and act in the interests of that group, but nothing that they do or I do can have any bearing on someone who is not a part of that group and did not agree to anything they decided on
Ahhh now I see the source of your question. Here is the answer.
The Group As A Hole CAN give a right to a judge to decide a legal question. Why -- Because The Group collectively has a right to do so in it's collective interest. "Collective Interests" is the part you are missing IMHO.
I combined moral and legal because the group's moral values are usually reflected in the group's laws. However, for clarity lets stay will the legal aspect only.
When someone inside or even outside the group acts against the interests of the group, the group collectively has a right to react in support of it's own collective interests.
The Group As A Hole CAN give a right to a judge to decide a legal question. Why -- Because The Group collectively has a right to do so in it's collective interest. "Collective Interests" is the part you are missing IMHO.
I didn't miss it. I pointed out that they could appoint someone for such a purpose. However, they do not, just because it is a "Collective interest" have a 'right' to aggress against others who want no part of the groups activities.
I mean, take an organized 'group' and say they have voted to force businessmen in the neighborhood, who are involved in their own thing and not this group's, to pay a 'protection fee' to the group for providing protection to those businesses. Maybe, the business owner has their own form of protection and therefore, has no use for that group's protection 'service'. Yet, because it is in the 'Group's' collective interest that the business owner pay their fee, the decision is made to do everything 'necessary' to force payment.
This is extortion and none of those Individuals within that group has any special rights to do such a thing. To be a part of that or any group does not magically grant special rights; 'Collective Interests' or not.
Now, that does not mean that the same group couldn't provide a service to businesses in the neighborhood and those business owners, voluntarily agreeing to pay for said service and perhaps signed a contract, would now be required to pay the agreed payment. This, to me is legit and not in dispute.
I combined moral and legal because the group's moral values are usually reflected in the group's laws. However, for clarity lets stay will the legal aspect only.
When someone inside or even outside the group acts against the interests of the group, the group collectively has a right to react in support of it's own collective interests.
Well, I believe I kind of covered that, above. If we are talking about my last point that I made where there is a contract between a business owner and a group who provides a protection service, then, yes I agree they each have an interest in the contract and it should be followed. There does have to be some sort of recourse. It still does not take away from the Individual's right. This is not in question, though.
As I had pointed out in my previous point, the group cannot turn something that is bad for each person to do, as in murder, then, turn around and make it okay for another person to do it. That to me just does not follow consistent logic.
Make any sense now? :-)
Yeah, I might be wrong, but I do not think we are really disagreeing. I got specific, but do you still believe I missed the "Collective Interests" part?
