Various theories examining rights already exist, that’s what we’re using to figure out what our laws and such should be. September Girl with three sides the quiet side the fun and crazy side.
Cool September Girl with three sides the quiet side the fun and crazy side collection!
I don’t see why you’re thinking I’m confused. I was pointing out the difference between laws/behavior and rights. That’s the point I was making. They’re talking about the recognition of rights and it (the recognition) evolved over time, not rights themselves. Because as the video and you have said, September Girl with three sides the quiet side the fun and crazy side. rights are inherent. The video wasn’t great at making that distinction clear, but it’s still important to know how our understanding of rights evolves.
I think that’s the ultimate question. “There needs to be a solid theory of rights” but what are they? Who decides what they are? What if the circumstances change, should some be added? If so, then that’s what they probably mean by the rights “evolving.” It’s something that definitely should be simple but isn’t always so.
Show me your color and be cool!
If rights are objectively true — which they are — then nobody “decides” what they are–they just are. Rights are grounded in self-ownership. I own myself and you own yourself. That’s the foundation of rights. There would be no need for ‘rights’ if it wasn’t true. The reason it is and always was wrong for a man to rape a woman (regardless of “laws” or “customs” or “opinion”) is because the woman owned herself. The same answer goes for why slavery is wrong.
Excellent and salient points , Daniel. However,the metaphysical and ontological ground and basis for human rights is God. With out that recognition, rights are dependent on subjective notions. There can be no appeal to objectivity without God in whom the “Natural Law” of Human Rights is the objective expression of Human worth. While one doesn’t have to believe in God to recognize the apriori self-evident truth and existence of human rights, (because God so discloses to the mind that seeks truth or justice), without recourse to God as the source and guarrentor of justice, the atheist or any who loves power over truth can claim “who says so?” “No God, then all is permissible”.