On Moral Right

[lehighguy]

I would too, but that doesn't make it right.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
I would too, but that doesn't make it right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who cares?

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would too, but that doesn't make it right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who cares?

[/ QUOTE ]

The OP, obviously. The point I'm trying to make is that it's silly to get all worried about the potential ramification of legislation supporting "absolute" rights in these edge cases because people are simply going to violate those rights whether there are laws supporting those rights or not.

Does this mean we should just stop worrying about rights, or that some rights are "incorrect"? Of course not. Acknowlegement of rights violations is not endorsement.

[BCPVP]

What if the guy with the cure was given it by someone who dies. The guy with the cure has not invested any labor or capital in this cure. Is his right to this property as absolute as if he was the one who made it?

[lehighguy]

It doesn't really matter, so long as the original owner has placed no real or implied terms on his ownership.

For instance, if your father left you the cure, and it was implied you would use it to save people, then you are obligated.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
It doesn't really matter, so long as the original owner has placed no real or implied terms on his ownership.

For instance, if your father left you the cure, and it was implied you would use it to save people, then you are obligated.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where's the obligation? An obligation is just a prerequisite for getting something you want. If the person recieving the cure is unbothered by the consequences of not using it, then how is he obligated?

This and words like "moral right" are being used as though they actually mean something.

[lehighguy]

The question is to your own moral opinion. What principles do you live your life by. I've elaborated on my own. Take em or leave em, your choice.

[nicky g]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
(If this does not belong here let me know)

There is a virus that is going to kill everyone in the world. One man created the cure; no one else can possibly create it in time. He decides not to give it to anyone but himself. Is what he doing morally wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not admirable. However, enslaving him and stealing his labor and the product thereof is much, much worse.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the problem with you whackos and your whacky idea (no disrespect intended [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]). You have no interest whatsoever in outcomes, just an unbending adherence to a principle that leads you to think the infringement of someone's property rights is worse than the destruction of mankind.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
This is the problem with you whackos and your whacky idea (no disrespect intended [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]). You have no interest whatsoever in outcomes, just an unbending adherence to a principle that leads you to think the infringement of someone's property rights is worse than the destruction of mankind.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have lots of interest in outcomes, but I don't think the end justifies the means.

Your ad hominem "argument" assumes that outcomes are worse in a system that respects property rights. Such a system is demostrably less likely to have shortages than one which imposes price caps.

[whiskeytown]

this would generate a lot more meaningful discussion in the Science/Math/Philosophy forum - in fact, I remember similar questions to it in there.

RB