On Moral Right

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
If I were going to die, I'd steal it in a heartbeat

[/ QUOTE ]

That's probably what would happen in such an edge case, even if there were widespread belief in absolute property rights.

Basically, this kind of question is similar to the "what if there's a ticking nuke in manhattan" objection to torture bans. If such a scenario actually develops, and the authorities get a suspect who knows where the bomb is, you can be pretty sure someone is going to torture the guy if he won't talk, whether or not there's any law against it.

[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.

[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

[lehighguy]

I used to think like that, but much thought and reading convinced me that logic was flawed. This assumption is generally supported because it gives the false sense of progress.

[Roybert]

[ QUOTE ]
Fraud is active in both cases. Implying truths is not much different from saying them outright. In each case you have actively decieved. There is a sin of action.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, not communicating is active communication?

[lehighguy]

If your silence implies something you are communicating. A lot of communication is non-verbal.

For instance, if you are someones doctor and you don't tell them they have cancer you are responsible. When people come to you they expect you to say if anything is wrong. If you say nothing it is the same as telling them they are fine.

[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.