Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 10:58:04 -0500
From: Aaron Micheau <amaarchy-AT-compuserve.com>
Subject: Rights


Message text written by Dave Hayman
>> 
> hey dave.....stars got a right to shine, you got a right to moral
> opinions, paint got a right to dry......er, what exactly is 'right'
> adding?

The concept does not apply to stars, paint, or any other non-sentient
things. A "right", as I understand it, and poor Jeremy doesn't, is a
mutual agreement, such as, "I will take your moral opinions seriously if
you do me the same favor." Then we both have the "right" to moral
opinions.<

Actually, a  "right" is not necessarily based upon agreement. In a
practical sense, rights are legal claims- powers that are enforceable under
some legal system. In the abstract, as for example, in the case of "human
rights" or "animal rights", rights are inalienable powers that are inherent
in a being and not based upon any implicit or explicit contractual
relationship or sentience. From this abstract position, one could
extrapolate that an object has the right to do whatever it, by its nature,
does.

"Rights" is a term that is bandied about quite frequently, and i believe
Jeremy's point was that if one insists upon claiming rights in such an
abstract sense, as in the statement that we have rights to our "moral
opinions", then the term essentially becomes meaningless for any practical
purposes.  From this point, it follows that perhaps moral opinions, not
being enforceable powers, are not something we "should" have. Particularly
if they are simply tools  we use to judge the conformity of our own or
others' behavior according to completely subjective standards.

-apm