That only works if it's accepted on a societal level. An individual can claim any "right" they want, whether or not they can achieve it often depends on whether or not those around him accept it as well.
If a "right" is nothing more than something you want, then the word really loses all meaning.
Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.
Based on this definition, IMO, there is nothing that someone has a right to, though I agree with rivrrat. One has the right to try to obtain any of the things you mentioned.
Of the following, which do you feel is a "right", i.e., a moral claim on something?
Health care.
Food.
Water.
Other people's wealth.
A job.
A minimum or "living" wage.
None of the above.
Other.
Nothing? Not even their own life?
Not in an absolute sense. If this was the case, we would not have the death penalty.
No one said a right couldn't be violated.
I only voted for a living wage.. not even food.
IF you do get a job (and you're a citizen), you are entitled to a minimum or fair wage.
Slave/near slave labor isn't fair.
-
I saw those two options as entirely separate entities. Like one would be entitled to a living wage if they did NOT have a job.
We had different takes on the OP.I saw those two options as entirely separate entities. Like one would be entitled to a living wage if they did NOT have a job.
IF you do get a job (and you're a citizen), you are entitled to a minimum or fair wage.
Slave/near slave labor isn't fair.
-
Of the following, which do you feel is a "right", i.e., a moral claim on something?
Health care.
Food.
Water.
A job.
A minimum or "living" wage.
Other.
I voted other.
I have a right to try and obtain all of those things.
Pardon my hippie mind, why are people saying that they aren't rights?
Just trying to understand both sides here.
where exactly do these 'rights' come from?
At who's expense?
Its a realistic position. Where is the universal code written that defines 'rights'? Why arent those same rights we enjoy the same rights Hatians enjoy? Why dont Cubans or North Koreans enjoy those same rights?
The concept of 'rights' is a feel good concept. It is as inane as the word 'fair'.
or "equality"
These rights are endowed by society as a matter of responsibility.
You're already operating under the assumption that some people will have to pay more 'expense' than others for these rights to be attainable?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?