Scoundrel on Nostr: Believe it or not, I don't believe people have a right to exist; only a right to ...
Believe it or not, I don't believe people have a right to exist; only a right to direct the good that comes from their existence. For example, if someone derives entertainment from hunting people for sport, then doing so without consent is a violation of the victim's rights, since the enjoyment of the hunt depends entirely on the victim's participation.
If on the other hand, someone views another person as a pest that needs to be exterminated, and would draw equal or greater pleasure if the person never existed in the first place, then murder by itself wouldn't be a violation of anyone's rights. Though that's assuming that additional rights aren't violated at the same time.
Can you think of any other counter-intuitive cases where someone has a right or doesn't have a right according to my definition?
The language we use to talk about rights is socially constructed, but I don't know anything from my definition of the concept itself that requires a prior agreement for someone to have a right. They just have to provide an opportunity for others to benefit, and they have to have an expectation for how people might acquire that benefit. No communication is necessary in order for the right to exist, only in order to respect it.
Does this clear up your original point of contention at all?
If on the other hand, someone views another person as a pest that needs to be exterminated, and would draw equal or greater pleasure if the person never existed in the first place, then murder by itself wouldn't be a violation of anyone's rights. Though that's assuming that additional rights aren't violated at the same time.
Can you think of any other counter-intuitive cases where someone has a right or doesn't have a right according to my definition?
The language we use to talk about rights is socially constructed, but I don't know anything from my definition of the concept itself that requires a prior agreement for someone to have a right. They just have to provide an opportunity for others to benefit, and they have to have an expectation for how people might acquire that benefit. No communication is necessary in order for the right to exist, only in order to respect it.
Does this clear up your original point of contention at all?