vinney on Nostr: Slightly more sense, but I think a core disagreement is still lingering. I'd imagine ...
Slightly more sense, but I think a core disagreement is still lingering.
I'd imagine you'd claim you have a right to continue existing. If I kill you for sport and then just walk away, I seem to have violated one of your rights without becoming "dependent" on you in any meaningful way. Sure, I couldn't have hunted you if you didn't exist in the first place, so your existence is a prerequisite to my hunting, but calling that "dependence" feels like it's starting to overload the relationship a bit.
I'll grant that in order for me to extract the "benefit of hunting", I have to have an existent prey, but how does that get you to a definition of "rights"?
Also unclear how all that is related to whether or not rights "exist" in some objective sense, or if they're merely emergent properties of norms, laws and agreements between people - which was the original point of contention.
I'd imagine you'd claim you have a right to continue existing. If I kill you for sport and then just walk away, I seem to have violated one of your rights without becoming "dependent" on you in any meaningful way. Sure, I couldn't have hunted you if you didn't exist in the first place, so your existence is a prerequisite to my hunting, but calling that "dependence" feels like it's starting to overload the relationship a bit.
I'll grant that in order for me to extract the "benefit of hunting", I have to have an existent prey, but how does that get you to a definition of "rights"?
Also unclear how all that is related to whether or not rights "exist" in some objective sense, or if they're merely emergent properties of norms, laws and agreements between people - which was the original point of contention.