From: siobhan@microsoft.com (Siobhan Harper)
Subject: Re: The Nature of Rights (was Re: So, you're straight... so far.)
Date: 13 Oct 92 18:43:55 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Oct12.123008.1@vax.sonoma.edu> connor@vax.sonoma.edu writes:
>Gerard Deckert <ad1x+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>> | (Note:  the following example applies to rational people who are acting
>> | in their own self interest.  In this context, the notion of rights is an
>> | objective absolute)
> 
>fritzs@microsoft.com (Fritz Sands) writes:
>> Nonsense.  If "rights" are an objective absolute then you ought to be
>> able to generate an algorithm to determine if <x> is a good or a right.
>> Is breathable air a good or a right?  Also, can you make an objective
>> definition of "rational" and "self interest"?
>
>
>I may be off the mark, but Fritz and Gerard seem to be agreeing more than they
>are disagreeing.  

Interesting take on it. It reminds me of Riemann, Lobachevsky, and
Euclid, more than anything else. Gerard is assuming the Fifth Postulate,
while Fritz is pointing out that it's an interesting theoretical con-
struct, but not really useful in curved space. 

>Gerard says <paraphrasing> that when taken -in a certain 
>context- then rights are objective and absolute.  I take this to mean that you
>get rights by virtue of your membership in a certain group, and they are the
>rights that the members of this group agree you are entitled to.  

Here we quite strongly differ. If rights are dependent on membership,
then they are not absolute, and if they are based on consensus, they
are not objective; i.e., they don't exist independently of the group's
perceptions. And the group may sit around agreeing upon their rights
all they want; if another group comes on the scene that doesn't share
the first group's perception, then kiss "rights" goodbye.

>I don't know
>if this fits the definition of 'absolute' since there can be many such groups,
>either disjoint or overlapping.  But this fits the pattern for 'objective',
>meaning measurable and not based on the observation and experience of just one
>individual.  (Maybe 'inter-subjective' would be a better word.)

How DO you measure it, and if it changes by definition of the group, then
how is it objective?

>Thus if the context is defined (like United States Citizens) then the algorithm
>for determining if a privelege is a 'right' can be determined (like things that
>are NOT illegal in US law and constitution, but which it WOULD be illegal for
>someone else to -stop- you from doing.)

Unless they become mutually contradictory again. You don't live in a 
vacuum, where nothing you do has any impact on others. The Constitution
may not have a problem with you cutting down old-growth forests; a lot
of other people would, and for very good reasons, and they would not be
committing an illegal act.

>Just trying to give a new perspective on the problem.

It's kind of you to try to bridge the viewpoints, but once you admit
_any_ grey areas, Objectivism goes out the window. Which is fine by
me, since Objectivism gives me migraines, but I think you're setting
yourself up for an impossible task.

>*hug*

*hug* back atcha, Greg ;)