Rights are not objective

ogdred I didn't say it disproved the existence of a right to life; merely that it violated it and the "right to life" in such an instance is useless as it doesn't prevent that fact.


And even then, again it's all perspective. From a murderer's point of view, he might think that he has the "right to kill" and others do NOT have a "right to life"

Who can call him wrong? From a certain doctrine or a certain dogma, yes indeed he is wrong...but objectively, he isn't. He isn't any more right either.

It comes down to ability to enforce, and that is what gives rights substance. Therefore MIGHT makes RIGHT.

And, thus, rights are subject to the individual's view. Therefore everything is permissable and everything is wrong...from a certain viewpoint. Nobody is "correct"; it's merely majority and power.

And when I say rights do not exist OBJECTIVELY, I mean there is no standard, correct set of rights or morals that just exist as part of the universe or something. Rights are intangible and subject to individual perception.

That is why we are able to have arguments over what is moral and not moral, for instance in abortion or gay marriage. Nobody is "correct", it's merely perception.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.