quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY
The very definition of right is "a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way." It would seem that where you focus on the legal entitlement, we give more credence to the moral aspect.

I'll read and answer the rest later as it is quite long.
Actually I'm not giving less importance to the moral aspect, it's just that morality is a set of customary law that's accepted by the society in that palce at that time, I'm not saying that a right must be written in some sort of statute or code to exist but that it must be accepted by the people in a society so that they are ready to condemn any behaviour that don't respect that entitlement.
With the mental experiment of the desert island I firstly used an example of whatever I would find morally deprecable in the following post I told how I would actually react to that kind of situation and I said that being with a person coming from my former society there would be no need to re-define our rights as they are part of our customs (aka customary laws). This is comprensive of both the aspects.
What I do not agree with you is that morality is some kind of archetype, if it was so this would not change in time, but slavery as example it's not always been considered morally deprecable in every place, that's why I don't agree with the concept of "natural" associated with rights.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83
For me it is wrong even with consent, and there are laws in my country that says so, for some of your fellow countrymen that posted in threads about self defence in absence of governament watch it's a duty to take someone's life whenever he steps in the wrong place (aka my land).
I call your bet and raise: In absence of governament is there no law?

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83
For me it is wrong even with consent, and there are laws in my country that says so, for some of your fellow countrymen that posted in threads about self defence in absence of governament watch it's a duty to take someone's life whenever he steps in the wrong place (aka my land).
I call your bet and raise: In absence of governament is there no law?

There is only the Laws of Nature (and of Nature's god ).

Why is it wrong for you to take another person's life without his/her consent?

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83
For me it is wrong even with consent, and there are laws in my country that says so, for some of your fellow countrymen that posted in threads about self defence in absence of governament watch it's a duty to take someone's life whenever he steps in the wrong place (aka my land).
I call your bet and raise: In absence of governament is there no law?

There is only the Laws of Nature (and of Nature's god ).
Why is it wrong for you to take another person's life without his/her consent?

because some years of social evolution that let us understand we live better without feeding wild animals with live humans for our personal amusement I suppose

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83

Actually I'm not giving less importance to the moral aspect, it's just that morality is a set of customary law that's accepted by the society in that palce at that time, I'm not saying that a right must be written in some sort of statute or code to exist but that it must be accepted by the people in a society so that they are ready to condemn any behaviour that don't respect that entitlement.
With the mental experiment of the desert island I firstly used an example of whatever I would find morally deprecable in the following post I told how I would actually react to that kind of situation and I said that being with a person coming from my former society there would be no need to re-define our rights as they are part of our customs (aka customary laws). This is comprensive of both the aspects.
What I do not agree with you is that morality is some kind of archetype, if it was so this would not change in time, but slavery as example it's not always been considered morally deprecable in every place, that's why I don't agree with the concept of "natural" associated with rights.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83
For me it is wrong even with consent, and there are laws in my country that says so, for some of your fellow countrymen that posted in threads about self defence in absence of governament watch it's a duty to take someone's life whenever he steps in the wrong place (aka my land).
I call your bet and raise: In absence of governament is there no law?

There is only the Laws of Nature (and of Nature's god ).
Why is it wrong for you to take another person's life without his/her consent?

because some years of social evolution that let us understand we live better without feeding wild animals with live humans for our personal amusement I suppose

But, why? What does social evolution have to do with it? Why isn't it okay to take someone's life without their consent (and without any government)?

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83
For me it is wrong even with consent, and there are laws in my country that says so, for some of your fellow countrymen that posted in threads about self defence in absence of governament watch it's a duty to take someone's life whenever he steps in the wrong place (aka my land).
I call your bet and raise: In absence of governament is there no law?

There is only the Laws of Nature (and of Nature's god ).
Why is it wrong for you to take another person's life without his/her consent?

because some years of social evolution that let us understand we live better without feeding wild animals with live humans for our personal amusement I suppose

But, why? What does social evolution have to do with it? Why isn't it okay to take someone's life without their consent (and without any government)?

I told you, because it's a better living if people use this custom.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83

Actually I'm not giving less importance to the moral aspect, it's just that morality is a set of customary law that's accepted by the society in that palce at that time, I'm not saying that a right must be written in some sort of statute or code to exist but that it must be accepted by the people in a society so that they are ready to condemn any behaviour that don't respect that entitlement.
With the mental experiment of the desert island I firstly used an example of whatever I would find morally deprecable in the following post I told how I would actually react to that kind of situation and I said that being with a person coming from my former society there would be no need to re-define our rights as they are part of our customs (aka customary laws). This is comprensive of both the aspects.
What I do not agree with you is that morality is some kind of archetype, if it was so this would not change in time, but slavery as example it's not always been considered morally deprecable in every place, that's why I don't agree with the concept of "natural" associated with rights.

We have dived into the deep realm of philosophy, which is full to the brim with opinions but which contains no natural right or wrong.

In saying that morality is a set of customary laws accepted by the society in that place and time, you are not incorrect but you are not completely correct. For example, you would run into strong disagreement from atheists who would insist that they have morals within themselves outside of any influence from religion (which is very often the basis for societies).

I do agree that laws and statutes codify morals. I also agree that societies "agree" on acceptable morals regardless of whether they are codified in writing or not.

However, I do think that absent some societal influence we would still have moral entitlements. Whether they are recognized by society is beside the point. Your example of slavery is exactly a situation where the moral entitlement to freedom is ignored by the society where slavery is acceptable.


The entitlement is still there... even if it is not recognized.