Quote:
Originally Posted by LJ
yes yes...but not because of morals. that would be for violating their(metaphorical) rights.
|
That's a curious distinction, LJ. I wonder how you might go about defending the realness of "rights" without some appeal to inherent value and moral prohibition.
In other words, your sister's right to self-determination (the right to not have sex forced on her) has to be, in some way, connected to her inherent value as a human being. That statement of value then carries with it certain prohibitive statements, statements that declare the boundary actions which violate the right.
Well, if you have statements of inherent value and statements of prohibited acts based on that value, you have morality.
If you see some other way to construct "rights", and to give some justification for their "rightness" without appealing to moral language, I'd love to hear it.