Thus spake Eric Smith circa 10-02-15 09:27 AM: > What does this have to do with rights etc.? The notion of right > presumably is the partner of the notion of responsibility, and the only > interesting sense in which I have a "right" to something is the sense in > which you feel a responsibility to help make it available to me, or in > which I can act on you to try to induce you to feel and obey such a > sense of responsibility.
I think there are other interesting senses in which the delusion of "rights" is useful. The best example lies in the determination of appropriate consequences for conflicts between two sets of "rights". E.g. if I kill someone because it seemed to me like they would kill me otherwise, then my "right" to life would help me argue that the consequences of my actions should be less than someone who kills for lesser reasons. On the other hand, if I kill someone because he stole my car, then my violation of the criminal's "right" to life outweighs my "right" to own property and my (negative) "right" to expect protection from such actions. While it's true that the particular "rights" will be context dependent, the base concept of a "right" is not. They are a mechanism for proscribing actions and prioritizing the consequences for such actions. This goes beyond inducing a sense of responsibility in one's group members. In fact, it works counter to that and attempts to make rational the proscription and prioritization, which is so often irrational. -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
