Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
Relative Slavery
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Archaeopteryx" data-source="post: 56358963" data-attributes="member: 194332"><p>We know that you accept it. The question is a matter of justification. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>How does human nature do that (and whose account of human nature among the many culturally diverse explanations that there are)? Again, it's a question of justification.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Property rights didn't emerge because suddenly everyone became enlightened and aware of them; they precipitated precisely because they did accomplish social goals and aspirations, and they are only valuable in-so-far as they serve that end. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And where does it end? ... enter the Heinz dilemma. </p><p></p><p>From your responses, you seem to portray justice as something entirely unidimensional. 'If we follow these rules... principally the respect of property rights... the situation will be just.' However, you ignore entirely the purpose for which these rules were created in the first place, and where they get their 'just' quality from: the preservation of human life by facilitating meaningful and constructive social exchanges. A genealogical account of property rights show that they exist simply because they are useful toward that end, and where their usefulness lapses (e.g. the hypothetical I spoke of earlier) they cease to have any life-affirming quality (and can indeed become destructive to life). You seem to be turning justice into a biconditional proposition contingent entirely on property rights.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Archaeopteryx, post: 56358963, member: 194332"] We know that you accept it. The question is a matter of justification. How does human nature do that (and whose account of human nature among the many culturally diverse explanations that there are)? Again, it's a question of justification. Property rights didn't emerge because suddenly everyone became enlightened and aware of them; they precipitated precisely because they did accomplish social goals and aspirations, and they are only valuable in-so-far as they serve that end. And where does it end? ... enter the Heinz dilemma. From your responses, you seem to portray justice as something entirely unidimensional. 'If we follow these rules... principally the respect of property rights... the situation will be just.' However, you ignore entirely the purpose for which these rules were created in the first place, and where they get their 'just' quality from: the preservation of human life by facilitating meaningful and constructive social exchanges. A genealogical account of property rights show that they exist simply because they are useful toward that end, and where their usefulness lapses (e.g. the hypothetical I spoke of earlier) they cease to have any life-affirming quality (and can indeed become destructive to life). You seem to be turning justice into a biconditional proposition contingent entirely on property rights. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
Relative Slavery
Top
Bottom