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
Ethics & Morality
The traditional family
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="muichimotsu" data-source="post: 74631692" data-attributes="member: 149131"><p>Part of the problem with the objection is misunderstanding rights as purely being positive rather than having a negative aspect in that the former are rights that we should have reasonable freedom in our ability to do them, while negative rights are based in preventing others from needlessly restraining actions. They play into each other, but one shouldn't be given priority in excess, because it would then violate the principles the other protects that enrich the former. One's freedom of action cannot be absolute when it would violate the privacy or security of another person in doing so.</p><p></p><p>Marginalization of the minority groups is something a majority group won't necessarily care about because they don't see the problems or even consider that they may be in a privileged status to begin with</p><p></p><p>"Most people" is not how we should determine most things in terms of rights, because that becomes a tyranny of the majority, if not outright ochlocracy. The principle of protecting the rights of people should not be about some majority decision apart from principles that protect the minority as well in rights we would guarantee to all. We don't just go based on common sense or it leads to common outcomes, which are not necessarily beneficial, but just maintaining a status quo</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="muichimotsu, post: 74631692, member: 149131"] Part of the problem with the objection is misunderstanding rights as purely being positive rather than having a negative aspect in that the former are rights that we should have reasonable freedom in our ability to do them, while negative rights are based in preventing others from needlessly restraining actions. They play into each other, but one shouldn't be given priority in excess, because it would then violate the principles the other protects that enrich the former. One's freedom of action cannot be absolute when it would violate the privacy or security of another person in doing so. Marginalization of the minority groups is something a majority group won't necessarily care about because they don't see the problems or even consider that they may be in a privileged status to begin with "Most people" is not how we should determine most things in terms of rights, because that becomes a tyranny of the majority, if not outright ochlocracy. The principle of protecting the rights of people should not be about some majority decision apart from principles that protect the minority as well in rights we would guarantee to all. We don't just go based on common sense or it leads to common outcomes, which are not necessarily beneficial, but just maintaining a status quo [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
The traditional family
Top
Bottom