eyal@wisdom.BITNET (Eyal mozes) (08/11/86)
>Rights should be a closed set logically. The simplest set of rights is the >null set. There are no internal conflicts. Almost as simple are sets with >one member, that being one of the traditionally recognized "negative rights", >like freedom of worship in your own home. The moment you add another element >to this set, it must be checked against the existing members, as well as >against itself. >The object, of course, is make this set as large as possible under these >restrictions. If you try to include just one "bad" (inconsistent) member, >you've corrupted the set, and your philosophy has just become "anything >goes, as long as it feels good". >Is anyone up to the challenge? If you don't like my starting-off right, feel >free to choose another. Remember it must be self-consistent. And I'd prefer >to keep children and other "incompetents" out of it, since the question >of whether they require an entirely different set isn't established. No, your whole approach to the issue is wrong. If you start constructing sets of "rights" out of the blue, without even bothering to define what a right is, and with a criterion such as "theoretically possible for everyone to exercize all of them" (and add "simplifications" such as "keep children and other 'incompetents' out of it"), what you'll get may be an interesting exercize in logic, but it will certainly not be a serious discussion of man's rights. A sound discussion of rights must be based on REALITY - on correct observation and identification of man's nature, the requirements of his survival, and the effects of a social context on these requirements; you should use these observations to define the concept of "right", and then to discuss which are the valid rights. The only philosopher to consistently take this approach in discussing rights was Ayn Rand. I strongly recommend her article "Man's Rights" (reprinted in two of her books: "The Virtue of Selfishness" and "Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal") to anyone interested in understanding or defending rights. Eyal Mozes BITNET: eyal@wisdom CSNET and ARPA: eyal%wisdom.bitnet@wiscvm.ARPA UUCP: ...!ihnp4!talcott!WISDOM!eyal