One problem, several solutions

[inocente]

Excellent starting point, which should be applicable MOST of the time… Of course “rights” without being enforced are merely “pie in the sky”. As far as I am concerned, there is only ONE positive right - the right to be left alone - and even that is not granted. All the other positive rights are simply wishful thinking. Let’s remember: “a right is always something that the strong one gives to the weak one, and it allows the weak one to engage in some action (or refrain from doing some action) with IMPUNITY”. There are no “natural rights”… though it would be nice if there were.

The UDHR is the most translated document in the world, part of customary international law, part of the United Nations Charter, the foundation of many international covenants and conventions, quite possibly the most significant document in the history of ethics.

But you would brush it aside as worthless nonsense. You appear to be arguing that whatever feels good to the guy with the biggest gun is the most moral.

*Equal in reason? Equal in conscience? Would be nice, if it were true… how about those people who are born with some mental deficiency, and who exhibit sociopathic tendencies even in their young ages? *

Or you could try actually reading article 2.

Very nice, but naïve. Sometimes one does not have the luxury of being spared to make “unpalatable” choices, when every possible action causes some harm, even inaction. And then what? One must choose, so the only rational method is to do as little harm as possible.

That’s not what Hippocrates said though, you seem very adept at not reading what is written.

 

[Bagheera]

The UDHR is the most translated document in the world, part of customary international law, part of the United Nations Charter, the foundation of many international covenants and conventions, quite possibly the most significant document in the history of ethics.

Ok… so what? It is a nice, appealing wishful thinking.

But you would brush it aside as worthless nonsense.

I did not say that it is nonsense. It is a nice pipe dream. Rights without a method to enforce them are definitely worthless. How can this be denied?

You appear to be arguing that whatever feels good to the guy with the biggest gun is the most moral.

No, it is not “moral”. Please do not confuse “morality” and “rights”. Unfortunately it is a fact, that whatever the guy with the biggest gun says - goes. I don’t like this, but facts are facts, and they cannot be denied. Since the government (in the US) declared that you don’t have the “right” to import medications for your own use (and unfortunately this IS the case) then you are subject to penalty if you get caught - no matter how utterly irrational such a law is. Rights are social constructs, and they reflect the preferences of the “top dog”, usually the government.

That’s not what Hippocrates said though, you seem very adept at not reading what is written.

I did not say that it is the original text. I said it is a logical corollary. I said that if one only has options, which cause harm, and one must make a choice (inaction is also a choice) then the only rational method is to choose the one which causes the least harm. If you don’t agree, please present your actual arguments. I am all ears.