reply to post by Maslo
What you speak about are abilities. Not rights. Facts, not oughts. Simple descriptions, not prescriptions. There is nothing in the fact that life is
alive prescribing that we should not kill it.
Here is where you confuse the issue. The right to life is not "prescriptive", what is prescriptive is the prohibition on murder. The source of
that legislative act is the right to life, not morality.
What is the difference between your rights, and abilities?
The mute still has the right to speech, the illiterate still have the right to press, the agoraphobic still has the right to peaceably assemble, and
the agnostic still has the right of religious worship. The cripple has the right to walk, the blind has the right to see, and the deaf have the right
Indeed they are. Otherwise there is no need for the new word, "ability" would suffice.
The homeless have the right to property regardless of their ability to secure a home. They have the right, once they do secure that home without
disparaging or denying the rights of others, to that home. The homeless current lack of ability to have a home does not diminish his, or her right to
The cripples right to walk is not diminished by his, or her, inability to walk. The blinds right to see is not diminished by their inability to see.
It is not as if a cripple who has been cured of whatever crippled him, or her, is now under a conundrum where they no longer have the right to walk,
and the same for the blind, or the mute.
Ability describes what you speak of - life can live, roses can keep and bear thorns, skunk can spew its stink. With no prescriptive obligations for
anyone or anything.
There is no "prescriptive" obligation to cure the cripple, blind, mute or deaf, and yet they have the right to walk, see, speak, and hear. Their
inability to do so does not preclude them from finding ways in which to walk, see, speak, or hear, and as long as they have found these ways without
"prescriptive" measures then they have done this by right.
The word "right" goes beyond that. It says something should not be interfered with (prescription).
No, it does not. The right to speech does not "say" that speech must not be interfered with. Any person can shout down another and interfere with
their right to speech, but no person can prohibit that person from speaking.
I have a right to live means my life should not be terminated (as opposed to "I can live", which carries no prescription).
If you try to kill me and my only option is kill or be killed, I have the right to terminate your life. I have this right because you attempted to
prohibit my right to life and I have the right to self defense, so no the right to life does not mean that life should not be terminated, it means
that I live by right, not by decree.
No. Because its his ability.
The ant who has no ability to communicate still has the right to do so.
The same applies to law. Law is necessarily prescriptive. It would be pointless to have a purely descriptive law, such as "gravitational acceleration
is 9,81 m/s2". All laws are prescriptive, such as "You should not commit murder", "You should not steal". Prescriptions.
Gravity is not "prescriptive", it is a phenomenon that acts in certain ways, but gravity did not prevent humans from building apparatuses to fly or
escape the planet. Nor were flying devices and rockets in anyway a violation of law.
Legislation is the source of law (besides international treaties, and judicial decisions in some countries). And morality (some value systems) are the
sources of legislation, treaties and decisions.
Legislation is no more the source of law than a map is the source of territory, the word horse is the source of horse, or a picture of a pipe is the
source of a pipe. Legislation can either describe law, or fail to do so, but it cannot be law. Law exists with or without legislatures.