Another source of light pollution

On Fri, 02 Feb 2018 09:31:25 +0100, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

So your rights are merely a concept in theoretical philosophy, with
no implementation in the real world?

There is no suggestion within moral philosophy that rights are merely
"theoretical". The question is one of what they are (the definition
problem) and where they come from (the origin problem).

On Fri, 02 Feb 2018 07:56:47 -0700, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
On Fri, 02 Feb 2018 09:31:25 +0100, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

So your rights are merely a concept in theoretical philosophy,
with
no implementation in the real world?

There is no suggestion within moral philosophy that rights are
merely
"theoretical". The question is one of what they are (the definition
problem) and where they come from (the origin problem).

Has the definition problem been solved? Or do philosophers still
don't know what rights are?

On Fri, 02 Feb 2018 19:56:58 +0100, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

On Fri, 02 Feb 2018 07:56:47 -0700, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
On Fri, 02 Feb 2018 09:31:25 +0100, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

So your rights are merely a concept in theoretical philosophy,
with
no implementation in the real world?

There is no suggestion within moral philosophy that rights are
merely
"theoretical". The question is one of what they are (the definition
problem) and where they come from (the origin problem).

Has the definition problem been solved? Or do philosophers still
don't know what rights are?

These things are not strictly solvable, because rights are not matters
of fact. They depend upon definitions, and because those are always
value based, there will never be agreement.

On Fri, 02 Feb 2018 16:46:31 -0700, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
On Fri, 02 Feb 2018 19:56:58 +0100, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

On Fri, 02 Feb 2018 07:56:47 -0700, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
On Fri, 02 Feb 2018 09:31:25 +0100, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

So your rights are merely a concept in theoretical philosophy,
with
no implementation in the real world?

There is no suggestion within moral philosophy that rights are
merely
"theoretical". The question is one of what they are (the
definition
problem) and where they come from (the origin problem).

Has the definition problem been solved? Or do philosophers still
don't know what rights are?

These things are not strictly solvable, because rights are not
matters
of fact. They depend upon definitions, and because those are always
value based, there will never be agreement.

Which means that the WWII Nazis had the right to do the Holocaust:
their value system said so, and they even had laws supporting that
right.

On Saturday, February 3, 2018 at 6:59:30 AM UTC, Paul Schlyter wrote:


Which means that the WWII Nazis had the right to do the Holocaust:
their value system said so, and they even had laws supporting that
right.

Value system indeed, they borrowed directly from the empirical notion of sub-human or anthropomorphous as it was called in mid-19th century academic circles. If the Nazi ideology was an application then the operating system is Darwin.

“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.� Darwin

What was anthropomorphous in the 19th century (negroes, aborigines, famine Irish) became untermensch (Jews, disabilities) in the 20th century and foetus (developing child) in the 21st century and each term bound by extermination or the turning of a life into a corpse for some political/social excuse..

On Saturday, February 3, 2018 at 3:42:30 AM UTC-7, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
On Saturday, February 3, 2018 at 6:59:30 AM UTC, Paul Schlyter wrote:

Which means that the WWII Nazis had the right to do the Holocaust:
their value system said so, and they even had laws supporting that
right.

Value system indeed,

You do realize, I hope, that he was being sarcastic, and he, like
you, opposes the notion that cultural relativism can embrace the
Nazi Holocaust.

John Savard

On Sat, 03 Feb 2018 07:59:26 +0100, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

Which means that the WWII Nazis had the right to do the Holocaust:
their value system said so, and they even had laws supporting that
right.

To the extent they could create, enforce, and ensure that right,
certainly. The larger society they were part of did not recognize that
right, however, viewed them as criminals, and punished them as such.