tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post1903644579042572324..comments2023-10-10T08:02:18.073-04:00Comments on Rationally Speaking: The sciphi of gay adoptionUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger106125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-14114855436394407142014-01-27T12:33:52.484-05:002014-01-27T12:33:52.484-05:00Hi Daniel,
Actually, you have a point. I probably...Hi Daniel,<br /><br />Actually, you have a point. I probably ought to refuse to engage with ND on the basis of the particular language used while still being available to discuss the ideas if phrased more neutrally.<br /><br />The language of "sodomy" is indeed hateful, bringing to mind the "righteous" destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. I will keep this in mind in future.<br /><br />Thanks for changing my mind.Disagreeable Mehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15258557849869963650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-23731943363129031402014-01-24T21:11:37.798-05:002014-01-24T21:11:37.798-05:00Hi Disagreeable Me,
Instead, I very much agree wi...Hi Disagreeable Me,<br /><br />Instead, I very much agree with you, except for a bit in the last paragraph.<br /><br />>> I certainly don't assume that what is right ought to be determined by majority vote. It ought to be determined by reasoned argument based on shared values. <br /><br />Agreed.<br /><br />>> However, what rights we have effectively *are* determined by majority vote. Reasoned argument then becomes a means to affect that vote and so establish new rights or quash old ones. <br /><br />Disagreed, because contradictory with the previous, unless we word it this way: "However, what [legal] rights we have effectively *are* determined by majority vote. Reasoned argument then becomes a means to affect that vote and so establish new [legal] rights or quash old ones." <br /><br />Natural rights are different from legal rights. The goal of LRs is to approach as much as possible NRs. The measure of righteousness of LRs is NRs, that is, reason caring about human well-being. <br /><br />If you don't like the distinction NR/LR, i.e. Reason vs. Law, then you will have serious trouble to provide arguments against whatever law you consider unjust.Gonzalo Génovahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00900902462176027914noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-61371250996477134762014-01-24T19:56:31.341-05:002014-01-24T19:56:31.341-05:00Hi Gonzalo,
I very much disagree with your argume...Hi Gonzalo,<br /><br />I very much disagree with your argument.<br /><br />When I make an argument for why gay couples should be allowed to adopt children, I do so by attempting to refute any reasons why they should not and appealing to values I hold in common with my interlocutors.<br /><br />I am not merely voicing my opinion, nor appealing to a majority vote. I am attempting to show how opposing views are irrational in that they are baseless and internally inconsistent. If we care about human well-being and the welfare of children, which everyone posting here appears to, then gay adoption must be accepted.<br /><br />I certainly don't assume that what is right ought to be determined by majority vote. It ought to be determined by reasoned argument based on shared values. However, what rights we have effectively *are* determined by majority vote. Reasoned argument then becomes a means to affect that vote and so establish new rights or quash old ones.<br /><br />So, for me, "should" implies neither a natural right nor an acceptance of the majority view.Disagreeable Mehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15258557849869963650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-52161435204484671192014-01-24T19:48:32.568-05:002014-01-24T19:48:32.568-05:00Hi Daniel,
Sorry if you find the conversation ins...Hi Daniel,<br /><br />Sorry if you find the conversation insulting. Nevertheless, as long as NiqDan is game, making relevant points and paying heed to mine, then so am I. I'm personally disinclined to ignore any attempt at a rational discourse even if the views being proposed are odious. I am not yet persuaded that NiqDan is being intellectually dishonest, and as long as that remains the case then I think the conversation has value.<br /><br />(That's not to say I think NiqDan's argument makes any sense. At all. But I do think it makes sense to NiqDan).Disagreeable Mehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15258557849869963650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-51305898851001656192014-01-24T19:24:46.312-05:002014-01-24T19:24:46.312-05:00Should.
Should gay couples be allowed to adopt ch...Should.<br /><br />Should gay couples be allowed to adopt children?<br /><br />I agree with Thomas that this is the question.<br /><br />Should?<br /><br />In my view, if one answers Yes, that’s the same as acknowledging a natural right of gay couples to adopt. If you deny natural rights, all you can say is: “they want to adopt, and we want to allow them”, or “they want to adopt, but we do not want to allow them”. If the ONLY ground to answer the question is “Society dixit”, then there is absolutely no REASON why we (Society) should change our minds. Of course, we can change our minds because we WANT, but nobody can try to convince us, with reasons, to change our mind. Changing is not more reasonable that no changing.<br /><br />We cannot think the concept of ‘right to something’ as being equal to ‘Society allows’. The concept of natural right implies that, if Society does not grant it, then Society must change. All this SciPhi investigation of the question is a search for convincing reasons to change or not to change, a search for a better understanding of human nature, of human rights. Otherwise, let’s rise our hands and count.<br /><br />So, which one is the question: a) should gay couples be allowed to adopt children, or b) do we want to allow gay couples to adopt children?<br /><br />I think that if we abandon the concept of natural right, then question (a) is simply meaningless, and question (b) can be answered only as a summatory of votes, but no result will be worse or better: it will be good, because it is the result of the votes.Gonzalo Génovahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00900902462176027914noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-41139115836758753752014-01-24T05:39:30.299-05:002014-01-24T05:39:30.299-05:00Hi NiqDan,
>I think one of the problems with u...Hi NiqDan,<br /><br />>I think one of the problems with utilitarianism, which is addressed by the virtue ethics system, is that in the virtue ethics system one supposes that the agent can hurt or harm _himself_ by his choices and acts<<br /><br />Utilitarianism is not blind to that. Anyway, as Massimo has said, the two systems are answering very different questions. Utilitarianism is most appropriate for answering questions of public policy (such as gay adoption) while virtue ethics is targeted at answering the question of how one ought to live.<br /><br />>The alcoholic might not _really_ regret his choices (while they are still choices) until his liver has failed.<<br /><br />I don't much care whether the alcoholic regrets his choice. What I care is what harm is done by questions of public policy.<br /><br />>I would ask how happy the practicing homosexual is that he has become the type of person who practices sodomy at the drop of a dime, or at the prompting of media darlings, and who consequently finds his appetite ever more insurmountable, as opposed to becoming the type of person who chooses in accord with practical reason.<<br /><br />I totally reject this phrasing of the question. Practicing sodomy at the drop of a dime is a gross caricature, as much as fucking at the drop of a dime is a caricature of heterosexuals. The prompting of media darlings has nothing to do with it. Sex drive is innate. The appetite of a homosexual is the same thing as the appetite of a heterosexual. If one gets "ever so insurmountable" then so does the other. And you have not demonstrated that homosexual sex is not "in accord with practical reason".Disagreeable Mehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15258557849869963650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-71939800427942803512014-01-23T18:00:28.511-05:002014-01-23T18:00:28.511-05:00ND, your analogy is like having kids who get into ...ND, your analogy is like having kids who get into a fight before age 5 not being allowed to go to school, but those who get in one after age 5 getting to stay in school. It makes sense to kick all fighters out of school - zero tolerance - or, if allowing any fighters to go to school, then to allow all fighters the opportunity.michael fugatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01762576964110603209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-45771725592286414452014-01-23T10:23:31.484-05:002014-01-23T10:23:31.484-05:00DM: I think one of the problems with utilitariani...DM: I think one of the problems with utilitarianism, which is addressed by the virtue ethics system, is that in the virtue ethics system one supposes that the agent can hurt or harm _himself_ by his choices and acts. Even if the consequentialist grants that possibility, the harm to the agent doesn't seem commensurable with the harm to other sentients. For how could we compare the two harms? The alcoholic might not _really_ regret his choices (while they are still choices) until his liver has failed. More importantly, however, at some point he may not only regret having poor health, but may regret that he became the type of person who would allow his choice-powers to be weakened to the point of addiction. In other words, no one can accuse the virtuous man of being "the type of person who does X," but once the utilitarian once commits X, for whatever reason, he becomes the type of person who does X, and that itself is a separate harm from actually doing X. Therefore, I would ask how happy the practicing homosexual is that he has become the type of person who practices sodomy at the drop of a dime, or at the prompting of media darlings, and who consequently finds his appetite ever more insurmountable, as opposed to becoming the type of person who chooses in accord with practical reason.<br /><br />@Fugate: If your analogy's right, then public school has the inextricable "harms" of fistfighting, so we shouldn't deny fistfighting? I think there's a difference between married men feeling insecure, and their feeling insecure directly because of a political policy. <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-50212008675391781312014-01-23T04:33:19.201-05:002014-01-23T04:33:19.201-05:00Hi Michael,
Good point.
A possible counter-argum...Hi Michael,<br /><br />Good point.<br /><br />A possible counter-argument could be to argue that the "harms" you mention are the evidence of the damage already caused by the acceptance of homosexuality and general liberalisation of sex in society over the past few decades. We need to get back to a mythical purer time when all sex was procreative and in the missionary position only, and the first step on this righteous path is the demonisation of homosexuality.<br /><br />But of course that's all bollocks.Disagreeable Mehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15258557849869963650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-57150940058680084542014-01-22T21:57:14.978-05:002014-01-22T21:57:14.978-05:00Thankfully.
"Both those rights have been alt...Thankfully.<br /><br />"Both those rights have been altered, thankfully, so that the first one has been abolished and the second one has been accepted."<br /><br />Why thankfully?<br /><br />If "there is no such thing as a natural right to anything", then women have no natural right to vote, and slaves are no more unnatural than pets, so why should we be 'thankful' for the alteration of the social stipulation of rights?<br /><br />If rights are pure social stipulations, then no ideas are better than others.<br /><br />But it seems that, after all, Massimo, you are 'thankful' for the demostrated ability to recognize and adopt 'better ideas', i.e. you acknowledge human rights in the end.<br /><br />Thankfully.Gonzalo Génovahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00900902462176027914noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-32497707294642026282014-01-22T19:31:35.617-05:002014-01-22T19:31:35.617-05:00> It does not actually mount much of a defense ...> It does not actually mount much of a defense against NiqDan's arguments against sodomy in general.<<br /><br />But it is a problem given the claim that same-sex marriage will somehow "harm" straight marriage. If straight marriage already has all the "harms" that same-sex marriage would supposed cause, then that is not a reason for denial. michael fugatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01762576964110603209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-31924081454027586532014-01-22T15:15:39.230-05:002014-01-22T15:15:39.230-05:00Hi Daniel,
>Since when is "unnaturalness&...Hi Daniel,<br /><br />>Since when is "unnaturalness" and "sinfulness" from a religious perspective---or even a moral one---grounds for denying people the ability to adopt children? <<br /><br />You're kind of forcing me to devil's advocate here, but:<br /><br />If it is immoral, then the parents are knowingly living in an immoral manner. Their morality may let them down in other ways more relevant to parenting. You wouldn't want a serial killer raising kids, for example, even if they have never committed crimes against children.<br /><br />If it is sinful, then they are promoting a sinful way of life which might lead their children away from God. From a Christian perspective, you would not want muslims, atheists or satanists to adopt children either.<br /><br />Now, I think that's all nonsense because I don't believe in God and I don't think it is sinful or immoral. But given the right premises I don't think it's entirely without foundation.<br /><br />>Straight people engage in sodomy in far greater numbers than gay people. When is the last time you heard someone propose that a law abiding, stable, mentally healthy straight couple be denied the ability to adopt a child, because they engage in oral sex, in their bedroom?<<br /><br />Tu quoque fallacy. It goes to show how prejudiced society is against homosexual sodomy in particular. It does not actually mount much of a defense against NiqDan's arguments against sodomy in general.<br /><br />>People like Niq are simply gay-haters who try to dress it up in philosophical arguments to make is seem credible.<<br /><br />Absolutely (although I doubt ND sees this). Nevertheless I enjoy picking the arguments apart. Engaging in civil disagreement is one of my passtimes and a major reason for posting here.Disagreeable Mehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15258557849869963650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-57402241077936348152014-01-22T14:30:57.237-05:002014-01-22T14:30:57.237-05:00I must admit that I screwed up the post from Janua...I must admit that I screwed up the post from January 21, 2014 1:51 PM. In the first two sentences "same-sex" should have been "different-sex" - that was pretty dumb on my part......michael fugatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01762576964110603209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-61808009814181741032014-01-22T12:45:43.046-05:002014-01-22T12:45:43.046-05:00Not to mention, in terms of sheer numbers same-sex...Not to mention, in terms of sheer numbers same-sex marriages are a drop in the bucket. If you really want to "save" marriage, then you really should concentrate on the areas where the most "harm" is being done. It is as if your house is on fire and you are more worried about a dust bunny under the bed.<br /><br />I am also wondering when your god changed its mind on polygamy? If it was good enough for Abraham.... I have seen the silly rationalization of church fathers on the issue - really fertility and growing the population? That's the best they can do? michael fugatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01762576964110603209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-46520243764168700622014-01-22T12:16:20.031-05:002014-01-22T12:16:20.031-05:00Hi Michael,
I don't really like that line of ...Hi Michael,<br /><br />I don't really like that line of argument because I think NiqDan could plausibly counter that there exist good Christian couples who do live up to the ideal of marriage, and that those other marriages you have identified are indeed degraded to the extent that they engage in "sodomitical acts".<br /><br />I think it would be more appropriate to focus on a defense of "sodomitical acts" as perfectly harmless.Disagreeable Mehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15258557849869963650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-59881119266454662422014-01-22T12:05:04.245-05:002014-01-22T12:05:04.245-05:00ND, but they don't and never have. Marriage am...ND, but they don't and never have. Marriage amongst the hetero-population is so degraded from your ideal as to be unrecognizable. Unless you are prepared to declare all of these "offenders of ideal marriage" not married or unable to marry, then you can't complain about same sex marriage. You have already lost any credibility in the argument.michael fugatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01762576964110603209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-17712786548155118632014-01-22T11:59:40.733-05:002014-01-22T11:59:40.733-05:00Hi Daniel,
Massimo specifically addressed the app...Hi Daniel,<br /><br />Massimo specifically addressed the appeal to nature in his post. NiqDan is trying to defend the appeal to nature by explaining why he thinks homosexuality is unnatural, and I guess sinful. This obviously has a bearing on adoption by gay couples even if it is a distinct issue.<br /><br />I agree with you that whether Niq has a point or not, it's hard to see how foster care is preferable to gay adoption. Case closed. But that's precisely why I'm not much interested in that. It's so clearly the right answer there's not much to say about it.<br /><br />I'm much more interested in NiqDan's rationalisation of homophobia because I want to understand his viewpoint. I find views different from my own to be very interesting, at least until the point where I have a good grasp of them.Disagreeable Mehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15258557849869963650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-75085745337696766672014-01-22T07:45:30.986-05:002014-01-22T07:45:30.986-05:00Just a clarification on this last point:
========...Just a clarification on this last point:<br /><br />==================<br />>Should people who believe that sodomy is immoral be allowed to adopt? Should that be a strike against them?<<br />Perhaps. Should the adopted child turn out to be gay, then I would want to know how the parents would handle the situation. If they could accept a gay child then I would allow adoption. If not, then I would not.<br />===============<br /><br />I wouldn't propose a blanket ban. If the alternative is to place them with an institution or an unsuitable couple, then I would probably allow those who believe sodomy is immoral to be adopt, depending on the depth of the prejudice. But I would see it as sub-optimal.Disagreeable Mehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15258557849869963650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-29252021026025388182014-01-22T06:09:26.942-05:002014-01-22T06:09:26.942-05:00Hi Crude,
Sorry, was busy for a couple of days.
&...Hi Crude,<br />Sorry, was busy for a couple of days.<br /><br />>Because I think we disagree on what constitutes harm<<br />Perhaps we do. I think causing harm is causing a sub-optimal state of affairs. It's a pretty broad category. There is physical harm, psychological harm, economical harm. Perhaps you could tell me what you think "harm" means so we can zero in on the disagreement you perceive.<br /><br />>I think a child is ideally placed with a male and female parent involved in a loving heterosexual union<<br />Understood. But which do you think is preferable, if no such couple is available: placing a child with a gay couple, or placing the child in an institution?<br /><br />>Frankly, I think the responses here have been pretty inconsistent - and I wonder how sincere the standards are.<<br />Where are the inconsistencies?<br /><br />>We're not limited to strictly binary choices. And we certainly don't need to lower standards.<<br />I disagree. If there is a shortage of parents, then we should already be taking whatever measures we can to increase the number of parents available. Once that project is underway, we're back at the original question. Given that a bigger pool is better, do we further increase the pool of parents by accepting gay couples or do we not?<br /><br />>That would mean, automatically, ruling out 'harm to the gay couples who desire a child but who can't adopt one' and 'harm to the gay people who think that their being denied adoption rights is an insult' straightaway.<<br /><br />No, because my point is that your "pain" is only based on concern for the welfare of the child. The pain of gay people in a society that discriminates against them is in addition to considerations about the welfare of the child.<br /><br />>"Canceled out"? It's not a math equation where I'm -x and you just put 'x' on the other side of the = sign and we're good.<<br /><br />True. Nevertheless if you get to count my pain I get to count mine. My point is that banning gay adoption causes harm. I think that point has been proven.<br /><br />>Or are you rejecting the need for studies, or even philosophical argument?<<br /><br />I'm not going to do research. Prima facie, it seems to me that being raised by an orphanage is not as ideal as being raised by gay parents. If you want to get into a serious debate about that then tell me why you doubt it.<br /><br />>since you're inventing some bizarre world where homosexual couples are the (reproductive? ethical?) norm.<<br /><br />Bizarre to you. To a gay couple, where they are discriminated against because of who they love, this world is bizarre.<br /><br />>Simple: I'd accept that as entirely sensible. But that's me.<<br /><br />You're not really putting yourself in his shoes if you are imagining being gay and having no problem marrying a woman unless you can imagine yourself being straight and having no problem marrying a man. It's the same thing. I think if you see a difference between the two situations then you're not really picturing what it would feel like to be a gay man in that situation.<br /><br />>Or am I expected to calmly accept that particular status quo?<<br />I'd be pro free speech in general, but in order to fight intolerance we need to be intolerant of it, the same way we need laws to protect liberty and (the threat of) violence to protect against violence. Views which expressly condemn co-workers for their personal lifestyle choices are not conducive to a healthy work environment. I would also be against open advocacy of atheism in the workplace.<br /><br />>Should people who believe that sodomy is immoral be allowed to adopt? Should that be a strike against them?<<br />Perhaps. Should the adopted child turn out to be gay, then I would want to know how the parents would handle the situation. If they could accept a gay child then I would allow adoption. If not, then I would not.Disagreeable Mehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15258557849869963650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-74176870523605860892014-01-22T05:47:31.180-05:002014-01-22T05:47:31.180-05:00Hi NiqDan,
>. I would reply that pleasure is o...Hi NiqDan,<br /><br />>. I would reply that pleasure is only as good as the act to which it's attached, because one could take great pleasure in assaulting people<<br /><br />I would take a utilitarian view of good and bad. Pleasure that causes no harm is unequivocally a good thing to me. Pleasure that comes at the expense of causing harm, as in your example, is not a good thing.<br /><br />> I think the homosexually inclined realize that the culmination of their fantasies will not be intrinsically fulfilling<<br /><br />I don't think that's true at all.<br /><br />> it remains disingenuous, in my view, for science and psychology to acknowledge that many bodily functions can go awry at any point in development, but that it's _impossible_ for someone's sex drive to be anomalously routed. <<br /><br />Good point. Again, I would take a utilitarian standpoint. There's nothing intrinsically good or bad except in terms of how it impacts on individuals. There is no objective standard of what constitutes "awry" or "anomalously routed". We determine for ourselves what is considered healthy or pathological. Heart disease is bad because it increases risk of heart attack (and so mortality), not because it's a deviation from some Platonic ideal. Science is not turning a blind eye to a condition - plenty of scientists study human sexuality. But the branding of homosexuality as pathological is a value judgement, not a scientific one.<br /><br />Perhaps I might concede that homosexuality is not an ideal condition in that it reduces the opportunity to reproduce, but to me that effect that is better ameliorated through allowing homosexual couples to adopt than it is by encouraging them to live unhappily as heterosexuals. The other downside is prejudice, and your position is contributing to the problem rather than the solution.Disagreeable Mehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15258557849869963650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-15906141565586066072014-01-21T15:49:31.982-05:002014-01-21T15:49:31.982-05:00That's quite insightful, Michael. I would not...That's quite insightful, Michael. I would note that when men and women behave well in their marriages, most of these problems disappear. When SSM-ers muster all the rationality at their disposal, however, and apply it to their relationships, none of these problems are solved.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-4847792867204132472014-01-21T13:51:55.269-05:002014-01-21T13:51:55.269-05:00ND, if one actually utilized your definition of ma...ND, if one actually utilized your definition of marriage, then most same-sex couple wouldn't be "married." Seems like you need to clean up the mess same-sex couples have made of marriage - sexless and childless marriages or marriages where procreation is impossible, marriages between spouses of different religions or one spouse without religion - how could they possibly educate their child in the "faith" under such circumstances? And then, divorce and adultery - it is a joke, no? -even amongst those arguing against same-sex marriage (Take a look at the divorce rate in the US Bible Belt). Your ideal of marriage has never occurred anywhere in the real world. Even when royalty were supposedly put in power by god with a capital G - royalty who were supposed to set an example for the rabble - did they live up to your standard? For most people marriage as you define it is impossible. It would seem to me that unless you are willing to deny marriage to same-sex couples who cannot or will not procreate, who are of different faiths or no faith, and who have never been previously married and who have not had sex outside of marriage either while married or unmarried, then you don't really have a leg to stand on. Marriage is a currently a joke compared to your ideal.michael fugatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01762576964110603209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-78126144894085779292014-01-21T12:51:21.319-05:002014-01-21T12:51:21.319-05:00Thanks for sharing the article Thomas, it was edif...Thanks for sharing the article Thomas, it was edifying and I learned a lot. See my snarky reply as "HenryBowers" in the comments section:<br /><br />"This was one of the most eloquent, comprehensive, and consistent displays of question-begging I've ever encountered online. 'Gravity isn't designed because gravity isn't designed.' The article was otherwise really helpful and I'm going to share it with my Natural Philosophy class. Secondly, however, the science community "respecting" materialist naturalism is like an art critic "respecting" oil paintings over chemical bonds. The art critic simply can't see, and never will be able to see the chemical bonds that support his beloved subject."<br /><br />Oh well, off-topic now.<br /><br />@Daniel: It's tantalizing to imagine I'd have the power to deny anyone the institution that it's already impossible for them to join; that would be a neat trick. All kinds of bad ideas sweep; only live swimmers can go against the flow, unlike dead body bandwagoners who float downstream (badly paraphrasing Chesterton).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-64890226661105982802014-01-20T19:04:17.088-05:002014-01-20T19:04:17.088-05:00I think individuals have things like needs, wants ...I think individuals have things like needs, wants and desires, and if some of those are agreed upon and legal prescriptions are enacted then they are referred to as rights. So I guess that to say rights are stipulations of society is more accurate than saying rights are claims of individuals.marc Levesquehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06779771196251323474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-82465679523976003962014-01-20T14:54:50.939-05:002014-01-20T14:54:50.939-05:00I take issue with your claim that "rights are...I take issue with your claim that "rights are stipulations of society", they are claims of individuals . . .Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05947172700833283702noreply@blogger.com