Jon, is there a particular essay you have in mind? (And do I have to call you Jon?)
No, not to my knowledge. They lay it out in their book Norms of Liberty. They back it up via Aristotelian teleological arguments, but that argument in particular could be taken as standalone, I think.
I have no other name to go by.
-Jon
Thanks for the links Danny, I’ll have a read. I’m interested in the responses from others’ too.
I could easily replace ‘murder’ with ‘drug taking’ or ‘prostitution’ or ‘drunk skinny dipping’ in that sentence. My point is: just because not everyone necessarily agrees with all empirically derived rights does not make them any less valid. Indeed some people clearly do believe that even murder might not be morally so bad (Stalin, Idi Amin, Pol Pot etc…).
Sure, but are those things perceived as ethically wrong?
Valid to whom?
To these people how can you possibly argue otherwise. If there is no feeling towards something, no obligation to act a certain way would be valid to them.
I’m not sure, but it would seem to me that empirical derivation is a contradiction in terms. To demonstrate something empirically requires induction, which is a non-truth-preserving step. Further, I can’t imagine how one could possibly demonstrate the existence of rights empirically without appealing to intuition as evidence, and that would make large numbers of dissenters a very significant problem.
As for murder being acceptable in some circumstances, I’ll have to disagree simply because murder is inherently “wrongful killing.” If an instance of murder were morally permissible, it wouldn’t be murder at all: it would be killing. So surely some (most) people believe that killing is not always wrong; you bring up Hitler, but I’d bring up self-defense. The question is when it’s permissible to kill. Some people say self-defense is the only kind of situation in which killing is justified, while others believe that killing in defense of others might justify killing, while still others believe that in extreme circumstances, desirable consequences for other people besides the victim might be able to justify it. I think people all can agree that under normal circumstances, it would be unacceptable to kill someone – that is, people have a right not to be killed. But the question is, what sorts of reasons can justify infringing upon that right? That seems like a slightly more open question.
I do not understand the rational behind drug dealers still be rampant if we legalized drugs, you do not see the alcohol smugglers and such after prohibition was repealed, furthermore I agree with auction in that the sales tax is horrible. For me it is no problem, I have a high standard of living regardless, but 13% to a Wal-mart employee is alot of money. limiting the amount of goods they can buy. Maybe I am misunderstanding your arguement but thats how I feel.