Defining rights how? Under your implied definition of rights that is true, but others have different definitions. I’m not saying any of these definitions are useful, but if people are going to subscribe to the concept of rights they would do well to realize that definitions of rights are a dime a dozen. In other words, if you want to debate those that say animals have rights, it would be a good idea to ask them what their definition is and then possibly attack their definition. I don’t see people doing this, hence my desire to comment.
Here we go again. What is the ‘legal’ conception of rights ?
As to you being skeptical, yes. You are starting to sound like a ‘skeptic’ - a person who can’t understand that ‘skepticism’ is flawed so keeps on making flawed points.
Thank you. Now I ask, what benefits do you think would accrue to you personally if each person was not inhibited from achieving their just happiness?
Yes you are. You are saying that the ‘legal’ conception of rights is useful.
I don’t claim to know. I’m only saying that I would not be very surprised if rights could be usefully defined for legal purposes, but I would be surprised if they could be usefully defined for other purposes.
I said, “In fact I am skeptical that a useful conception of rights (outside the legal sense) exists.” I agree that skepticism is flawed, but in this context the word “skeptical” simply means, “I deem the probability to be low.”
You’re not reading. I said I would not be surprised if rights could be usefully defined in a legal sense.
Who are these “others” you keep going on about that might be distorting and distracting what is being said here?
Ditto.
Are you asking what can be potentially actualized?
Perhaps the OP, for instance. Anyone who rejects natural rights, etc. Am I understanding you correctly? Because it sounds like you’re implying an extremely strong assertion: that everyone who subscribes to the concept of “rights” agrees with that specific definition of “rights.”
Of course I’m reading. The problem is you are not making sense.
So, explain what the ‘legal sense’ is. And how rights could be ‘usefully defined’. You could also explain what ‘useful’ means too.
Or else you are making a completely irrelevant comment about what sort of thing surprises you. If that’s the case, I wonder why you think people are interested in your sense of surprise.
How do you mean? Or, what don’t you understand about my question?
That seems to be a far cry from “many” or “dime a dozen”… and as I’ve stated numerous times with others for them to state “animal rights” in the first place is to not understand what “rights” mean.
As pertaining to natural rights - yes.
You said, “…what benefits… would accrue…”
“would” is not now, but in the future.
For purposes of making laws.
Like I said, I don’t know how, or even that they can be.
Useful = “deemed by the speaker to bring that speaker some benefit.”
I only I said “I would be surprised if rights could be usefully defined” because I was asked my position on rights.
Yes, I phrased it that way only because now it is not yet true that “each person is not inhibited from achieving their just happiness.”
So laws based on and thus “of” natural rights are not useful according to you? Do I need to bring up criminal acts and ask if the victim benefited?
By “inhibited” I meant challenged. Do I need to expound what has been repeated ad nauseum about what kind of rights violations happen now?
AJ I think your reply is 100% content free.
You are saying that ‘rights’ are useful in the ‘legal sense’ for the purpose of ‘making laws’
You are not say anything meaningful.
So can they be defined or not ? Who cares if YOU don’t know ? All you are saying is, I know nothing about topic X.
You were asked you gave a non-answer. And you keep on giving non-answers.
I said I don’t know whether they are useful, not that they are not useful. If someone can show how exactly they are useful (or provide a link), I am all ears. I am not necessarily arguing against natural rights, I am just saying I have my doubts that they can be usefully defined, and I am just saying that because people keep asking.
Rest assured that if natural rights are actually a really great and useful concept, I will eventually figure that out and become as staunch a defender and advocator of natural rights as anyone. Anyway, I tend to think we all would more or less agree if not for the inherent semantic confusion in human language.