So by that logic, when I draw up a contract, for example a pre-nup, that is akin to a religious document? A society draws up a contract that states you have certain duties, certain restrictions on your actions, which you get in exchange for certain rights, the allowance of other freedoms. It has no religious overtones, nor does it rely on any transcendental notions of right or wrong. It is the act of humans defining their own morality to live by.
No, by that logic, if somebody breaks the contract and is therefore "wrong" or "evil" because of it you are walking into the religious realm over reality. Only people who pretend that religion or abstract philosophy hold no place in society would even get upset over such an idea. Of course they do, that is the ethics (one more time, maybe the third time is a charm here, will he read it? Probably, then forget it two more posts down and attempt again to make morality equal to rights...)
This is far more reflective of reality than stating that if you can act, you have the right. This makes the term hollow, empty of any meaning, simply because it is used to replace 'to act'. Renaming the term 'to act' as 'right' has absurd consequences, all I do is my right, I have the right to fart, I have the right to drink coffee, I have the right to scratch my nose. I don't. I can fart, I can drink coffee, I can scratch my nose. But they aren't defined as rights. They are just actions.
You once again call it "hollow", this I find hilarious from a person who attempts to say that they proscribe to nihilism. Hollow, is only the value that you assign it, while others may assign it differently.
Just because you have the right to do something doesn't necessarily mean it must be expressed, or that society might not assert their rights over yours. That you have the freedom to breathe is assumed, that you have the freedom to vote is assigned, the reason for it was a moral reasoning. "It is the 'right' thing to do." However, other societies assert different 'rights' as pertains to that particular freedom.
That you agree more with the morals of the society you grew up in is certain, therefore your "right" to vote is important and has reached that religious conotation that I referred to earlier. However it is only part of a moral contract expressed through legislation, not a part of nature. It is always funny that this most "fundamental" right is just another form of a contest where one group asserts their results over the other.
Linking the notion of freedom to rights simply makes the term 'rights' meaningless.
The attempt to give them magic status over that is an abstract morality argument, once again not based in the reality. What I describe fits in with what has happened in the past, and is currently happening. What you describe is only a product of that. The expression of "right" is simply another way to say moral, albeit giving it a high enough meaning in the minds of people that if we had a sound track we'd have angelic singers in the background every time somebody said it.
It is society saying, "It would be wrong for us to deny them a defense, therefore we'll call it a 'Right!' (enter angelic singers)" It makes it equally meaningless if we use your logic because there is another word that can describe it. Using such a description one could wind up saying, "It would be wrong for us to make it illegal to fart, therefore we have the RIGHT to fart!" It is equally preposterous, here is where you start using logical fallacy as you attempt again reductio ad absurdam (your favorite fallacy).
Again, by this definition of rights, the term has no meaning. It becomes empty, just 'to act' by another name. You have no corresponding duties. You have the right to act however you like, duties don't come into it.
What you describe as 'right' simply means 'can act'.
And again, by your definition you may as well call it an "assignement" rather than rights.
There is absolutely nothing religious about a society defining its own morality, drawing up a contract of duties and corresponding rights. That is more Nietzschean than religious, recognising the lack of innate moral framework in existence itself, and creating our own. The guarantee that you get is the same as the guarantee you get when you agree to any contract, it is binding by mutual agreement. [/B]
Except religions are a defining of morality, it fits within my definition of religion. Where abstract concepts are pressed on others to define and coerce right action. And once again, society defining your rights is simply putting makeup on it. You had that right to begin with, they are just enumerating the ones that they think are more important while curtailing the others and totally ignoring the more ridiculous such as your right to fart.
