tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post6338648064343274837..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: A New Constitutional Test for Religious LibertyAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-3187434073010986152008-04-28T00:48:00.000-06:002008-04-28T00:48:00.000-06:00'Justice Anthony Scalia...argues that speech is no...'Justice Anthony Scalia...argues that speech is not a form of coercion because "the listener can do as he pleases."'<BR/><BR/>This is true, unless the speaker is saying "Unless you do as I say, I will kill you".<BR/><BR/> But it is also trite. All speech is persuasive, and intended to influence others, or else it would be pointless.anticanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18135207107619114891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-71294486767166448052008-04-25T18:04:00.000-06:002008-04-25T18:04:00.000-06:00emu samSo, let me explain my view of rights in a c...<B>emu sam</B><BR/><BR/>So, let me explain my view of rights in a couple of days. Of course, I do not believe in rights as "right particles".<BR/><BR/>Rights (like all values) are a particular type of relationship between states of affairs and desires.<BR/><BR/>I'll get to it next week sometime.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-89888227601001302292008-04-25T12:10:00.000-06:002008-04-25T12:10:00.000-06:00I think I don't understand your definition of a "r...I think I don't understand your definition of a "right." I read http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com/2008/03/george-carlin-on-absence-of-rights.html. However, I think this post gave me a better idea of what you're writing about. I'm still left with the impression that a right might be any human trait.<BR/><BR/>Could it be that we have a right to kill other people - a right that interferes with their right to life, and one which we have strong reason to make alienable?<BR/><BR/>I think, however, that you are saying a right will be inextricably bound up with morality. There exist rights, and these rights can be discovered by seeing what people generally have a reason to promote.<BR/><BR/>Now that sounds like you're saying something exists - that there are "right particles" which can be violated or upheld. Obviously, this is not what you intended to say. But I'm left somewhat puzzled, and inclined to agree with Carlin that there is no such thing as a right. What we think of as a right is bound up with society and morality in such a way as to make it impossible to define.<BR/><BR/>I think you're right about the ideas of the founding fathers.Emu Samhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05352556221263050952noreply@blogger.com