>
>Short of a theocracy, does it EVER make sense to talk
>of rights?
>
What does theocracy have to do with anything?
Nothing necessarily metaphysical about rights talk. I have a right to X if you can't take it waay from me without my say so. The basis of that "can't" may be moral or legal or conventional or indeed theological, But what is wrong with saying that there are things tht can;t betaken away without my say so?
>Surely, rights are defined in terms of particular
>ontologies and epistemologies, such that if there
>exists different ontologies (there does [do]) and different
>epistempologies (there does [do]), then one should expect
>there to be different conceptions of "rights" (there
>are). The debate over rights is a debate over
>ontologies, which, last time I checked, is a debate
>without definitive and and universal resolution.
Unlike all the other debates . . . .
>Thus, talk of rights -- for and against -- is
>political on all sides, and ultimately theoretically
>irresolvable. We may come to a consensus about
>whether such "rights" ought to recognized, but those
>decisions are going to based on political expediency
>and not on the correctness of a particular conception
>of "rights."
>
An idea that as a pragmatist I am happy to embrace. Did you see my piece posted here the other day on why democracy doesn't need justification?
Still, it is interesting and useful to talk about rights and their basis, as you just have been doing.
Btw, nothing we were saying depending on rights having any partifcular controversial basis at all. We were discussing which rights it made sense to say we have, whatever their basis is. So your point is here beside the issue.
jks
_________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com