First issue is rights. Does society have the right to burn people, if it chooses to? I would argue yes, since I do not believe in absolute rights. Secondly, the fact that society was under a misconception about why it burned people- is completely unrelated to the right to do it (imo).
Well, this is what I was trying to contrast. However, I need to know if I understand what you are saying. It does not appear that you are assigning any meaning to "right" other than that which is capable of being justified by force. For instance, in your example of society burning people "if it chooses to", you argue that, yes--it is a right--if they can do it. Without anything to qualify this, I can only take it to mean that "right has no essential meaning beyond that of something which may be justified by force.
If you don't believe that rights are justified in the metaphysical arena, then on what basis does one address their discussion in society in other than terms of might, power, and force? If anything can be considered a right on the basis of a collective's ability to use force to make the irrational the real, then why discuss it with words--why not with guns?? |
