I don't understand the meaning of this statement that you describe as a moral principle.
Perhaps that's because, as I said, I don't really know what you're looking for. Perhaps it would seem more familiar to you if I said that greed is immoral. Or that generosity is a virtue. Or that nice people treat others fairly.
What is your share of happiness?
As much as I can get without taking it at the expense of someone else. The quantity of happiness in the world is not finite.
Of sex?
As much as I want but not more than my partner is inclined to give me.
Of food?
If someone brings a plate of brownies into the office, I divide the number of pieces by the number of people the plate is intended to serve and don't take more than that unless there are leftovers. (I'm not always successful on this one.) On a broader scale, I eat less meat and more soybeans.
Who determines that?
I do. It's my principle.
If it is a part of sharing--do others get to have a say.
Only indirectly, for the most part. They may influence me through information they may provide or through discussions on rights <g> or through custom or peer pressure or through law enforcement or other authority.
And who or what referees disagreement?
No one, unless I break the some law or official policy.
Share between you and who else? Do you mean amongst all people, where you somehow measure the amount of something that is desired (such as food), and then you determine what portion each person is morally entitled to (you did say it was a moral principle)? Is your share the same as everyone else's share?
Depends on the context.
Does your moral principle of not taking more than your share, imply or necessitate not taking less than your share?
No. I may not want or be able to use my full share or I may choose to give up my share in favor or someone else.
If one of your moral principles excludes or contradicts another of your moral principles, is at least one of them immoral?
No. Moral principles can be rank ordered.
Is there any fundamental basis or justification to your moral principle?
Sure. If I take more than my share, there could be an overall shortage that would affect me. Or someone who gets a smaller share could suffer or cause conflict over perceived unfair treatment. And I would feel like a jerk.
Does it follow from this that you do not share any rights in common with persons not American
Non-Americans have most of the legal rights I have when they're in America. Humans of other nationalities may have the same or similar rights in their homelands due to coincidence or because they copied from us or we copied from them or we evolved from a shared concept of rights. Rights that individuals have in relationships vary from family to family and friend to friend.
your apparent understanding of rights...is that they are something declared by Government--or perhaps any legal person that has more power than you do?
The entity with the power does not declare the right. The person who claims the right declares it and the entity with the power accedes to it. Or the entity with the power offers it and the person with the right takes what is offered.
If the United Nations imposes upon you a right that is not imposed on you by Americans, are they both your rights?
A right cannot be imposed on anyone, only offered. Obligations are imposed, not rights. Regarding the UN, no entity without the power to reasonably guarantee a right can offer one. That's just bogus.
Do rights have to apply equally to all people? Why?
No, they apply only to those who are part of the deal.
For instance, can men be given the right to demand intercourse from any female? If not, then why not?
They can be given the right to demand anything. Doesn't mean they're going to get it.
I don't know where you're going with this but I have answered your questions in as straight-forward a way as I can. Hope it's helpful.
Karen |
