The ethics of poisoning my cat and the abortion dilemma

[whYNOT]

You might consider what she wrote in

The Letters of Ayn Rand

The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged Years (1945-1959)

Individual rights are an absolute, not to be "balanced" or limited by anybody. (And don't answer me that an individual's right to murder, for instance, is limited. Such a right never existed in the first place.) It certainly is not the government nor society that "sets up rights for an individual or group." These rights are not "set up" (nor "rigged up" nor "framed up"). They are inherent in the nature of man. Man is endowed with them by the fact of his birth.

dream weaver,

I'm not certain this helps my concerns on the issue. What I need is some clarity

of a possible distinction between 'moral' rights and individual rights, both of

which Rand seemed to use interchangeably. Rights are "inherent in the nature of man"

always seemed to me to be a universal absolute - a metaphysical given (by virtue of

having life). Individual rights (imo)are a man-made derivation, protecting one from

violations of freedom from others, and enforced by a minimal gov't.

I think changing context to a baby born in North Korea, might help.

The baby has 'moral' rights - I've heard also called 'natural rights' - but he or she obviously

doesn't have individual rights from her State. When she grows up, wherever she goes in

the world, her political rights may vary (i.e. "human rights", individual rights) but her

moral rights remain sacrosanct.

I am not sure I've created my own dichotomy here, or have a crucial distinction!

[dream_weaver]

I'm not as well versed in this area. The distinction between moral and legal rights may stem from the political system implimented. If the political system is established objectively, it should flow from the facts of man as a moral being, at which point, would such a distinction be necessary?

[softwareNerd]

I am not sure I've created my own dichotomy here, or have a crucial distinction!

The word "rights" is used to designate two different concepts:

• what an individual ought to be able to do without the government stopping him; and,
  
• what an individual is allowed to do by law, without the government stopping him
  

[Leonid]

I'm not as well versed in this area. The distinction between moral and legal rights may stem from the political system implimented. If the political system is established objectively, it should flow from the facts of man as a moral being, at which point, would such a distinction be necessary?

There is no such a thing as moral right. Rights are natural and define the freedom of choice and action. Morality is the means to make such a choice . Rights are metaphysically given, "Man is endowed with them by the fact of his birth." Morality is not, it has to be discovered. They are two different concepts-one stems from the nature of man, another from epistemology. The meaning of rights in the social context is that man can do whatever he pleases as long as he doesn't infringe the same right of others. Therefore man's actions could be completely rightful and deeply immoral, like non-violent racism for example.

Edited May 25, 2012 by Leonid

[dream_weaver]

The meaning of rights in the social context is that man can do whatever he pleases as long as he doesn't infringe the same right of others. Therefore man's actions could be completely rightful and deeply immoral, like non-violent racism for example.

Nice concretization.