Belindi wrote: ↑June 17th, 2019, 2:51 pm
Do you want to talk about use of English through the centuries, or do you want to talk about history of ideas?
The title of the thread is, "Human rights: what are they, and do they exist?" So, yes, we're talking about the meaning of an English phrase, not about the origins and history of various moral theses.
On a website called "Philososophy Discussion Forums" I don't have to provide documentation for any theory which is well known to philosophers and historians of religion. Try googling Axial Age.
Well, if you don't, then readers must judge your claims unsupported. I doubt you'll find any mention of "rights" (in the sense of a pseudo-property imputed to persons to denote an entitlement) in any of the writings usually cited in the "Axial Age" literature.
When I wrote "ontic" I referred to ontology as a main branch of metaphysics. Your discussion (above) is concerned with what I'd call definitions.
What did you mean by, "Rights have no ontic existence"? As I said, by definition a right exists if certain facts are true. Alfie is a "father" if certain facts are true about Alfie. Does fatherhood have an "ontic existence"?
Oh, no. Moral universality has nothing to do with the value of anything. It simply means that a moral theory and the principles and rules it generates apply equally to all agents in a moral field.
Yes, and when we discuss principles and rules we evaluate them. For instance the principle of universal health care applies to all. By comparison the principle of health care as limited to those who have paid into the insurance scheme is not universal health care.
That is true. But who has health care is not a moral principle. That everyone has a "right" to health care is a moral thesis -- which is false, per the classical understanding of what "rights" are. You can claim a "right" only to things you have acquired without inflicting loss or injury on others. Since health care requires the services of other people, you are claiming a "right" that others serve you. I.e., that others are your slaves. That, of course, violates the precept that everyone has a natural right to himself --- to his own body, his time, his efforts, and his talents --- a precept considered to be universal.