Should people have a right to privacy?

[LuckyR]

"Just (adj):

"3. Properly due or merited: just deserts."

https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=just

"Justice (noun):

"1a: the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/justice

Or,

"1. The virtue which consists in giving to every one what is his due;"

Well you and I disagree about what constitutes "justice".

Your definition differs from the dictionary's? You have a Newspeak definition? Or perhaps you've equating the term with the neologism "social justice" --- a lefty Newspeak synonym for material equality, which has nothing to do with justice (as defined above).

Is the nation that supports medical care for the elderly by taxing the rich more just than that which allows the elderly to suffer and die?

What nations --- i.e., their governments --- may morally do is identical with with whatever Alfie may morally do. If Alfie may not morally rob Bruno to provide for his ailing grandmother, neither can any government. Bruno has no duty to provide for Alfie's grandma, and if he declines to do so he does not thereby "allow her to die" --- a tendentious phrase that presumes that is something within his control. The underlying assumption there seems to be that we all have some duty to meet one another's needs. But there is no such duty, and no rational moral basis for one. That assumption rests on the "organic fallacy" --- the mistaken belief that modern societies are communes, kinship-based tribes, or "big happy families" whose members are bound by some sort of "one for all, all for one" pact. They aren't.

Is such medical care "due" to each citizen, by virtue of citizenship? You think it isn't. I think it is.

Then you've apparently adopted a Newspeak definition of what "is due" means. The term refers to the obligation of a debt, or of a promise or contract. A worker who puts in his 40 hours is due his paycheck. A bank which lends money is due repayment. Nothing material is "due" anyone merely by virtue of their being legal citizens of some State, or by virtue of "being human" (the other specious basis for material entitlements proffered by lefties), and in the absence of some such promise or agreement on his part, Bruno does not owe Alfie or his grandma anything.

If the "merited reward" of being an American citizen over 65 years old is Medicare Health Insurance, then taxing rich Americans to support the system is just.

Being an American citizen over 65 years old doesn't "merit" anything; it is merely a natural fact true of some people. Merit refers to intentional acts of individuals which yield some good or benefit, and thereby merit praise and rewards. One does not "merit" anything merely by existing.

So you are against the concept of insurance? Everyone should just pay their way? The insurance industry (and their investors) is happy you're not in charge.

[Ecurb]

"Just (adj):

"3. Properly due or merited: just deserts."

https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=just

"Justice (noun):

"1a: the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/justice

Or,

"1. The virtue which consists in giving to every one what is his due;"




Your definition differs from the dictionary's? You have a Newspeak definition? Or perhaps you've equating the term with the neologism "social justice" --- a lefty Newspeak synonym for material equality, which has nothing to do with justice (as defined above).

No. Your use of the definition defies logic, common sense, and a basic knowledge of "social contracts". This is either strange, of an example pf prevarication, for "social contracts were essential to the3 notions of your "classic liberals". Here's a definition:

....an implicit agreement among the members of a society to cooperate for social benefits, for example by sacrificing some individual freedom for state protection. Theories of a social contract became popular in the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries among theorists such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, as a means of explaining the origin of government and the obligations of subjects.

Then you've apparently adopted a Newspeak definition of what "is due" means. The term refers to the obligation of a debt, or of a promise or contract.

Exactly. An American citizen is is contractually offered equal protection under the law, He is also promised Medicare when he reaches the age of 65. Why is this hard for you to understand? It's obvious. All citizens take advantage of their legal protections, for which they are expected to pay taxes. If it weren't for the promise of Medicare, the retirement, employment and life plans of individuals might be quite different.

Being an American citizen over 65 years old doesn't "merit" anything; it is merely a natural fact true of some people. Merit refers to intentional acts of individuals which yield some good or benefit, and thereby merit praise and rewards. One does not "merit" anything merely by existing.

Oh, bunk! Citizens "merit" equal protection under the law simply by virtue of being citizens. IN addition, 65-year-old citizens have generally been employed and have payed taxes for years, reasonably assuming that such participation in government "merits" (i.e. earns them) certain benefits including, but not limited to: equal protection under the law; protection from foreign invasion; government support of public education; and, of course, Medicare.

[Pattern-chaser]

There is no legal injury when the allegations are true.

And yet, in many cases, there is injury (harm) done. That's what this is about: actual harm, not something legally defined as harm. And each case will differ. In some cases, we might feel that public scrutiny (and the consequent public criticism) is appropriate. For other cases, the accused, even if guilty, should not be publicly humiliated as part of their punishment, if that aspect of 'punishment' would be unfair and/or inappropriate.

This topic is not about what is legal. It seems to be about what is moral or ethical, which isn't the same thing.

[Pattern-chaser]

You didn't answer the question, i.e., If you do something ridiculous, stupid, dishonest, negligent, or even evil, no one may say so?

As I wrote in my previous reply, this topic concerns things outside of what is merely legal. Sometimes it is wholly appropriate to speak out in public; in other cases, fairness and justice demand that we don't. This isn't a difficult judgement to make. We just need not to speak out because we want to. If we speak out, it should be because justice and fairness require it.

[GE Morton]

So you are against the concept of insurance? Everyone should just pay their way? The insurance industry (and their investors) is happy you're not in charge.

How did you draw that conclusion from anything I said? But see response to Ecurb, forthcoming, below.

[GE Morton]

No. Your use of the definition defies logic, common sense, and a basic knowledge of "social contracts". This is either strange, of an example pf prevarication, for "social contracts were essential to the3 notions of your "classic liberals". Here's a definition:

....an implicit agreement among the members of a society to cooperate for social benefits, for example by sacrificing some individual freedom for state protection. Theories of a social contract became popular in the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries among theorists such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, as a means of explaining the origin of government and the obligations of subjects.

You can't argue with the definition, so you're claiming my "use" of it "defies logic . . .(etc.)? What other uses do you think the term has?

There is no "social contract." The social contract is a heuristic device for philosophically exploring what institutions and rules a group of (rational) individuals with disparate interests might adopt. Neither Hobbes nor anyone else imagined that such a contract actually existed, implicit or explicit. The "social contract" is hypothetical, and hypothetical contracts bind no one.

Then you've apparently adopted a Newspeak definition of what "is due" means. The term refers to the obligation of a debt, or of a promise or contract.

Exactly. An American citizen is is contractually offered equal protection under the law, He is also promised Medicare when he reaches the age of 65. Why is this hard for you to understand? It's obvious. All citizens take advantage of their legal protections, for which they are expected to pay taxes. If it weren't for the promise of Medicare, the retirement, employment and life plans of individuals might be quite different.

Oh, I agree that citizens have a legal and moral entitlement to Medicare, by virtue of a contractual/promissory obligation of the government, per which contract they've paid premiums throughout their working lives. They are not morally entitled to it, however, merely because they are citizens. They may remain legally entitled, of course, since governments may, by decree, create legal "entitlements" for anyone and to anything they wish. Legal entitlements are arbitrary.

Being an American citizen over 65 years old doesn't "merit" anything; it is merely a natural fact true of some people. Merit refers to intentional acts of individuals which yield some good or benefit, and thereby merit praise and rewards. One does not "merit" anything merely by existing.

Oh, bunk! Citizens "merit" equal protection under the law simply by virtue of being citizens. IN addition, 65-year-old citizens have generally been employed and have payed taxes for years, reasonably assuming that such participation in government "merits" (i.e. earns them) certain benefits including, but not limited to: equal protection under the law; protection from foreign invasion; government support of public education; and, of course, Medicare.

Er, no. No one "merits" equal protection of the law (which applies, BTW to all persons, citizens or not). They are entitled to it, per a universal "Equal Agency" moral principle. Not all entitlements are merited, or "deserved." Merit --- worthiness deriving from meritorious actions or accomplishments --- plays no role. And, as I said above, they are morally and legally entitled to Medicare, due to a contractual obligation of the government --- not merely because they're citizens, or over 65. No one was entitled to those services before that program was enacted, and should the government abolish it no one would be "entitled" to them merely because they existed or were citizens.

[GE Morton]

You didn't answer the question, i.e., If you do something ridiculous, stupid, dishonest, negligent, or even evil, no one may say so?

As I wrote in my previous reply, this topic concerns things outside of what is merely legal. Sometimes it is wholly appropriate to speak out in public; in other cases, fairness and justice demand that we don't. This isn't a difficult judgement to make. We just need not to speak out because we want to. If we speak out, it should be because justice and fairness require it.

I agree that revealing personal information for no reason other than to cause some innocent person distress is immoral. That is a bad reason for disclosing it. But truthful information about a person may be useful to someone trying to make some decision involving that person, and the discloser has a right to disclose that information if it might be useful to some decision-makers. There is no "right" not to be distressed.

[Ecurb]

You can't argue with the definition, so you're claiming my "use" of it "defies logic . . .(etc.)? What other uses do you think the term has?

There is no "social contract." The social contract is a heuristic device for philosophically exploring what institutions and rules a group of (rational) individuals with disparate interests might adopt. Neither Hobbes nor anyone else imagined that such a contract actually existed, implicit or explicit. The "social contract" is hypothetical, and hypothetical contracts bind no one.
.

"Implicit agreements" remain agreements. Your interpretation of the definitions of "Just" uses the words "due" and "merited" in a manner that suits your agumentative needs.

Definition of due (Entry 2 of 3)
: something due (see DUE entry 1) or owed: such as
a: something that rightfully belongs to one
give him his due
b: a payment or obligation required by law or custom

Definition of merit (Entry 2 of 2)
transitive verb

: to be worthy of or entitled or liable to : EARN
intransitive verb

1: DESERVE

Of course everyone who reads your posts knows that you think the indigent "deserve" starvation, bad medical care, and early deaths. But some of us think they "deserve" food, proper medical care and normal life spans. When you claim that you are using the words "just" as defined, you are simply begging the question. Obviously, some people think that by virtue of their humanity, all humans "deserve" food and proper medical care. You don't. But don't fall back on the inane parsing of definitions to argue your case. The crux of the matter is who deserves what? You think property owners "deserve" to have the right to throw trespassers in jail. They've somehow "earned" that right through (silly notion) "first possession". I think their desert less compelling than that of the indigant for proper medical care.

Also, you cherry-pick your definitions. In addition to the two you quoted for "justice", there are these:

2a: the quality of being just, impartial, or fair
questioned the justice of their decision
b(1): the principle or ideal of just dealing or right action
(2): conformity to this principle or ideal : RIGHTEOUSNESS
the justice of their cause
c: the quality of conforming to law

So if providing poor people with food, housing and medical care is a "right action", then it promotes "justice". You can argue that poor people should be abandonned to die. But you cannot argue that government support for the poor is unjust IF it is a "right action", as I and most others think it is.

If justice involves "conformity to the ideal of right action", then you are dissembling when you say that

Legal entitlements are arbitrary.

Well, if we want to parse definitions, that's incorrect. Here's the first definition:

Arbitrary : existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act of will.

Legal entitlements are not random, nor are they necessarily capricious or unreasonable. Hence they are not "arbitrary" in this sense of the word. If they occasionally fail to conform to your notions of capitalist "desert", so much the better.

[Sy Borg]

You didn't answer the question, i.e., If you do something ridiculous, stupid, dishonest, negligent, or even evil, no one may say so?

As I wrote in my previous reply, this topic concerns things outside of what is merely legal. Sometimes it is wholly appropriate to speak out in public; in other cases, fairness and justice demand that we don't. This isn't a difficult judgement to make. We just need not to speak out because we want to. If we speak out, it should be because justice and fairness require it.

I agree that revealing personal information for no reason other than to cause some innocent person distress is immoral. That is a bad reason for disclosing it. But truthful information about a person may be useful to someone trying to make some decision involving that person, and the discloser has a right to disclose that information if it might be useful to some decision-makers. There is no "right" not to be distressed.

"Useful" seems like a broad parameter. Consider "useful" to a homophobe employer with a closeted staff member. Outing that staff member would be useful to the employer, but most secular people would consider it an injustice. The sacked queer employee could theoretically sue for lost earnings, except that only executives and senior managers would find that financially worthwhile.

There are many areas where a legal response would be appropriate, but it's too difficult to prove the cases, or too expensive.

[Good_Egg]

Consider "useful" to a homophobe employer with a closeted staff member. Outing that staff member would be useful to the employer, but most secular people would consider it an injustice.

Consider a candidate - a potential staff member - who has a history of fraud, but has for the last X years reformed, "gone straight" and led a blameless life. Applying for a position in finance where there may conceivably arise a temptation to embezzle...

Consider a candidate for a high-profile position as the public face of the company, who in his spare time does something harmless but deeply uncool.

Does the employer have a right to know, or does the candidate have a right to privacy ?

I'm not seeing any clear principle here, just a reflection of how much sympathy you feel for each of the two parties involved.

[Sy Borg]

Consider "useful" to a homophobe employer with a closeted staff member. Outing that staff member would be useful to the employer, but most secular people would consider it an injustice.

Consider a candidate - a potential staff member - who has a history of fraud, but has for the last X years reformed, "gone straight" and led a blameless life. Applying for a position in finance where there may conceivably arise a temptation to embezzle...

Consider a candidate for a high-profile position as the public face of the company, who in his spare time does something harmless but deeply uncool.

Does the employer have a right to know, or does the candidate have a right to privacy ?

I'm not seeing any clear principle here, just a reflection of how much sympathy you feel for each of the two parties involved.

Talking about sympathy is a red herring.

The discussion is about ethics and the practical limitations of law. You can't expect such a discussion to solve the problems of the world but to examine the issues.

Equating thieves and gays makes no sense unless one believes that homosexuality is a sin (which also makes no sense).

[GE Morton]

"Implicit agreements" remain agreements. Your interpretation of the definitions of "Just" uses the words "due" and "merited" in a manner that suits your agumentative needs.

"Implicit agreement" is an oxymoron. If there is no express consent --- no "act of agreeing" --- there is no agreement. An "implicit agreement" is indistinguishable from no agreement.

"Agreement (noun):
1.
a. The act of agreeing: When did the agreement take place?
b. Harmony of opinion; accord: Since we are all in agreement, let's proceed.
2. An arrangement between parties, usually resulting from a discussion, regarding a course of action."

https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/searc ... =agreement

You have a propensity of attaching spurious, Newspeak meanings to common words.

Definition of due (Entry 2 of 3)
: something due (see DUE entry 1) or owed: such as
a: something that rightfully belongs to one
give him his due
b: a payment or obligation required by law or custom

Definition of merit (Entry 2 of 2)
transitive verb

: to be worthy of or entitled or liable to : EARN
intransitive verb

1: DESERVE

Well, thanks for giving the definitions of those terms. But you left out Entry 1 for "due":

"Definition of due (Entry 1 of 3)
"1: owed or owing as a debt
"2a: owed or owing as a natural or moral right"

Alfie's grandma is not "owed as a debt" any support from Bruno. Nor does she have any "natural or moral right" to his support.

Of course everyone who reads your posts knows that you think the indigent "deserve" starvation, bad medical care, and early deaths.

Now you're abusing another term, i.e., assuming that anything that may happen to one must be "deserved." Which is, of course, false. Everyone dies, and most people who do don't "deserve" to die. They only deserve to die if they did something stupid or evil that resulted in their deaths. "Deserts" attach to human acts, not to natural phenomena or random events or to a creature's species membership. You deserve something if you've done something to merit it, or earn it.

But some of us think they "deserve" food, proper medical care and normal life spans.

Those who do don't know the meaning of "deserve."

When you claim that you are using the words "just" as defined, you are simply begging the question.

That would depend upon what you think is the question. What you seem to be questioning is the meaning of such terms as "just," "justice," "merit," "deserves," etc., and insisting on substituting your Newspeak meanings for those in dictionaries, in order to rationalize a rationally indefensible moral intuition or political ideology.

The crux of the matter is who deserves what?

Yes. it is. The answer to that is obvious --- you deserve whatever you've earned, produced, and whatever rewards or benefits might accrue to you due to your accomplishments, or to any punishments or hardships you may have brought upon yourself by your own acts. You don't "deserve" anything merely by existing.

You think property owners "deserve" to have the right to throw trespassers in jail. They've somehow "earned" that right through (silly notion) "first possession".

Ah. Silly, eh? Well, that is the basis for "rights" in all Western systems of law, and it has a clear moral basis, which I've previously outlined. Perhaps you have some superior alternative?

So if providing poor people with food, housing and medical care is a "right action", then it promotes "justice".

Doing those things are indeed right actions --- unless they're done by inflicting losses or injuries on someone else. Then they are wrong actions.

Arbitrary : existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act of will.

Legal entitlements are not random, nor are they necessarily capricious or unreasonable. Hence they are not "arbitrary" in this sense of the word. If they occasionally fail to conform to your notions of capitalist "desert", so much the better.

They are arbitrary in sense b:

"b: based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arbitrary

And, of course, laws which infringe natural rights are both capricious and unreasonable, whatever rationale may be offered for them.

[Pattern-chaser]

There is no "right" not to be distressed.

There is no "right" to anything at all, except for those rights that we award to ourselves, and enforce ourselves. There are no 'natural' rights, or any other kind of 'right'. They don't exist unless we create and maintain them.

So, if there is a right to (say) freedom of speech, then there could also be a right not to be distressed, if we decide that we want such a right. It's all down to us.

[Ecurb]

"Implicit agreement" is an oxymoron. If there is no express consent --- no "act of agreeing" --- there is no agreement. An "implicit agreement" is indistinguishable from no agreement.

"Agreement (noun):
1.
a. The act of agreeing: When did the agreement take place?
b. Harmony of opinion; accord: Since we are all in agreement, let's proceed.
2. An arrangement between parties, usually resulting from a discussion, regarding a course of action."

https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/searc ... =agreement

All agreements have an implicit element. As this post clearly shows, even the most rudimentary "arrangement between parties" must ALWAYS include and IMPLIED agreement as to the meaning of the terms;

GE: Let's meet at the park at noon, and I'll pay you the debt which is your just due, and which you deserve.
Ecurb: OK. I'll see you there.

Later

Ecurb (on the phone): Where were you? I was at the park at noon, but I couldn't find you.
GE: I was there, but I don't go be the Newspeak definition of noon, based on time-zones and daylight savings time. I go be the sun.
Ecurb: So I suppose, since we're in the Western half of the time zone, you were at the park at 1:15, based on the time everyone else goes by.
GE: That's right. And becausethe time of out meeting was merely implied, we never had an agreement.
Ecurb: Alrighty, then.

Alfie's grandma is not "owed as a debt" any support from Bruno. Nor does she have any "natural or moral right" to his support.

That is merely incorrect. Bruno "owes" taxes, and Alfie's grandma is "owed" Medicare insurance, based on a contractual promise by the government. Perhaps you mean that you don't think Bruno SHOULD owe as a debt any support for Alfie's grandma. However, your statement as is is clearly wrong.

But some of us think they "deserve" food, proper medical care and normal life spans.

Those who do don't know the meaning of "deserve."

verb (used with object), de·served, de·serv·ing.
to merit, be qualified for, or have a claim to (reward, assistance, punishment, etc.) because of actions, qualities, or situation:

Again, you are either incorrect, duplicitous, or illogical. You appear to think that humans (moral agents) "deserve" (are qualified for or have claim to) certain "natural rights", including life and liberty. If these rights are their "just due" (to use other terms we're parsing into meaninglessness), then it is ludicrous to argue that no humans can "merit" or "deserve" other benefits because of the meanings of the words "merit", "deserve" and "just due". If you want to argue your position on other terms, lay on MacDuff. But lay off on the endless quibbling, which is ridiculous.

And, of course, laws which infringe natural rights are both capricious and unreasonable, whatever rationale may be offered for them.

As I've pointed out many times, all laws infringe on natural rights. Laws create limits on liberty (a "natural right"). That is all they do, and all they can do. Don't bother with ranting about how it's "just" for liberty to be limited when it harms other people. Of course I agree. But to say the laws don't limit and infringe on natural rights is, once again, simply incorrect and nonsensical.

[Ecurb]

There is no "right" not to be distressed.

There is no "right" to anything at all, except for those rights that we award to ourselves, and enforce ourselves. There are no 'natural' rights, or any other kind of 'right'. They don't exist unless we create and maintain them.

So, if there is a right to (say) freedom of speech, then there could also be a right not to be distressed, if we decide that we want such a right. It's all down to us.

Exactly. The Classic Liberal Philosophers whom GE admires thought "natural rights" meant "God-given rights". To modern atheists (like most of us here) that means "human given rights", or "culturally constituted rights".