"Rightful" here means, "consistent with the Axiom." More specifically, in contexts in which "rights" are invoked, it means, "Acquired without inflicting loss or injury on anyone else." Being (specifically) human is not necessary; they apply to any creature who values things and whose well-being consists in securing and retaining the things one values (whatever those may be). Since humans qualify per those criteria, those properties are part of "human nature." God, of course, has nothing to do with it.Gertie wrote: ↑January 31st, 2022, 2:16 pmThen you're still left with the problem of justifying 'rightful'.GE Morton wrote: ↑January 30th, 2022, 7:44 pmOooh, don't lump those together. Reasoning from natural facts and from religion are two different things.
Things to which one has natural and common rights are necessary to well-being, but being necessary for well-being is not sufficient to establish a right to something. One only has rights to things one has gained rightfully (hence the term).By my view, all morality rooted in our nature as sentient beings. I simply regard some things as inalienable rights (unalterable by governments) on the basis of how necessary they are to wellbeing.
You can justify 'rightful' by reference to this or that aspect (take your pick) of being human being instilled by God.
Or by reasoning from this or that (take your pick) aspect of nature.
Saying that someone has a right to something is not the same as saying it would be good that he have it, which would be the case regardless of the social circumstances. It would be good for Crusoe, alone on his island. Rather, rights place constraints upon the ways one may go about securing the things one desires and values in a social context, where the actions of one agent to improve his well-being may reduce the well-being of someone else. Since the Axiom is universal, such actions are ruled out.
It is indeed rightful. But only as long as the improvement in the well-being of one agent does not come at the cost of a reduction in that of another agent. Improvements have to be "Pareto-efficient."Or... you can think afresh, reassess the notion of 'rightful' and say it's the special qualiative nature of sentience which is the appropriate foundation for right and wrong, and reason from there that ensuring basic well-being is therefore 'rightful'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_efficiency