Sixth, the fact that civil disobedience is illegal in a given context is simply not enough to make civil disobedience a rights violation in the same context.
Fourth of all, Greg Gauthier also made a plausible argument as to why people behind the veil of ignorance would treat certain historical facts as irrelevant even if those same historical facts are relevant. Source:
Third, Greg Gauthier made a plausible argument as to why people behind the veil of ignorance would treat the Marxist dichotomy of personal property vs property which functions as a means of production as relevant even if such distinction is actually irrelevant. Source: https://gmgauthier.com/post/chamberlain-nozick-and-rawls/
Second, Alastair Norcross has made a surprisingly plausible analogy between the reasonable aggregation of costs and benefits across persons & the unreasonable aggregation of costs and benefits across persons. Source: https://spot.colorado.edu/~norcross/Contractagg.pdf
First of all, Kevin Corcoran has shown that if widespread disagreement among natural rights theorists about the content of natural rights are sufficient to refute natural rights theory, then widespread disagreement among social contract theorists about the content of the social contract would be sufficient to refute social contract theory. Source: https://www.econlib.org/social-contract-ambiguity/
Thank you for the comment! I will review their papers. Although I believe that consciousness (or freedom) is a requirement for membership in the social contract. My next post will explain this reason further.
Science has been inconclusive on whether nonhuman animals possess consciousness, but the prospects look dim. Reflective action isn’t enough from my perspective. However, we can still have a trustee relationship with nonhuman animals. That being said, I’ll review the works of the philosophers you listed and will adjust my view appropriately.
Even if they lack consciousness? And if so, where would you draw the line? Would plants and bacteria, or even inanimate objects and hypothetical people, be within our moral universe? Freedom plays an important role in constructivist meta-ethics. And you can still have animal compassion and duties resulting from a trustee relationship.
Sixth, the fact that civil disobedience is illegal in a given context is simply not enough to make civil disobedience a rights violation in the same context.
Fifth, slavery was a rights violation back when it was perfectly legal.
Fourth of all, Greg Gauthier also made a plausible argument as to why people behind the veil of ignorance would treat certain historical facts as irrelevant even if those same historical facts are relevant. Source:
https://gmgauthier.com/post/nozick-rawls-and-the-problem-of-patterned-principles-of-justice/
Third, Greg Gauthier made a plausible argument as to why people behind the veil of ignorance would treat the Marxist dichotomy of personal property vs property which functions as a means of production as relevant even if such distinction is actually irrelevant. Source: https://gmgauthier.com/post/chamberlain-nozick-and-rawls/
Second, Alastair Norcross has made a surprisingly plausible analogy between the reasonable aggregation of costs and benefits across persons & the unreasonable aggregation of costs and benefits across persons. Source: https://spot.colorado.edu/~norcross/Contractagg.pdf
First of all, Kevin Corcoran has shown that if widespread disagreement among natural rights theorists about the content of natural rights are sufficient to refute natural rights theory, then widespread disagreement among social contract theorists about the content of the social contract would be sufficient to refute social contract theory. Source: https://www.econlib.org/social-contract-ambiguity/
I only just found your substack via mojeek's substack search. The search functions in Substack are not very useful.
I should probably rewrite the following since I found your stack:
You Have No Inalienable Rights On The World Wide Web
only those granted by the United Nations...
https://tomg2021.substack.com/p/you-have-no-inalienable-rights-on
and
Ethical Web Principles, as revised by Yet Another Tommy
should supersede the W3C version...
https://tomg2021.substack.com/p/ethical-web-principles-as-revised
Thank you for the comment! I will review their papers. Although I believe that consciousness (or freedom) is a requirement for membership in the social contract. My next post will explain this reason further.
Science has been inconclusive on whether nonhuman animals possess consciousness, but the prospects look dim. Reflective action isn’t enough from my perspective. However, we can still have a trustee relationship with nonhuman animals. That being said, I’ll review the works of the philosophers you listed and will adjust my view appropriately.
Even if they lack consciousness? And if so, where would you draw the line? Would plants and bacteria, or even inanimate objects and hypothetical people, be within our moral universe? Freedom plays an important role in constructivist meta-ethics. And you can still have animal compassion and duties resulting from a trustee relationship.