antagon
The Man
- Dec 6, 2009
- 3,572
- 295
- 48
- Thread starter
- #61
metternich,
i dont see chomsky's weak universality as being necessary to natural rights. i think it might lend to universal social justice and by extension common social and legal rights. history has shown the potential for independent evolution of social entitlement and privilege (or conforming lack thereof)
what i contend, however, transcends a need for contemplation or awareness of the right. it is more a fundamental circumstance arising from the nature of free will. because free will is possessed by us, but its domain is also limited to ourselves, and is non-transferable, the sole possessor of the right to determine an action of free will is the actor. this right is natural; it precedes moral attachment or qualifications by virtue of that. it is granted by nature, the actor himself cannot will or actively strip the circumstance away from free will.
i dont see chomsky's weak universality as being necessary to natural rights. i think it might lend to universal social justice and by extension common social and legal rights. history has shown the potential for independent evolution of social entitlement and privilege (or conforming lack thereof)
what i contend, however, transcends a need for contemplation or awareness of the right. it is more a fundamental circumstance arising from the nature of free will. because free will is possessed by us, but its domain is also limited to ourselves, and is non-transferable, the sole possessor of the right to determine an action of free will is the actor. this right is natural; it precedes moral attachment or qualifications by virtue of that. it is granted by nature, the actor himself cannot will or actively strip the circumstance away from free will.