@AH-64 The issue with rights is that no one can give an intellectually honest account of what they are without delving into circular or emotive reasoning.

Even the appeal to Divine Law is dishonest. Rights tend to be treated as a declarative fact, whereas Divine Law is, by its nature, an imperative.

But furthermore: what is a right? What is its concise definition? What makes it different from a privilege?

If it is a social contract as that one American jurist suggested, then I can choose to not be a part of it, no? If that is the case, then there are no universal rights, merely social mores in specific contexts. And if that's true, they are also subject to change by authority, who directs/precedes all societal change.

>Even the appeal to Divine Law is dishonest. Rights tend to be treated as a declarative fact, whereas Divine Law is, by its nature, an imperative.
The Divine Law is an imperative, but insofar as that imperative is directed against potential aggressors against someone for the purpose of protecting that person, we can also speak of a right conferred on that person. To deny this is to engage in nothing more than word games. If the divine will is for someone not to be aggressed against, then what do you call this but a right?

>But furthermore: what is a right? What is its concise definition? What makes it different from a privilege?
The most concise definition I found would be "moral or legal entitlement", which is clear enough for me. To differentiate "right" from "privilege" is not necessary. Originally, both may have meant essentially the same thing, but with "right" having germanic and "privilege" latin roots. Nowadays, the two are different, but as everyday moral discourse is a terminological and logical mess anyway, that should be of no concern to us. Be all that as it may, this is, once again, so much riding on definitions and semantics, and it really reminds me of analytical philosophy.

>If it is a social contract as that one American jurist suggested, then I can choose to not be a part of it, no? If that is the case, then there are no universal rights, merely social mores in specific contexts. And if that's true, they are also subject to change by authority, who directs/precedes all societal change.
About this: Yes, that would be correct, but I don't subscribe to that theory. I don't know anyone who does, it used to be statists who invoked the social contract theories but they stopped doing that, for some reason. At least I don't see it often anymore.

Lastly, about this:
>The issue with rights is that no one can give an intellectually honest account of what they are without delving into circular or emotive reasoning.
I really don't see how that holds. Thomism derives them mainly from human nature, our moral agency, and the concept of finality. Hoppe derived them through argumentation ethics. Rothbard mixed both approaches. You can find their approaches convincing or not, but I don't see how they're circular or emotive (especially the latter, Thomism in particular is very dry). If you have anglo-philosophers in mind, men like Locke, then you may have a point, I do not remember them logically deriving their theory of rights.
@A B S O L U T I S T

> The Divine Law is an imperative, but insofar as that imperative is directed against potential aggressors against someone for the purpose of protecting that person, we can also speak of a right conferred on that person. To deny this is to engage in nothing more than word games. If the divine will is for someone not to be aggressed against, then what do you call this but a right?

I wouldn't call it a word game. Perhaps I'm arguing against the post-Lockean sense of the term, but placing a limiter on someone else doesn't directly imply, to me at least, an inherent quality on the person the limitation benefits. God commands you not to kill, but I wouldn't say that means you have a right not to be killed, but rather a commandment not to kill. It's a subtle but important difference.

> The most concise definition I found would be "moral or legal entitlement", which is clear enough for me. To differentiate "right" from "privilege" is not necessary. Originally, both may have meant essentially the same thing, but with "right" having germanic and "privilege" latin roots. Nowadays, the two are different, but as everyday moral discourse is a terminological and logical mess anyway, that should be of no concern to us. Be all that as it may, this is, once again, so much riding on definitions and semantics, and it really reminds me of analytical philosophy.
@AH-64

I again I think perhaps I'm arguing against the Liberal concept of a right as this "self-evident" thing that humans universally possess. The conception you're arguing from- I think-contains the possibility that it can be revoked and that implies it is contingent on the recognition of Power. The reason I differentiate "right" from a "privilege" is to avoid the linguistic baggage of Locke and the Constitution.

@AH-64 Hmmm you're a rothbardian?

I'm interested in your opinion on the Thomistic account of rights

You seemed to have called it "dry" and I'm curious why that is

@A B S O L U T I S T I think I get you now.

>God commands you not to kill, but I wouldn't say that means you have a right not to be killed, but rather a commandment not to kill. It's a subtle but important difference.
That is true, obligations without corresponding claims (and thus corresponding rights or privileges) do exist. We have the obligation to be charitable, but no specific beggar has a claim to our charity, for example. I do think that we can often establish that people do have a claim corresponding to an obligation or prohibition addressing others, however. I cannot say I have a definite answer on how we can do that. For example, for murder, I would say that its prohibition implies the right to life (or rather the right not to be murdered). We can conclude that from the fact that the Bible takes a positive stance on self-defense, as in the Book of Esther. (This is not contradicted by the fact that the Bible calls on us to exercise this right with temperance or even waive it for the sake of mercy.) However, nowhere in the Bible are beggars portrayed as having a claim to money from a specific person.

We can also go the route of establishing via argumentum ad absurdum that some obligations cannot simultaneously establish a right. If every beggar had a right to your money, they could reduce you to pauperism. However, this can only establish that something is not a right, not that something _is_ a right. So it's not the fundamental answer you're looking for.

I might have a better response some time, but I'll have to think about it more. I doubt this is the last time this topic comes up, however.

As for what you say on Locke and the liberal conception of rights, I do agree, it's unsatisfying. I wouldn't throw the word out, because then we'd lack a word to describe a concept that can be made intelligible. Without it, the discourse on rights won't vanish, it will just be muddled further. Eventually, a new word will come about. Maybe really privilege, although that word carries its own baggage.

@ManDefault36 Funny you mention that. I do find scholasticism dry, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Unpleasant, maybe, but so is learning hard historical facts and dates, and it's still useful and can be interesting if you get the subject matter. I suffered through law school, so for me, dry reading material is par of the course.

However, when it comes to metaphysics, I am pretty much a thomist, and as I regard ethics as largely an extension of metaphysics, that means I am also one when it comes to ethics. I do stress liberty more, but that's probably a matter of degree. On that, I am halfway between Rothbard and St. Aquinas: I think liberty is fundamentally important, but I also think that not every action is an exercise of liberty (as when a mentally deranged person tries to commit suicide), and that there is a hierarchy of freedoms. Freedom of conscience is on top, whereas your freedom to eat ice cream is lower. I haven't yet managed to put this into the proper words yet. That would require, I think, some 20,000 words.

So I'm kind of mixed, really.

My personal theology is influenced more strongly by the Patricians, I think.

Seems we are a lot closer than I first figured lol

I dunno, my job has me dealing with words a lot, so I think in terms of language.

Ironically I'm a lot like the philosophers I dislike in this- I want concise, declarative definitions even though such a thing might not even be possible.

Likewise, it's a nice surprise!

I wonder if the Democrats really will go ahead with Biden. Sure, he has the Black vote in his pocket, but he's lacking in almost every other area.

RIDIN WITH BIDEN NO MALARKEY

Capitalists will sell your country for profit.
Communists will sell you culture for...well nothing of value
Feudalists will save your people, culture, country, and lifestyle.

There's just one problem with feudalism and that's all of the little states fighting each other to solve the problems you need an empire like the HRE with the only difference that the Emperor is the only one who gets an army. This allows you to be strong together in forgein Policy and have everything decentralised in thousands of small states.

@Felix the Monarchist Thing is, a Catholic Emperor needs to respect the rights of his Protestant subjects, and vice versa

A big issue with feudalism is that it's too decentralized. Though it's nice people only have to care about their own community and don't even have to give a shit if the noble who lords over them speaks another language, being that insular allows for too much cultural drift tbqh

That insularity is even a regression from antiquity imo

In antiquity you had more well established trade networks, governance structures (as in having a government that does things and can enforce it), notions about nations etc. than during feudalism

Might've been dangerous if Europe had come under foreign domination

Because if people only mistakenly care about their narrow community they miss the big picture

> @Felix the Monarchist Thing is, a Catholic Emperor needs to respect the rights of his Protestant subjects, and vice versa
@Old1812 A protestant emperor should not be allowed. Concerning the rights, the Emperor shouldn't have anything to do with anything inside the country except for military matters. He is responsible for defending the country and diplomacy.

@Felix the Monarchist Not be allowed?

A protestant should have no right to rule. Ever heard about the sun and moon allegory?

Sorry, I haven't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_and_moon_allegory

I'm not getting into yet another Catholic debate, not right now at least.

A protestant emperor if anythign would've been the saving grace of the HRE
Not having one actually went against historical precedent of emperors having disputes with the pope

The Papal pretensions to power are not borne out by Scripture or early church history

The papacy wouldn't even be in the position it is right now without the holy roman empire and a donation of land

Not to mention historically the church was organized under an emperor

Aka the roman emperor