what basic philosophical idea, relevant to the issue of rights, don;t we agree about

That the only thing that should "change a right" is our own inability gauge what is correct

That's all I'm gonna say

zealot now thats a word i've not heard in a while

We cannot "agree" about that, because I disagree about weather rights are a good idea. You are assuming your own position to be mine and getting frustrated when it turns out it isn't...

seems pretty apt for some people on the far left

i know i know the right too <:Killme:447578244540268559>

Far left big gay

Chad right-libertarians reign supremeeeeeee

We disagree about the mechanics of your concept... That is literally the base point of the discussion. OFC we disagree about it...

I'm telling u the concept is wrongheaded in that it obfuscates the real value system behind it and claims universality while obviously rejecting it, and u get mad at me because I don't think it should be used...

And you seem to default to tradition as a justification for it

Tradition is an internally *coherent* justification for God, not for a rationalist philosophical concept.

Why is the value system behind a right important if the right itself is beneficial

The entire point is the utility of controlling a governing body's actions by directly setting its scope

This requires no religious component unless you assume people saying 'this seems right based on what we know' is somehow religious in nature

because weather it is beneficial or not is defined by the value system

*whether

that is what you gage the effect of the right by

"beneficial" means: good as far as my value system is concerned

Okay, so then you would naturally still gain from rights, but the rights would be different

what?

gain what?

Scope creep is bad

I'm not following at all

You do not want scope creep
So you limit the scope

scope of wat?

You will either use rights or an analogous system to accomplish this

scope of governmental bodies

if by analogous you mean something like "laws" then yes

the difference is that laws don;t make some claim to universality

Yeet

rights are a decalogue that is mutable

Mental gymnastics cancer

meaning it's not a decalogue

Then consider them laws for government

Because that is what they functionally *are*

cool, but then they are not some special cathegory

Correct

which is my point

All they are is laws