> Until your moral claims can said to be true, then my rights could contradict yours, and it might not be reconcilable. Here someone smarter than me might even consider that the job of government is to reconcile the infinite, inconsistent beliefs, and to give some basis of "rights."
The moral claims I make are innately true to all individuals. You can pretend that government has the right to do that which you cannot do to another individual, but you would be wrong.
You can do what you like as long as you are not harming another.
A collection of people do not/cannot have greater rights than an individual. An individual cannot grant another a right eg to privacy. An individual can respect anothers right to privacy. Or he can disrespect that privacy. If he does disrespect that right, that individual has done a wrong.
This same method applies to groups. If 10 people decide to disrespect an individual's privacy, this is still a wrong. There is no number, no implied convention that can make disrespecting privacy the right thing!
> The moral claims I make are innately true to all individuals.
You need to convince me and ethicists, first because I could introduce you to some error theorists who would say otherwise. It's literal he-said, she-said with people choosing to believe what they want to believe in. Whether they base this in the categorical imperative or the bible.
To make it 100% clear what point I'm trying to make is this: you can't just make a normative statement or that your morals are globally valid. When you do so, you say X ought do Y. So you need to prove that "ought". Why ought X do Y? And what makes that normative claim applicable outside X?
> You can pretend that government has the right to do that which you cannot do to another individual, but you would be wrong.
I was never interested in doing so, just in saying that anything you consider to be a moral fact isn't verified.
> You can do what you like as long as you are not harming another.
Andrey Chikatilo would expand this a bit. So would Dahmer.
The moral claims I make are innately true to all individuals. You can pretend that government has the right to do that which you cannot do to another individual, but you would be wrong.
You can do what you like as long as you are not harming another.
A collection of people do not/cannot have greater rights than an individual. An individual cannot grant another a right eg to privacy. An individual can respect anothers right to privacy. Or he can disrespect that privacy. If he does disrespect that right, that individual has done a wrong.
This same method applies to groups. If 10 people decide to disrespect an individual's privacy, this is still a wrong. There is no number, no implied convention that can make disrespecting privacy the right thing!