Quote:
|
Rights are granted via governing bodies typically with some kind of contitution ( history here for pretty much all Western govenment these days starts with the Magna Carta ). So, the essential ( and perhaps idealistic ) concept here is that the "rights" of the people, are granted by "the people" through their representatives who ultimately make these decissions on behalf of their constituents.
|
You're speaking of a process. The process however has to be based on principles. And a governing body in itself is not a guarantee that a law will be valid or "right". I could set up a governing body and issue laws until I'm blue in the face, and if they aren't valid then I have no right to demand that anybody obey those laws.
Quote:
|
That is there is no one who goes vialating any other one's "rights." And there is no "simply saying . . ." anything; nothing is simple here. What's more "our morality" is not the issue; the issue is law ( which only sometimes is moral ), and the "our" is "us" in the end, as we are represented by the people we elect.
|
Morality does appear to be the issue. Or more specifically, one group imposing their morality by force on others. Simply because you elected somebody to enforce your morality doesn't mean it's valid. It just means it's law. If the majority passed a law saying that Blacks should be enslaved, would that law be valid just because the majority passed it?