posted by Cool Skill:
I thought I explained what I meant. Please tell me what it is you do not understand.
you have stated that justice is 'people's right being upheld'. My story is an example of two people, and their rights being upheld. And how those rights then run afoul of each other.
The water/fence scenario is a bit better than mine - an example of how the freedoms of one will often directly impact the freedoms of others. In fact, the water example occurs today, around the world. Who gets to "own" the water? How should water travelling over or under private land be handled, for the sake of others living downstream? What about air?
You say that justice is the upholding of rights, and I say "which rights"? "Whose Rights"?
As far as the scenario, how does it reflect what I am talking about? Please give me examples of what I said, and how it relates to the scenario.
you had said that shouting "fire" in a theater should be legal, because it is free speech. However, by not limiting a person's rights to shout 'fire', you cause other people's rights to feel safe (again, your example) to be impaired.
The two rights cannot co-exist, so one must to volentarily limited by society.
The US society has decided that limiting the free speech of one person is better than limiting the safety of many.
What does this question mean?
What freedoms? What conflict?
What is you are talking about? I do not understand your scenario.
You gave a hypothetical scenario. Then you give your list of hypothetical rights.
What is your purpose? What is your intention? What are you attempting?
Unless you make it clear, I really cannot make any feasible comment about the scenario.
Please clarify. Please show me what I have stated, and how it relates.
your freedoms, the ones that you listed. The conflict is when the rights of one can only exist by taking away the rights from another.
This world has limited resources. Not everyone can have everything that they want. You can either limit everybody, so that everyone has at least enough to survive (communism), or simply let everyone duke it out (capitolism). Communism has thusfar failed, due to its innate conflict with the human drive to want *more*, and capitolism has to be watched carefully by the populace to avoid the few from taking over completely (think monopoly and ogolopoly laws).
Could the situation have been prevented without limiting the rights? The situation that lead to the conclusion of having a dead person and a captive person? Any situation can and should be done without limiting the rights of a person. Nobody is disputing that.
Please provide an answer about how your situation could have been prevented. I need you to clarify what your point is.
How does it relate to the topic at hand? How would you describe the relevance of your situation?
I asked you how the situations could have been prevented. I can think of thousands of possible ways to prevent this theoretical situation, but each one of them requires that the rights of SOMEONE be limited. From forced medication of the mentally ill, to the removal of all dangerous objects from planes, to compartmentalising the passenger cabin...we as a society can either have safety or freedom - often, they conflict with each other.
I cannot think of a way to prevent the situation without limiting anyones rights. And based on your supposition and conclusion, there has to be a non-limiting solution. If there is no non-limiting solution to this conflict, then your goal of "justice" cannot be reached as stated.
But I have. Please read the last few posts before yours. I completely define the first step. Then tell me what it is about the definition you are confused about.
The first step is useless if it cannot be implimented toward change. We do not understand your first step, and we have shown problems with the conclusions you reach.
Step A: think positively, not negatively.
Step B: ????
Step C: ????
...
..
.
..
...
Step ZZZXAZ: pure freedom and happiness.
If all you have as a first step is "don't think about the possible problems", then you will never create anything other than a faith. No change in the world will occur, and your final goal will never be realized.