Do we own our own lives? A discussion on the morality of suicide and voluntary slavery.

[The Grand Nudger]

Absolutely, if we want to use the "tree model" we'd have to determine which precedes which. But as proof of concept, if you will, it certainly seems like it could be functional (which might explain why we seem to be using something like it). What argument we may offer has no bearing over whether or not this model can be used for comparing two rights- so long as those arguments reference some observation of the world around us (as you have so often mentioned being a requirement for a morality from reason). My position, Genk, is that comparing the number of assumptions for (and underlaying givens) between two rights can determine which would be more fundamental than the other.

You may place this or that above or below on the trunk but regardless of what you place - where, the way you're reaching conclusions on what right takes precedent over another is the same.

I offered a very loose model for a way to place these rights on the tree, in case you missed it

Now, the reason I offered the above is to demonstrate a way in which a right - having to leverage less in the way of justification (and possibly being part of the justification for the next right)

I suppose I should have elaborated, or maybe not wedged it in a wall of text. I figured you might appreciate this one, since it leverages parsimony. Fewer assumptions, a less elaborate argument for justification, and of course we couldn't place a right lower (on that tree- with relation to another) than some other right if our justification for that right contained within it the right we were attempting to slide under.

For example.

If A -right to avoid pain
If A and B -right to self determination
If A and B and C -right to ownership of property (like I said, I'd put a ton of shit in between this one and the last one..but just for illustrative purposes...

Trying to slide the right to self determination under the right to avoid pain (essentially claiming that your right to free-will..if you will, truncated the right to avoid the imposition of pain) would, in essence, be setting one of it's justifications (it's inputs) to "false"..the gate would return false. You wouldn't have the right.

Does this all start with an assumption, of course it does. Remember, I don't have that objectively true morality we hope might one day be discovered. What I have starts with sentience-subjectivity, experience. You're free to start elsewhere, or place rights elsewhere, but we would still be able to compare their placement in such a manner.

I propose that the one thing that all rights have in common is experience. To discuss a right without reference to experience seems non-sensical to me. As Apo mentioned, we can't go out into the forest and find a right. It doesn't seem like we could pick one up and say "this is a right". The very notion is itself a concept which derives -from- the ability to have experiences. As the lowest common denominator of this thing we like to call "rights" I feel that any right which derives solely from this would be foundational. It would be the "lowest order" of rights as we begin to justify them and they would apply to the broadest number of entities.

You know it's probably important to mention that while you questioned me about the assumption of my first choice we aren't questioning each other about rights to begin with. If we're going to assume rights at all (which we seem to have done), where would you begin?

If we could both agree on some common starting place then we could probably come to a more robust conclusion (either way) and we'd certainly reach it much more quickly. Do rights begin at planck time, or are we willing to come a little closer to where we are in having such a discussion? Where we begin is bound to ave a hell of an effect on where we end up (and the roads we take to get there), yeah?