Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Awareness of a binding norm or permission does not entail possession of the concept 'right' as a distinct, individuated entitlement held by a subject.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Awareness of binding norms presupposes recognition that *I* am bound or permitted, implying rudimentary subject-based individuation.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Distinguishing 'my permission' from 'your permission' requires the conceptual apparatus the claim denies.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Even minimal norm-awareness in humans involves implicit claims about differential entitlements between agents.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Pre-linguistic creatures follow norms (e.g., pack hierarchies) without concepts of entitlement or ownership.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Norm-awareness involves recognizing behavioral constraints, which is conceptually simpler than individuated property rights.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Historical societies enforced permissions/duties via custom without explicit 'rights' vocabulary or conceptual framework.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.