If we taboo for a sec the words “right”, “wrong”, “should” and “should not”, how would I best approximate the concept of universal rights?
Here’s how: “Nearly everyone has a sense of personal sovereignty, in the sense that there exist elements of the universe that a person considers belonging to said person—so that if another agent acts to usurp or wrest control of such elements, a strong emotion of injustice is provoked. This sense of personal sovereignty will often conflict with the sense of others, especially if the sense of injustice of inflated to include physical or intellectual property: but if we minimize the territories to certain natural boundaries (like person’s bodies and minds), we can aggregate the individual territories to a large map of the universe, so that it will have huge tons of grey disputed areas but also some bright areas clearly labelled ‘Alex’s body belongs to Alex’s sovereignty’ or ‘Bob’s body falls to Bob’s sovereignty’. ”
If we taboo for a sec the words “right”, “wrong”, “should” and “should not”, how would I best approximate the concept of universal rights?
Here’s how: “Nearly everyone has a sense of personal sovereignty, in the sense that there exist elements of the universe that a person considers belonging to said person—so that if another agent acts to usurp or wrest control of such elements, a strong emotion of injustice is provoked. This sense of personal sovereignty will often conflict with the sense of others, especially if the sense of injustice of inflated to include physical or intellectual property: but if we minimize the territories to certain natural boundaries (like person’s bodies and minds), we can aggregate the individual territories to a large map of the universe, so that it will have huge tons of grey disputed areas but also some bright areas clearly labelled ‘Alex’s body belongs to Alex’s sovereignty’ or ‘Bob’s body falls to Bob’s sovereignty’. ”