Okay, you might have misunderstood. My question is more so: you have officials doing things. You believe it is morally permissible for the officials to do them. But if instead of officials, it was an average individual, maybe mimicking a government, doing those things, it would be immoral. The question is, what justifies this difference?
I think I see your contention now.
You are questioning the validity of State Agency?
There is if you are asking for a moral justification where none is needed. How do we discern empircal truths from subjective opinions when it comes to applying the label ‘privilege’ and asking for moral justification in the appropriate situation.
What would you think if the person against womens’ rights said that to you when asking for a justification? You were saying that in their view, men have privileges and they tell you, no justification is needed.
Do you think being born tall and strong requires moral justification
Well no but being tall and strong is not a moral matter.
not so much agency but legitimacy.
Women’s rights exist because of the State. My height and strength does not.
That doesn’t answer the question. I don’t understand why you think no justification is needed for your belief even if it is a belief about non-moral matters like your height.
I never said no justification–of course there is a clear empirical way to see if someone is stronger and taller, so I am trying not to confuse your moral ‘justification’ with empirically evidenced justification. There is no need.
I meant to frame this as no justification is required for this privilege to exist. Some people are stronger and taller and this may be an advantage in a given society; if so, then why is any justification necessary for the fortune of being taller and stronger. What is, simply is.
Women’s rights exist because of States not in spite of them. We are not born with innate rights, they are created and then enforced.
Non-moral items can quickly become moralised.
You mention Women’s Rights. Is being a woman a privileged position in some respects; meaning, does it have some advantages? I would argue it does.
Are we now in moral territory if one demographic have certain advantages over others?
We could simply take height anmd strength as a factor too, if they are valued by society. The legitimacy of these values can be questioned, but at the end of the day we are going to end up with some people having more and others having less in terms of advantages.
‘States’ (as you put it) help balance these things out and share individual qualities. They attempt to police and distribute resources–be these material or otherwise.
no justification is required for this privilege to exist.
You seem to believe I am talking about purely empirical matter. Well, I don’t think that’s true, but it doesn’t matter. I guess the question would be: how did this privilege come to exist? Because it seems I don’t have it, and they do, so how did they get it?
Luck, happenstance or fortune. People simply get dealt a better hand than others sometimes. Sometimes the very same hand can be bad for one individual and great for another.
In societal terms there is always the opinion of the masses that moves the eye discerning what is and is not a ‘privilege’.
To be clear for Women’s Rights. The State gives Women this privilege.
what luck did they get, how?
If I ask you how did this person get rich, I want you to say that they played the lottery not simply that they had luck.
Luck of all kinds of forms can afford people privileges.
This seems like somewhat of a bizarre question. I guess to have any form of luck one must exist. So, by existing.
I also exist but I don’t have those privileges so there must be something else. Where did they get lucky?
Well who says you have the right to exist. Your mother? There’s someone taller and stronger than you who might think he deserves what you have, who might be able to prove it and convince those around you of the same, who could oppress if not outright harm you without breaking a sweat. What stops him? Basic decency? Perhaps. Or. Fear of punishment. So look at it that way. Your right to exist also exists because of the State. Does it not? As I hope you can see I’ve illustrated, mere circumstance (I happen to be able to do something right now) is a poor foundation to base one’s identity and understanding of the world on.
I would never make such a claim. I exist. Rights have nothing to do with me existing or not existing.
Maybe.
Rights are only rights if they are enforced. I enforce my right to exist and no doubt others enforce their existence in such a way that inhibits mine sometimes. So what?
I do not see this, sorry. You just said some stuff.
My contention here is that of what is meant by ‘privilege’. Existence is a privilege for some as is not existing for others (the later being perhaps being far less common!).
People do not deserve good nor bad luck. ‘Shit happens’ is part of life. That is not to say that everything is down to mere chance.
It is true to state that some people are simply dealt a better hand at birth than others. Some do well, and some do not.
I think it is fair to argue that States served a purpose for enough people both past and present. That people are policed and coercered is not merely an item of State Rule.
Just to be clear. Rights are rights because they can be enforced–by a State or an individual. Most people do not want the responsibility of enforcing rights for themselves let alone for others. Who would want to willingly put themselves in harms way unless absolutely necessary?
This isn’t working. Let’s take a concrete example:
Some (most?) states require you to file papers called tax returns depending on your income. And if you don’t, they can ultimately assault and kidnap you at your home. I think most people find this assault morally acceptable, but if an average individual were to assault someone for refusing to file what they wanted, it would be considered immoral. If you agree with both of these characterizations, then the question is: why does the state agent that assaults you in this instance have the privilege of being considered morally permissible to do so?
I do not accept them, but …
Because you afford them this privilege I guess? I do not consider anyone’s actions under the guise of ‘duty’ to be absent of moral responsibility.
I certainly do not consider the State to be a moral agent either.
I see your point now. I believe what you are calling moral decisions are down to individual choices. Some have limited choices. Some can be forgiven for performing what I myself would consider a poor choice.
The kind of privilege you are talking about does not exist. It is a phantom because privileges are not really what they seem. The State is not an agent and agents of the State are agents.
It is a question of willingness and awareness to take responsibility for one’s actions for me. This privilege mosty people, including myself, tend to avoid as it comes at a price. The State releases us from this burden to some degree or another and we generally seem to be happier for it compared to living in a state of nature.
@Suny Thanks for the discussion. I guess I should just sit back and watch for now. Will be interesting to see what others make of it.