Summations Only

Well, there are two ways of looking at this. One, we can take the opinion that human rights are something that really exists, and we all have universal human rights in all situations. The fact that governments or paramilitaries or whatever contravene those rights doesn't mean people don't possess them, it just means they're not being respected. This is Taq's view, as far as I can see.Another way of looking at it is that human rights are just a legal fiction, created by people upon agreement. This leads to the same answer though. The people in Ciudad Juarez have these rights - they're enshrined in the Mexican Consitution, in statutes and in international law. These legal rights still exist whether or not they're being respected.The third option you seem to be taking, that people don't really have these rights if they can't defend them for any reason, leads to some strange conclusions. It means that, if someone breaks into your house and steals all your possessions, then you don't actually have any right to those possessions, since you obviously don't have them any more.Edited by caffeine, : No reason given.

I was neither ignoring it, not making anything up. This is exactly the point I was responding to.If rights are something inherent, as Taq believes, then they do not stop at the Mexican border; whether or not these rights are being violated.If rights are nothing but a legal fiction, then they still do not stop at the Mexican border. Mexican law entitles Mexicans to pretty much the same rights as American law entitles Americans. That the broken system of government means those rights are not enforced, doesn't mean they're not there, on paper.You, on the other hand, are claiming human rights stop at the US border because people in Ciudad Juarez are incapale of exercising them. But this is silly. A 'right' is something to which you are entitled, whether you consider this entitlement to be inherent or simply a legal formality. If you're morally entitled to something, you're still morally entitled to it, even if someone imorally takes it away. if you're legally entitled to something, you're still legally entitled to it even if someone illegally takes it away.This isn't a difficult concept.Edited by caffeine, : No reason given.

Sorry Taq but, setting aside any question as to the truth of your premises, this argument isn't at all valid. One word which is noticeablely absent from your premises is the word 'ought', and yet there it is, sittng bright and bold in the conclusion. Where did it come from?You need to add in the additional "P5: You ought not to cause in others that which you do not wish to experience"; and then you can logically conclude "You ought not to cause fear of death in others".Conclusions to a logical argument are nothing but a rearrangement of the premises. If there's no 'ought' in your premises, there can be no 'oughts' in your conclusion.

But this is all a human right is - what should be. If you agree that x should be a right, then you've agreed that x is a right.This whole argument seems a bit pointless to me though. All you're both arguing about is 'do right and wrong really exist'. No, of course not - they're things we make up. But we make them up for good reasons.