Delegating a right you don't have to someone else?

[Will Wiley]

I saw this question today so wanted to get others thoughts on it.

Is there any means by which any number of individuals can delegate to someone else the moral right to do something which none of the individuals have the moral right to do themselves?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Sure.
Whole crowds of nobodies will grant rights to celebrities to 'get out of jail free.' To scoff at certain laws that the nobodies have to obey. To allow them to park wherever, do whatever, avoid the consequences of whatever...

 

[whichphilosophy]

I saw this question today so wanted to get others thoughts on it.

Is there any means by which any number of individuals can delegate to someone else the moral right to do something which none of the individuals have the moral right to do themselves?

Delegate the right to the court to decide on removing the life support of a terminally ill patient. However this is more of a legal right to some and a moral right to others. This is because the term moral varies from person to person.

 

[Bronzeage]

Under state law in Louisiana, one cannot forfeit a right one does not have. This means waivers of liability for things like sports events have no legal force. You can't sue for damages, if you haven't been damaged yet, so there is no right to sue. Waivers do stand as evidence that you were informed of the dangers of the pursuit.

 

[Canard DuJour]

I saw this question today so wanted to get others thoughts on it.

Is there any means by which any number of individuals can delegate to someone else the moral right to do something which none of the individuals have the moral right to do themselves?

Depends whether you think rights are something other than social conventions. If not, then yes, it's the basis of law enforcement in democratic states. Otherwise it depends what you think rights are.

 

[dismal]

I saw this question today so wanted to get others thoughts on it.

Is there any means by which any number of individuals can delegate to someone else the moral right to do something which none of the individuals have the moral right to do themselves?

You mean like if you point a gun at me and take my money it's morally wrong but if a bunch of people vote to have someone point a gun at me and take my money it's civilized social justice?

 

[Bronzeage]

I saw this question today so wanted to get others thoughts on it.

Is there any means by which any number of individuals can delegate to someone else the moral right to do something which none of the individuals have the moral right to do themselves?

You mean like if you point a gun at me and take my money it's morally wrong but if a bunch of people vote to have someone point a gun at me and take my money it's civilized social justice?

That would depend upon whether you find if morally wrong to share the benefits of society, while refusing to share the burdens.

 

[ronburgundy]

Rights are social conventions we agree to that basically determine what actions are legal. IOW, rights are meaningless without enforcement of the laws to protect them. Within a constitutional democracy, law enforcement is supposed to be a collective effort to protect our shared rights from violation by other members of society. One reason such a collective effort is needed, is that enforcement of rights and their protection must itself must operate within the bounds of not infringing the rights it is protecting. Having each person decide where when and how they will protect their own rights from others is guaranteed to lead to as much rights infringement as protection. Obviously, a corrupted collective system can do that too, but their are more control and corrective mechanisms.

Thus, we have created the convention that individuals are limited in their rights to personally act to protect their own rights, outside of immediate threats. Instead, we create a justice system to operate on our collective behalf which does have the right to enforce protection of our rights in ways we can't as individuals. Obviously, for this to be defensible, that system must be highly accountable to the collective interests and be subservient to individual rights. The greatest violation of such principles in our current system are drug laws that violate people's basic rights to control their own body. But the problem there is not really with the collective enforcement system but with the collective law-creation system that is also suppossed to be subservient to individual rights and only create laws that protect those rights or advance collective interests without violating those rights (btw, protecting shared resources like the environment is part of protecting rights).

 

[Malintent]

the right to kill... issued by military leaders to the soldiers.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Law enforcement.

 

[dismal]

You mean like if you point a gun at me and take my money it's morally wrong but if a bunch of people vote to have someone point a gun at me and take my money it's civilized social justice?

That would depend upon whether you find if morally wrong to share the benefits of society, while refusing to share the burdens.

This seems like a bunch of irrelevant handwaving.

Let's imagine Bob, Ted and Jim are part of a society. Jim has $40 in his wallet. What is the moral difference between these acts:

1) Bob and Ted point guns at Jim and take $20 each of his money
2) Bob and Ted vote to point guns at Jim and take $20 each of his money (Jim votes no).

 

[Bomb#20]

You mean like if you point a gun at me and take my money it's morally wrong but if a bunch of people vote to have someone point a gun at me and take my money it's civilized social justice?

That would depend upon whether you find if morally wrong to share the benefits of society, while refusing to share the burdens.

This seems like a bunch of irrelevant handwaving.

Let's imagine Bob, Ted and Jim are part of a society. Jim has $40 in his wallet. What is the moral difference between these acts:

1) Bob and Ted point guns at Jim and take $20 each of his money
2) Bob and Ted vote to point guns at Jim and take $20 each of his money (Jim votes no).

It also seems like a bunch of irrelevant handwaving on account of it being a reply equally applicable to "You mean like if you point a gun at me and take my money it's morally wrong but if the King has someone point a gun at me and take my money it's civilized social justice?". It doesn't really come to grips with the OP question.

 

[ronburgundy]

That would depend upon whether you find if morally wrong to share the benefits of society, while refusing to share the burdens.

This seems like a bunch of irrelevant handwaving.

Let's imagine Bob, Ted and Jim are part of a society. Jim has $40 in his wallet. What is the moral difference between these acts:

1) Bob and Ted point guns at Jim and take $20 each of his money
2) Bob and Ted vote to point guns at Jim and take $20 each of his money (Jim votes no).

Or the more apt analogy to democratic government:
2) Bob, Ted, and millions of others agree to collectively pool some $ to pay for their common interests in basic infrastructure and enforcement of laws to protect rights (which include communal rights over public resources inherent to any free civilized society) , all which allows for all of the future private resources gained by anyone living within their society.Jim comes along and is born into that society, reaping all those benefits for 16 years for free. Once he starts earning income via economic activities made possible only by the prior expenditures of Bob, Ted, and those other millions, he is asked to either contribute his fair portion of those benefits he gains or leave that society. Instead, Jim is a greedy asshole who want to violate other people's rights by stealing from them in the form of not paying his share of the costs incurred in all the things that allow him to even exist, let alone acquire any wealth. To protect their own rights, Bob, Ted, and others point a gun at Jim and demand he pay his debts.

 

[whichphilosophy]

I saw this question today so wanted to get others thoughts on it.

Is there any means by which any number of individuals can delegate to someone else the moral right to do something which none of the individuals have the moral right to do themselves?

You mean like if you point a gun at me and take my money it's morally wrong but if a bunch of people vote to have someone point a gun at me and take my money it's civilized social justice?

The first is robbery the second is called taxation. The armed robbery occurs if one hasn't paid their taxes. Hence we have the joke about Jewish muggers and thieves being defined as lawyers and accountants.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I saw this question today so wanted to get others thoughts on it.

Is there any means by which any number of individuals can delegate to someone else the moral right to do something which none of the individuals have the moral right to do themselves?

There is a question of whether 'A has a moral right to X' in this context means a. "It's immoral for [some third party, implicit] to forcibly prevent A from Xing", or it means b. "It's morally permissible for A to X".

Let's say that Alice and Bob authorize Jack to place a video camera in the room where they're having sex, and then post the video on line.
That seems to work in both cases, at least under certain (many) circumstances.

So, my answer would be "yes".

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I saw this question today so wanted to get others thoughts on it.

Is there any means by which any number of individuals can delegate to someone else the moral right to do something which none of the individuals have the moral right to do themselves?

There is a question of whether 'A has a moral right to X' in this context means a. "It's immoral for [some third party, implicit] to forcibly prevent A from Xing", or it means b. "It's morally permissible for A to X".

Let's say that Alice and Bob authorize Jack to place a video camera in the room where they're having sex, and then post the video on line.
That seems to work in both cases, at least under certain (many) circumstances.

So, my answer would be "yes".

There might a sense in which no moral right is ever delegated. In the example, in that sense, Jack already has the right to place the camera, etc., in any situation in which the people involved (consenting adults, etc.) authorize him to do so, and there are no other factors that entail that he has no such right, so there is no delegation.
However, in that sense, no one can delegate any moral right to do something regardless of whether that person has the moral right to do it her/himself, so I don't think that's what the question was about.

 

[dismal]

This seems like a bunch of irrelevant handwaving.

Let's imagine Bob, Ted and Jim are part of a society. Jim has $40 in his wallet. What is the moral difference between these acts:

1) Bob and Ted point guns at Jim and take $20 each of his money
2) Bob and Ted vote to point guns at Jim and take $20 each of his money (Jim votes no).

Or the more apt analogy to democratic government:
2) Bob, Ted, and millions of others agree to collectively pool some $ to pay for their common interests in basic infrastructure and enforcement of laws to protect rights (which include communal rights over public resources inherent to any free civilized society) , all which allows for all of the future private resources gained by anyone living within their society.Jim comes along and is born into that society, reaping all those benefits for 16 years for free. Once he starts earning income via economic activities made possible only by the prior expenditures of Bob, Ted, and those other millions, he is asked to either contribute his fair portion of those benefits he gains or leave that society. Instead, Jim is a greedy asshole who want to violate other people's rights by stealing from them in the form of not paying his share of the costs incurred in all the things that allow him to even exist, let alone acquire any wealth. To protect their own rights, Bob, Ted, and others point a gun at Jim and demand he pay his debts.

I was asking about the specific situation described above. There are no "millions of others". There are no other things society has decided to do, or at least to the extent there are they are the same in both cases. The only incremental act to judge the morality of is the one laid out before you. The taking of $40 from Jim to give $20 each to Bob and Ted.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I was asking about the specific situation described above. There are no "millions of others". There are no other things society has decided to do, or at least to the extent there are they are the same in both cases. The only incremental act to judge the morality of is the one laid out before you. The taking of $40 from Jim to give $20 each to Bob and Ted.

Well, it depends why they took the money and what it's used for. The question makes no sense without the context of why it's being taken.

Say that Jim runs a business in a dangerous neighbourhood. If he gives the money to Bob and Ted, then maybe he doesn't need to worry about some thugs breaking into the place and smashing up all his shit. That would be immoral.

Say that Jim runs a business which uses the local electric grid which is run by Bob and Ted. He used $40 worth of electricity and didn't pay them. In the absence of any law enforcement authority or regulatory body to call upon to handle the situation, they are within their rights to go and take what he owes them.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I was asking about the specific situation described above. There are no "millions of others". There are no other things society has decided to do, or at least to the extent there are they are the same in both cases. The only incremental act to judge the morality of is the one laid out before you. The taking of $40 from Jim to give $20 each to Bob and Ted.

Well, it depends why they took the money and what it's used for. The question makes no sense without the context of why it's being taken.

Say that Jim runs a business in a dangerous neighbourhood. If he gives the money to Bob and Ted, then maybe he doesn't need to worry about some thugs breaking into the place and smashing up all his shit. That would be immoral.

Say that Jim runs a business which uses the local electric grid which is run by Bob and Ted. He used $40 worth of electricity and didn't pay them. In the absence of any law enforcement authority or regulatory body to call upon to handle the situation, they are within their rights to go and take what he owes them.

It is a ridiculous hypothetical that loves living in the imaginary world of Context-Freeland, where analogies can be made to real life situations without requiring much in the way of any similarities whatsoever.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I saw this question today so wanted to get others thoughts on it.

Is there any means by which any number of individuals can delegate to someone else the moral right to do something which none of the individuals have the moral right to do themselves?

Don't understand the question. There is no such thing as a tangible "moral right".

The "rights" we have are bestowed by pieces of paper and hopefully enforced by the Governments authorized by that paper.