If a society is unwilling to exercise and protect its rights, is an authority justified in removing them?
In short, no. RE: defense - Removing an undefended right is at least as and possibly more morally culpable than removing a defended one. RE: exercising - The right to do something is not the same as an obligation to do that thing - rights preserve options rather than indicate actions.
There are circumstances where entity 1 may justifiable infringe on the rights of entity 2, but entity 2's simple lack of exercise and defense is not one of them.
There are complications here dealing with society vs authority in a democracy, in that the authority is granted its authoritative power and abilities by the society, and that by granting the authority the power to remove rights the society is not so much having them taken away as it is giving them up.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2006-02-02 04:46 pm (UTC)In short, no. RE: defense - Removing an undefended right is at least as and possibly more morally culpable than removing a defended one. RE: exercising - The right to do something is not the same as an obligation to do that thing - rights preserve options rather than indicate actions.
There are circumstances where entity 1 may justifiable infringe on the rights of entity 2, but entity 2's simple lack of exercise and defense is not one of them.
There are complications here dealing with society vs authority in a democracy, in that the authority is granted its authoritative power and abilities by the society, and that by granting the authority the power to remove rights the society is not so much having them taken away as it is giving them up.