Do rights exist?

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

33. "Whether you know it or not, among the French and Germans, right means law."

That is the ideal, even among the French and the Germans (and among some other people as well -- I am familiar with the concept). And whether you know it or not, the correct spelling of the man you refer to name is "Abelard". In his Collationes ("Comparisons&quot , he wrote

So far as justice is concerned, it is not just the bounds of natural justice but also those of positive justice that ought not to be crossed. One sort of law is called "natural," the other "positive." Natural law is what the reason naturally innate in all people urges should be put into effect, and therefore remains the same among all people: such as, to worship God, to love one's parents, to punish the wicked, and to do whatever is necessary in the sense that without them no other merits whatever will be sufficient.

To positive justice, however, belongs what is set up by humans so as to preserve usefulness and worth more safely and increase them. It rests either on custom alone or on written authority. An example of positive justice is provided by the sort of punishments given in retribution and the procedures of judges in examining accusations which have been made. Among some, there is trial by combat or hot irons are used, among others an oath that, when we have to live among whoever it may be, we hold the laws they have set up (as I mentioned) just as we hold the natural laws.

The laws which you called divine--the Old Testament and the New Testament--also pass down some commands which are, as it were, natural (you call them "moral commands&quot , such as to love God and your neighbor, not to commit adultery, not to steal, and some commands which belong, as it were, to positive justice. These commands apply to certain people at a certain time, like circumcision for the Jews and baptism for you and many other commands which you describe as "figural." Moreover, the Roman pontiffs and church councils issue new decrees every day or dispense various indulgences, according to which, you say, what used to be lawful becomes illicit and vice versa--as if God put it in their power to make things good or evil which were not previously be their decrees and indulgences, and their authority could pass judgment on the law of nature.

(Believe it or else, I happen to know the medieval theologians fairly well, especially Aquinas) Abelard clearly distinguishes between natural law (or natural rights) and positive law (or positive rights). The other distinction is that between malum prohibitum and malum in se. Though he does not use those terms, he clearly recognizes that the positive law can make things once lawful, illicit, and make things once unlawful, licit. Abelard hints at the possibility of abuse: that the human authority may pass positive law that is not in line with the natural law.

We can understand how morals work and never create a moral person through reason. You keep saying that, without the slightest attempt to support it. It is, however, nothing more than your opinion. As I said in the other thread, I KNOW that, in my case at least, one can make a person more moral through reason. I suppose that one could not take an entirely amoral person and make him or her into a wholly moral person through reason, although one could certainly teach such a person enough that he or she could fake it convincingly.

Now try to realize, that in its natural state, morality only referrers to the relationship to ones own society and people. Where does this flight of fancy come from?. First, "ethics" comes from the Greek ἦ??? ("ethos&quot , which means "custom, habit". "Ethnic" from ἐ????ό? ("ethnikos&quot , which translates fairly well as "people". Two completely different words. Second, as C. S. Lewis remarks somewhere, if you believe that all moral codes are different, you should be locked up in a room with all the various codes, and you will quickly be bored with how basically the same they are.