humanities.philosophy.objectivism

I realize that my questions are kind of tangential to what you were
originally talking about. So if you're not too enthusiastic about taking
time to discuss them, I'll understand.

Gordon Sollars wrote:

> In article ,
> mark@myinboxisbroken.com says...
>
>>Gordon Sollars wrote:
>>
>>>[...] Any person
>>>has the right to kill a murderer - so long as they know he is a
>>>murderer. [...]

You mean, so long as they have a tested, unfalsified conjecture that he
is a murderer? :-\

>>What kind of right is this, and where does it come from? (I'm just curious.)
>
> It is a moral right, not a legal right or a "moral-legal" right.

OK. Thanks for clarifying that. But I'm not sure that I know exactly
what a moral right is.

Does the fact that Mr. A has a moral right to do X imply that other
people should accept a (moral) constraint on their behavior, namely,
that they must not forcibly prevent Mr. A from doing X? And does it
imply anything other than that?

Does Mr. A's having the moral right to do X imply that it is morally
proper for Mr. A to do X?

> It
> comes from the set of the best moral theories available.

How do you determine which moral theories are the best ones available?

Also, how do you define murder? Is it unlawful killing? If so, how is
unlawful defined?

And is a murderer anyone who, at some point in his life, has committed a
murder -- regardless of how long ago he committed the murder, or how
much he might have changed since committing the murder, or how much of a
threat he might pose to people now?

Mark