Maybe, but it seems to have more weight than that, and more importance. Sure. I didn't mean to imply a lack of weight intended by the person using the word when I gave that definition, but I see how it might be imprecise. To be more specific, I think people usually use the word "right" to make a normative claim about a particular action being morally right or wrong. I.e. "people have a right to not be subjected to X" means "I believe subjecting someone to X is morally wrong", and "people have a right to X" means "denying someone access to X/the opportunity to do X is morally wrong". That might not be a 100% accurate definition either, but I think it is pretty good. If its a right, can a parent stop them? Well, if sensual pleasure is a right, then I guess that means a parent can't. That would be at odds with the way our society is currently structured, though - as it stands now, parents generally have the final say as to what their children can or can't do. If you wanted to protect children's right to sensual pleasure, including from their parents interfering with it, that would call for basically overhauling the way our society is structured with respect to children, since parents' authority over their children is so fundamental in our society. Why does a child have a right to sexual pleasure, but not sensual pleasure? Well, if by "a child has a right to X" we mean "it is morally wrong to stop a child from engaging in X", I don't think either of these rights really exists, since I tend to agree with our current society's system of parents having authority over children. I think it would be pretty dumb to say it's unequivocally wrong in all circumstances for a parent to interfere with a child eating cake, eating a hamburger, or having sex. |