Total Posts:173|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Where do rights come from?

CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2011 6:49:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
If you can do it, you have the right to do it.

Right = power
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Grape
Posts: 989
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2011 6:51:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I would argue that rights arise naturally from human interaction as a way of rationally allocating control of scarce resources, which includes both our bodies and separate physical objects.
Contradiction
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2011 6:54:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
If by rights you mean something objective (And not just a human construct -- in which case it wouldn't be properly understood as a "right" at all), then God.
Grape
Posts: 989
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2011 6:55:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/26/2011 6:49:19 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
If you can do it, you have the right to do it.

Right = power

That concept of rights is so distinct from what is normally meant by the term that you're not talking about the same thing anymore. If a right only refers to the capacity to do something than you're not even making an ethical claim anymore, unless you're saying that all acts are ethical (which defeats the whole purpose of ethics and is equivalent to nihilism).
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2011 6:56:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Rights come from natural law.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Grape
Posts: 989
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2011 6:56:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/26/2011 6:54:36 PM, Contradiction wrote:
If by rights you mean something objective (And not just a human construct -- in which case it wouldn't be properly understood as a "right" at all), then God.

A human construct can be objective. Calculus was invented by two dudes in Europe and it is quite objective. Rights can be objective within a certain social framework.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2011 6:58:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
"Rights" don't actually exist. I don't really have a right to life, or to liberty, or anything like that. Rights are just the label we give to specific large-scale agreements among agents. I don't kill you, you don't kill me. I don't steal from you, you don't steal from me. They're a social convenience whose enforcement is basically a requirement for (mostly) peaceful coexistence.
Contradiction
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2011 7:00:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/26/2011 6:56:45 PM, Grape wrote:
At 4/26/2011 6:54:36 PM, Contradiction wrote:
If by rights you mean something objective (And not just a human construct -- in which case it wouldn't be properly understood as a "right" at all), then God.

A human construct can be objective. Calculus was invented by two dudes in Europe and it is quite objective. Rights can be objective within a certain social framework.

That's assuming one holds to mathematical fictionalism, which I do not.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2011 7:03:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/26/2011 6:55:05 PM, Grape wrote:
At 4/26/2011 6:49:19 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
If you can do it, you have the right to do it.

Right = power

That concept of rights is so distinct from what is normally meant by the term that you're not talking about the same thing anymore. If a right only refers to the capacity to do something than you're not even making an ethical claim anymore, unless you're saying that all acts are ethical (which defeats the whole purpose of ethics and is equivalent to nihilism).

Moral Nihilism? Sure, you could say that.

I'm not making an ethical claim. Ethics and morality deal with pissing people off.

You are free to do anything, you have a right to do anything you are capable of doing. Morality comes in when you are looking to minimize negative repercussions, and maximize positive gain. You are free to do just about anything, but not everything is beneficial.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Phoenix_Reaper
Posts: 318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2011 7:06:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/26/2011 6:58:54 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
"Rights" don't actually exist. I don't really have a right to life, or to liberty, or anything like that. Rights are just the label we give to specific large-scale agreements among agents. I don't kill you, you don't kill me. I don't steal from you, you don't steal from me. They're a social convenience whose enforcement is basically a requirement for (mostly) peaceful coexistence.

+1.
Phoenix Reaper - To rise from the ashes of defeat and claim your soul.

: At 3/15/2011 4:23:07 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
: Taste is for pussïes. Be a nihilist. Drink vodka.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2011 7:10:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/26/2011 7:06:54 PM, Phoenix_Reaper wrote:
At 4/26/2011 6:58:54 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
"Rights" don't actually exist. I don't really have a right to life, or to liberty, or anything like that. Rights are just the label we give to specific large-scale agreements among agents. I don't kill you, you don't kill me. I don't steal from you, you don't steal from me. They're a social convenience whose enforcement is basically a requirement for (mostly) peaceful coexistence.

+1.

+1
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2011 7:20:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/26/2011 7:10:03 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 4/26/2011 7:06:54 PM, Phoenix_Reaper wrote:
At 4/26/2011 6:58:54 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
"Rights" don't actually exist. I don't really have a right to life, or to liberty, or anything like that. Rights are just the label we give to specific large-scale agreements among agents. I don't kill you, you don't kill me. I don't steal from you, you don't steal from me. They're a social convenience whose enforcement is basically a requirement for (mostly) peaceful coexistence.

+1.

+1

= 3, for this argument.
Any challengers?
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2011 8:25:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/26/2011 6:58:54 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
"Rights" don't actually exist. I don't really have a right to life, or to liberty, or anything like that. Rights are just the label we give to specific large-scale agreements among agents. I don't kill you, you don't kill me. I don't steal from you, you don't steal from me. They're a social convenience whose enforcement is basically a requirement for (mostly) peaceful coexistence.

Are you actually arguing that your sister/mother/wife/child does not have a right to life/liberty and as long as I can kill/rape them without punishment (which you would not enforce) then it is not right for them to expect me to abstain from this action?
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2011 8:31:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/26/2011 6:49:19 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
If you can do it, you have the right to do it.

Right = power

"I can murder, thus I have a right to murder?"
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2011 8:34:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/26/2011 8:26:10 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 4/26/2011 8:19:59 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
God.

(in his best Dawkin's voice)

Yeah, well who gave God rights then?

No one. God is self consistent thus His rights are His doings.
Phoenix_Reaper
Posts: 318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2011 8:35:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/26/2011 8:25:20 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 4/26/2011 6:58:54 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
"Rights" don't actually exist. I don't really have a right to life, or to liberty, or anything like that. Rights are just the label we give to specific large-scale agreements among agents. I don't kill you, you don't kill me. I don't steal from you, you don't steal from me. They're a social convenience whose enforcement is basically a requirement for (mostly) peaceful coexistence.

Are you actually arguing that your sister/mother/wife/child does not have a right to life/liberty and as long as I can kill/rape them without punishment (which you would not enforce) then it is not right for them to expect me to abstain from this action?

Yes they do not have that right because it is not actually there.

There is a punishment,
"They're a social convenience whose enforcement is basically a requirement for (mostly) peaceful coexistence."

"which you would not enforce"

I as a person with my own choices may chose to enforce what I think I should stand for.
Phoenix Reaper - To rise from the ashes of defeat and claim your soul.

: At 3/15/2011 4:23:07 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
: Taste is for pussïes. Be a nihilist. Drink vodka.
Phoenix_Reaper
Posts: 318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2011 8:36:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/26/2011 8:31:50 PM, GodSands wrote:
At 4/26/2011 6:49:19 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
If you can do it, you have the right to do it.

Right = power

"I can murder, thus I have a right to murder?"

Wrong. You can murder because you have the ability.
Phoenix Reaper - To rise from the ashes of defeat and claim your soul.

: At 3/15/2011 4:23:07 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
: Taste is for pussïes. Be a nihilist. Drink vodka.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2011 8:41:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/26/2011 8:25:20 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 4/26/2011 6:58:54 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
"Rights" don't actually exist. I don't really have a right to life, or to liberty, or anything like that. Rights are just the label we give to specific large-scale agreements among agents. I don't kill you, you don't kill me. I don't steal from you, you don't steal from me. They're a social convenience whose enforcement is basically a requirement for (mostly) peaceful coexistence.

Are you actually arguing that your sister/mother/wife/child does not have a right to life/liberty

Yes, I am arguing this. Your emotional ploy changes nothing.

and as long as I can kill/rape them without punishment (which you would not enforce) then it is not right for them to expect me to abstain from this action?

This is really poorly worded, and is sort of a loaded question. Allow me to explain my view a bit more clearly.

If you can rape or murder someone I love--and get away with punishment or retribution of any sort, then that means only two things.

1. I will be severely pissed off.
2. You will have gotten away with rape or murder.

Given that I am a moral nihilist, I obviously don't subscribe to the notion that it is "wrong" of my loved ones to expect you not to rape or murder them, as I don't subscribe to the notion of objective "right" and "wrong" to begin with. If there are police in our hypothetical society, or if there are private agencies insuring against things which we would normally categorize as crime (e.g. rape and murder), then there is simply a reasonable expectation on the part of my loved ones that others will not aggress against them, and that, if an act of aggression is committed, some sort of retribution or restitution will follow if the police/protection agency is successful.
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2011 8:42:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/26/2011 8:36:16 PM, Phoenix_Reaper wrote:
At 4/26/2011 8:31:50 PM, GodSands wrote:
At 4/26/2011 6:49:19 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
If you can do it, you have the right to do it.

Right = power

"I can murder, thus I have a right to murder?"

Wrong. You can murder because you have the ability.

Yes, so I am allowed to murder because I have the right to, right? And if I am punished for murder, surely I had no right, right? So if that is so, that I am arrested and punished, I never had the right, right?
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2011 8:43:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/26/2011 8:41:47 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 4/26/2011 8:25:20 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 4/26/2011 6:58:54 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
"Rights" don't actually exist. I don't really have a right to life, or to liberty, or anything like that. Rights are just the label we give to specific large-scale agreements among agents. I don't kill you, you don't kill me. I don't steal from you, you don't steal from me. They're a social convenience whose enforcement is basically a requirement for (mostly) peaceful coexistence.

Are you actually arguing that your sister/mother/wife/child does not have a right to life/liberty

Yes, I am arguing this. Your emotional ploy changes nothing.

and as long as I can kill/rape them without punishment (which you would not enforce) then it is not right for them to expect me to abstain from this action?

This is really poorly worded, and is sort of a loaded question. Allow me to explain my view a bit more clearly.

If you can rape or murder someone I love--and get away with punishment or retribution of any sort, then that means only two things.

1. I will be severely pissed off.
2. You will have gotten away with rape or murder.

Given that I am a moral nihilist, I obviously don't subscribe to the notion that it is "wrong" of my loved ones to expect you not to rape or murder them, as I don't subscribe to the notion of objective "right" and "wrong" to begin with. If there are police in our hypothetical society, or if there are private agencies insuring against things which we would normally categorize as crime (e.g. rape and murder), then there is simply a reasonable expectation on the part of my loved ones that others will not aggress against them, and that, if an act of aggression is committed, some sort of retribution or restitution will follow if the police/protection agency is successful.

Plus, as was noted above, I never claimed that some form of punishment or other wouldn't be enforced. In fact, I clearly stated that the enforcement of "rights" as a social convenience is sort of necessary for peaceful coexistence.
Phoenix_Reaper
Posts: 318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2011 9:03:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/26/2011 8:42:20 PM, GodSands wrote:
At 4/26/2011 8:36:16 PM, Phoenix_Reaper wrote:
At 4/26/2011 8:31:50 PM, GodSands wrote:
At 4/26/2011 6:49:19 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
If you can do it, you have the right to do it.

Right = power

"I can murder, thus I have a right to murder?"

Wrong. You can murder because you have the ability.

Yes, so I am allowed to murder because I have the right to, right? And if I am punished for murder, surely I had no right, right? So if that is so, that I am arrested and punished, I never had the right, right?

You are not getting it sir. There are no rights. You simply have the ability to murder. If you get punished it is because someone else/a group thinks you should be. Again THINKS you should be.
Phoenix Reaper - To rise from the ashes of defeat and claim your soul.

: At 3/15/2011 4:23:07 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
: Taste is for pussïes. Be a nihilist. Drink vodka.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2011 9:11:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/26/2011 8:41:47 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:

Given that I am a moral nihilist, I obviously don't subscribe to the notion that it is "wrong" of my loved ones to expect you not to rape or murder them, as I don't subscribe to the notion of objective "right" and "wrong" to begin with.

Rights are not limited to moral conventions, they can be moral, or they can be social contracts or they can be legal restrictions. A right is just something that is allowed or owed based on one of the three (or other) aforementioned systems. If you do not believe that rights exist then you are asserting that all actions are allowed and there can be on consequences demanded.

As an aside, why would you be angry, I did nothing wrong and you have admitted you have no right to restrict my behavior. Making a comment about law enforcement is at best contradictory as you are alleging that you have no right to restrict my behavior but someone else does. How can you not be the person who has the most right to restrict my killing your wife (aside from her of course). How can you possibly argue that is a coherent view.

What about if our society consists simply of you, your wife and me, and I just wander into your society. There is no law, no government and since you have no right to restrict my behavior - then I can do what I want, no issues?
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2011 9:20:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/26/2011 8:41:47 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:

Yes, I am arguing this. Your emotional ploy changes nothing.

Well it should for any rational person, not because it is emotional but because it is a reality. I have seen a woman beaten so badly that she aborted her child because her husband did not want it and at the same time would not pay to have it done (it would shame him). It is easy to make a philosophical argument about semantic word play, it is another very different issue to say to that woman - well you had no right not to be beaten anyway. He could do it, there will be no punishment, and society will favor him for doing it anyway as you were foolish enough to have a female child which will be a burden on him. That is what you are arguing in reality - but that dirty reality is not nearly as easy to defend as some ideal construct.