Total Posts:68|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

A perfect unalienable right?

Greyparrot
Posts: 14,313
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2011 1:48:35 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Does there exist any right that can not possibly infringe on someone else's right?

Wouldn't all rights be paradoxes if they can be used to take someone else's right away under some perceptual context?

For example:
Someone may exercise a right to life by taking it away from another in the case of self defense.

Is there an unalienable right?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2011 1:50:25 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/8/2011 1:48:35 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
Does there exist any right that can not possibly infringe on someone else's right?
All of them.

For example:
Someone may exercise a right to life by taking it away from another in the case of self defense.
They haven't taken it away from another. The aggressor already invalidated it. By aggressing they lost a right to life.


Is there an unalienable right?
No. Rights are alienable by the actions of their possessors.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,313
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2011 2:03:52 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/8/2011 1:50:25 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 5/8/2011 1:48:35 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
Does there exist any right that can not possibly infringe on someone else's right?
All of them.

You are saying all of a person's rights can never infringe on someone else's rights? I find that hard to rationalize.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2011 2:05:13 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/8/2011 2:03:52 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 5/8/2011 1:50:25 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 5/8/2011 1:48:35 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
Does there exist any right that can not possibly infringe on someone else's right?
All of them.

You are saying all of a person's rights can never infringe on someone else's rights? I find that hard to rationalize.

The contrary is a contradiction. If you find that one right infringes upon another, you have ipso facto misconstrued or misdeclared at least one of the rights.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,313
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2011 2:06:17 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/8/2011 1:50:25 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

For example:
Someone may exercise a right to life by taking it away from another in the case of self defense.
They haven't taken it away from another. The aggressor already invalidated it. By aggressing they lost a right to life.


Not only did you take away his right to life, but you also took away his right to kill.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2011 2:06:46 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/8/2011 2:03:52 AM, Greyparrot wrote:

You are saying all of a person's rights can never infringe on someone else's rights? I find that hard to rationalize.

He is saying you can not claim a right which has that effect, i.e., anything that does that is not by definition a right.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,313
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2011 2:09:13 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/8/2011 2:06:46 AM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 5/8/2011 2:03:52 AM, Greyparrot wrote:

You are saying all of a person's rights can never infringe on someone else's rights? I find that hard to rationalize.

He is saying you can not claim a right which has that effect, i.e., anything that does that is not by definition a right.

Okay that makes sense, so I still would like to know if you can avoid the infringement problem for at least one right.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2011 2:10:20 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/8/2011 2:06:17 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 5/8/2011 1:50:25 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

For example:
Someone may exercise a right to life by taking it away from another in the case of self defense.
They haven't taken it away from another. The aggressor already invalidated it. By aggressing they lost a right to life.


Not only did you take away his right to life, but you also took away his right to kill.

He never had a right to kill, and he did not have a right to life at the time you took away his life.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,313
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2011 2:12:01 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/8/2011 2:10:20 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:


He never had a right to kill, and he did not have a right to life at the time you took away his life.

Who is to say he did not have a right to kill? Perhaps some authority, the government, or his God, gave him a license to kill?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2011 2:16:00 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/8/2011 2:12:01 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 5/8/2011 2:10:20 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:


He never had a right to kill, and he did not have a right to life at the time you took away his life.

Who is to say he did not have a right to kill?
Right-- a proper social limit/a proper exclusive domain of action
What would be proper about limiting oneself from interfering with him in the domain of action "Killing a nonaggressor?"

Perhaps some authority, the government, or his God, gave him a license to kill?
My mind is not for rent to any God or government, nor is my life.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2011 2:16:25 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Perhaps some authority, the government, or his God, gave him a license to kill?
My mind is not for rent to any God or government, nor is my life.

Unless of course I consent. But that isn't the scenario here. :P
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,313
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2011 3:17:39 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/8/2011 2:16:25 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Perhaps some authority, the government, or his God, gave him a license to kill?
My mind is not for rent to any God or government, nor is my life.

Unless of course I consent. But that isn't the scenario here. :P

p
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,313
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2011 3:18:04 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/8/2011 2:16:25 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Perhaps some authority, the government, or his God, gave him a license to kill?
My mind is not for rent to any God or government, nor is my life.

Unless of course I consent. But that isn't the scenario here. :P

-:P
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2011 8:46:36 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Rights derive from the nature of man. Man is a social animal, with rights to fulfill obligations to self, family, and tribe. The right to self-defense derives from the genetic obligation to preserve one's self, family, and tribe. By contrast, for example, tigers are solitary animals that have transitory family obligations and no tribal obligations. It makes no sense to speak of a tier's right to defend his herd of tigers, because there is no such thing. Praying mantis eat their mates, presumably to recycle protein to preserve the species. There is no abstract logic that provides rights, not even to self-preservation. It is derived from evolution.

Evolution only need work well enough to preserve the species. It is inevitable that rights will conflict. One individual's right to survive many conflict with another's, but if we didn't honor the right to survive, the species would not survive as a social animal.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2011 1:10:13 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.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,313
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2011 4:43:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/8/2011 1:10:13 PM, Cody_Franklin 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.

No matter how many times you repost that idea Cody, it still makes sense, and is worth considering.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,313
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2011 4:45:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/8/2011 8:46:36 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
Rights derive from the nature of man. Man is a social animal, with rights to fulfill obligations to self, family, and tribe. The right to self-defense derives from the genetic obligation to preserve one's self, family, and tribe. By contrast, for example, tigers are solitary animals that have transitory family obligations and no tribal obligations. It makes no sense to speak of a tier's right to defend his herd of tigers, because there is no such thing. Praying mantis eat their mates, presumably to recycle protein to preserve the species. There is no abstract logic that provides rights, not even to self-preservation. It is derived from evolution.

Evolution only need work well enough to preserve the species. It is inevitable that rights will conflict. One individual's right to survive many conflict with another's, but if we didn't honor the right to survive, the species would not survive as a social animal.

Are you saying that natural wild animals that display a herd instinct have rights?
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2011 4:53:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/8/2011 4:43:35 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 5/8/2011 1:10:13 PM, Cody_Franklin 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.

No matter how many times you repost that idea Cody, it still makes sense, and is worth considering.

Thanks, chap.
Lionheart
Posts: 520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2011 5:35:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I do agree with Cody's words. Completely.

In addition, I feel.... It is survival of the fittest. Only the strong survive. The strong have more rights than the weak. This is because they have the power to enforce those rights.

If a tiger kills a gazelle... It has more of a right to live than the gazelle. This is because it is stronger than the gazelle, more powerful. The farther you go up the food chain, the more rights you have.

Humans have more rights than all other animals, this is because we are the most powerful... The strongest. We are at the top of the food chain. The strong make the rules and the weak follow.

This is the order of rights, in my opinion at least.

Maybe I've got it all wrong though... What do you think?
"Knowing others is intelligence;
knowing yourself is true wisdom.
Mastering others is strength;
mastering yourself is true power."


- Lionheart -
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2011 7:40:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/8/2011 5:35:35 PM, Lionheart wrote:
I do agree with Cody's words. Completely.

In addition, I feel.... It is survival of the fittest. Only the strong survive. The strong have more rights than the weak. This is because they have the power to enforce those rights.

This is where my political theory comes into play. The nonaggression principle is a result of the realization that, given too much power in the hands of any individual or group, one's own interests would be at risk. Even the strong realize that they aren't omnipotent, and that indiscriminate exercises of power are likely to produce massive backlash. The nonaggression principle is a result of the fact that we all have a vested interest in refraining from aggression against one another. Even a murderer--arguably one of the stronger agents in society--is unlikely to desire a political regime wherein the only possible social relation is a state of war. Criminals tend to recognize that they're simply making exceptions for themselves when they commit an act of aggression. On top of that, we've obviously noticed that we can increase our standard of living, peace of mind, and total productivity by coexisting peacefully.

So, practically, yes: the powerful are, tautologically, more powerful; however, nearly everyone agrees that we don't benefit from indiscriminately allowing aggression--an agreement subsequently packaged together under the nonaggression principle.

If a tiger kills a gazelle... It has more of a right to live than the gazelle. This is because it is stronger than the gazelle, more powerful. The farther you go up the food chain, the more rights you have.

Humans have more rights than all other animals, this is because we are the most powerful... The strongest. We are at the top of the food chain. The strong make the rules and the weak follow.

We may be intellectually stronger, but not physically in many cases. Though, if you can win a fist fight with a bear (like me), more power to you.

This is the order of rights, in my opinion at least.

Maybe I've got it all wrong though... What do you think?

Like I said, a strict Social Darwinist take on politics is very likely to lead to rampant oppression, slavery, and violence. The best arrangement, upon recognizing how disadvantageous pure applications of power (i.e. acts of aggression) are for maximizing our ability to pursue our own ends, is a society based totally upon the nonaggression principle, which is anarchism.
Lionheart
Posts: 520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2011 8:00:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
i do agree that what you propose is more noble and I feel it to be the "right" way if there really is one.... But I can't help to feel that power always has the upper hand.

If I am powerful enough to kill a bear, either through mental or physical power.. Then I have more of a right to live because my "power theory" dictates that power determines your rights. I don't feel that the power theory is noble or morally "right" in my own beliefs, but it is a concept which seems to be true no matter how much I do not agree with it.

If a dictator is killing massive amounts of people... He is determining who has "rights" and who does not, due to "power theory". In order to change that equation, something more powerful would have to take away the dictators "rights".

In essence, if you don't use power... Something with power can determine your rights through aggression or enforcing their power. In order for the "rights" of that power to be taken away or changed.. It would need to be toppled by a greater power.

Due to these thoughts it is hard for me to not feel that "power theory" is correct.

Thoughts?
"Knowing others is intelligence;
knowing yourself is true wisdom.
Mastering others is strength;
mastering yourself is true power."


- Lionheart -
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2011 8:09:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/8/2011 8:00:00 PM, Lionheart wrote:
i do agree that what you propose is more noble and I feel it to be the "right" way if there really is one.... But I can't help to feel that power always has the upper hand.

If I am powerful enough to kill a bear, either through mental or physical power.. Then I have more of a right to live because my "power theory" dictates that power determines your rights. I don't feel that the power theory is noble or morally "right" in my own beliefs, but it is a concept which seems to be true no matter how much I do not agree with it.

If a dictator is killing massive amounts of people... He is determining who has "rights" and who does not, due to "power theory". In order to change that equation, something more powerful would have to take away the dictators "rights".

In essence, if you don't use power... Something with power can determine your rights through aggression or enforcing their power. In order for the "rights" of that power to be taken away or changed.. It would need to be toppled by a greater power.

Due to these thoughts it is hard for me to not feel that "power theory" is correct.

Thoughts?

It's not really a question of rights, is it? Practically speaking, an omnipotent agent could obviously do as he pleased without regard for anyone's interests but his own. Thing is, humans aren't omnipotent, and even the most powerful dictator isn't immune to the possible consequences of his genocides.

Given our limited power, politics therefore seeks to answer the question of the cases in which it's acceptable to use force, and of what shape we want society to take. This obviously requires a goal. For some, that goal is power. For some, death. Some want wealth. Many of these goals, however, require, if not a state, then at least some form of aggression or unwilling sacrifice. The goal I think most people would agree to is "live and let live". It allows each individual to pursue their own goals, while at the same time building in institutions which allow for dispute resolution and, if necessary, the application of retaliatory force.

Most people would likely agree to this sort of organization if given the choice and a persuasive practical argument, since the many weak individuals have an interest banding together and contributing to defensive agencies that protect all subscribers, and the strong have an interest in protecting themselves from other powerful individuals, and also have an interest in refraining from aggression given the balance of power established by social organization.
Lionheart
Posts: 520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2011 8:33:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I do like your idea and I would agree to be a part of it, but I still feel that someone with power could come and influence the equation in their favor. And if the groups want to keep their peace, they would have to use an even greater power in order to defeat the opposition.

To me rights are an illusion. An illusion that is determined by power. Whether that be individual or group power, it doesn't change power theory. You only have rights if you have the power to enforce or protect them.

I agree that most would rather have peace, but this desire does not change "power theory" in my opinion.

If you are peaceful, power can and will defeat you during any situation. To be peaceful is to not use power. Power is the stronger variable in the equation of power v.s. peace.

This is my current perspective at least.
"Knowing others is intelligence;
knowing yourself is true wisdom.
Mastering others is strength;
mastering yourself is true power."


- Lionheart -
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2011 8:40:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/8/2011 8:00:00 PM, Lionheart wrote:

Thoughts?

It is one thing to say that you are amoral, it is a completely different matter to say that everyone is amoral. If you are interested in exploring the subject, Kagan and Harris will both defend, from two different foundations, objective morality - that is to say simply there is a way to argue what one should or should not do. There are various lectures/debates you can listen to which will give a very basic introduction.
Lionheart
Posts: 520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2011 8:53:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Thank you Cliff... I think I will do that.

My current position is that personal morality or lack of morality will determine what "rights" the being will try to enforce or protect. The efficiency to enforce or protect these personal "rights" is determined by power.

Power and "rights" are connected in this way, in my perspective atleast. Morality or lack of morality plays a part, but does not directly determine the outcome.

To me... Power directly determines "rights" in the way I have explained.

I understand that maybe my theory is flawed though and I will keep my mind open towards other theories or perspectives.
"Knowing others is intelligence;
knowing yourself is true wisdom.
Mastering others is strength;
mastering yourself is true power."


- Lionheart -
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2011 8:59:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/8/2011 8:53:02 PM, Lionheart wrote:

The efficiency to enforce or protect these personal "rights" is determined by power.

I would suggest some reading on Gandhi's ability to create change. There is also a lot of research now in the science of influence which is how to protect a right when you have no formal ability/power to do so.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2011 9:40:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/8/2011 8:59:01 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 5/8/2011 8:53:02 PM, Lionheart wrote:

The efficiency to enforce or protect these personal "rights" is determined by power.

I would suggest some reading on Gandhi's ability to create change. There is also a lot of research now in the science of influence which is how to protect a right when you have no formal ability/power to do so.

I would consider Gandhi's ability to get the country to rally behind him power.

Power doesn't always have to be violent.
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
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2011 9:41:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I'm basically saying that influence = power

Getting people to do violent things for you relies on influence.
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
Lionheart
Posts: 520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2011 10:11:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I agree with you completely Alfonzo.
"Knowing others is intelligence;
knowing yourself is true wisdom.
Mastering others is strength;
mastering yourself is true power."


- Lionheart -
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2011 10:44:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/8/2011 8:53:02 PM, Lionheart wrote:
Thank you Cliff... I think I will do that.

My current position is that personal morality or lack of morality will determine what "rights" the being will try to enforce or protect. The efficiency to enforce or protect these personal "rights" is determined by power.

Power and "rights" are connected in this way, in my perspective atleast. Morality or lack of morality plays a part, but does not directly determine the outcome.

To me... Power directly determines "rights" in the way I have explained.

I understand that maybe my theory is flawed though and I will keep my mind open towards other theories or perspectives.

That reminds me of one of my favorite Nietzsche quotes...

"All things are subject to interpretation; whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power not truth."
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.