Total Posts:111|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Basic Human Rights

Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2011 11:40:25 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I'll keep it short and simple.

I am interested in hearing the arguments for and against the idea that human rights exist. Or, on the basic rights of any other creature for that matter.

Specifically, I'm interested in everyones views on the "right to life."

To be honest, I am not interested in the religious perspective of "rights come from God" and all that.

I'm hoping for more of an objective, secular line of reasoning from those who are interested.

I have developed my own explanation and I will share it in a later post if no-one else hits on it.

Thanks in advance!
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2011 11:46:52 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Right = Power.

You are living. You have the right to life.

You are drink beer. You have the right to drink beer

You are driving. You have the right to drive.

You drank beer while driving. You have the right to drink and drive.

You got into a car accident because you were drinking and driving.

The government has the right to take away your rights, and they take away your right to drive legally.

You ignore this, and you go out driving. You have the right to do so.

The police pull you over for speeding, and throw you in jail for driving when you aren't allowed to.

It is now your right to toss salad.
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
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2011 11:51:58 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/10/2011 11:46:52 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Right = Power.

You are living. You have the right to life.

You are drink beer. You have the right to drink beer

You are driving. You have the right to drive.

You drank beer while driving. You have the right to drink and drive.

You got into a car accident because you were drinking and driving.

The government has the right to take away your rights, and they take away your right to drive legally.

You ignore this, and you go out driving. You have the right to do so.

The police pull you over for speeding, and throw you in jail for driving when you aren't allowed to.

It is now your right to toss salad.

I'm sorry but I can't tell if you are being serious with this, or not.

={
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
CGBSpender
Posts: 82
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2011 11:56:25 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/10/2011 11:46:52 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Right = Power.

You are living. You have the right to life.

You are drink beer. You have the right to drink beer

You are driving. You have the right to drive.

You drank beer while driving. You have the right to drink and drive.

You got into a car accident because you were drinking and driving.

The government has the right to take away your rights, and they take away your right to drive legally.

You ignore this, and you go out driving. You have the right to do so.

The police pull you over for speeding, and throw you in jail for driving when you aren't allowed to.

It is now your right to toss salad.

By power, I assume you mean the ability to do something? 1) what is your definition of a right? 2) you just asserted that, would you care to back it up? 3) Why bother having rights if that's going to be your definition?
CGBSpender
Posts: 82
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2011 12:05:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I don't think it matters whether he's being serious or not. "Might makes right" is a longstanding side in this debate, so I think we should treat it whether or not he personally takes it seriously.

Fun quote: Jeremy Bentham once said "rights are nonsense on stilts."

I think we need a very clear definition of "right" before we continue on.

I propose:
An entitlement necessitated by the nature of A in order for its interaction with B (be it the world or another individual) to be considered just.
rarugged
Posts: 172
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2011 12:05:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
What I see the definition of the "right to life" is that a person has the right to THEIR life in terms of self-defense, abortion, war, etc.

I generally characterize natural rights (especially the right to life) as rights you would have if you were living in an anarchist state or "the wild". You have the right to defend yourself and say whatever you want in the wild, so you should have that right in an organized society. Things like the right to health care didn't exist then and doesn't exist now. Liberals love saying that people have the right to life so everyone should get health care. The difference is the cost: when you get free health care, somebody else pays it for you. Don't we all have a right to healthy food then? We all have a right to a fitness gym in our backyard? Arguments from the left in this regard is absurd.

Issues like abortion are much more complicated.
If Jesus came back tomorrow, a cross would be the last thing he would want to see.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2011 12:22:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/10/2011 11:56:25 AM, CGBSpender wrote:
At 7/10/2011 11:46:52 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Right = Power.

You are living. You have the right to life.

You are drink beer. You have the right to drink beer

You are driving. You have the right to drive.

You drank beer while driving. You have the right to drink and drive.

You got into a car accident because you were drinking and driving.

The government has the right to take away your rights, and they take away your right to drive legally.

You ignore this, and you go out driving. You have the right to do so.

The police pull you over for speeding, and throw you in jail for driving when you aren't allowed to.

It is now your right to toss salad.

By power, I assume you mean the ability to do something?

Yes.

1) what is your definition of a right?

um.....

At 7/10/2011 11:46:52 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Right = Power.

2) you just asserted that, would you care to back it up?

What is there to back up?

3) Why bother having rights if that's going to be your definition?

I don't know what you mean by this. You clearly have rights by my definition.
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
Pozzo
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2011 12:24:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Rights do not exist. They're just nice little lies that we tell ourselves. To be honest, I find it incredible that people can believe in human rights as anything other than expressions of contemporary societal values. This isn't physics. You can't go out and determine the rights of a man through experimentation, or even through logical reasoning. It all rests on a few basic assumptions and perhaps a semantic argument or two.
The best way to prove this is to attach the burden of proof to rights. Keep asking why and eventually it all crumbles. Unless you have God.
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2011 12:30:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/10/2011 12:05:22 PM, rarugged wrote:
What I see the definition of the "right to life" is that a person has the right to THEIR life in terms of self-defense, abortion, war, etc.

I generally characterize natural rights (especially the right to life) as rights you would have if you were living in an anarchist state or "the wild". You have the right to defend yourself and say whatever you want in the wild, so you should have that right in an organized society. Things like the right to health care didn't exist then and doesn't exist now. Liberals love saying that people have the right to life so everyone should get health care. The difference is the cost: when you get free health care, somebody else pays it for you. Don't we all have a right to healthy food then? We all have a right to a fitness gym in our backyard? Arguments from the left in this regard is absurd.

Issues like abortion are much more complicated.

Your definition comes very close to being the same as my own, Rugged.

I'll go ahead and post mine since you've touched on some of the aspects.

In my opinion, the right that any being (humans included) has to their life is a direct result of ownership. You have a right to YOUR life because it belongs to YOU.

As proof of that aspect, we all (most of us) agree that we have a right to defend ourselves. Just like you said. "Self defense" is illustrative of the right to life being defended.

You stated that issues like abortion are much more complicated, but I don't agree. I know it might seem complicated to some. But in reality, it's a life being taken and either justifications can be made, argued and defended or they can't.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2011 12:31:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/10/2011 12:24:23 PM, Pozzo wrote:
Rights do not exist. They're just nice little lies that we tell ourselves. To be honest, I find it incredible that people can believe in human rights as anything other than expressions of contemporary societal values. This isn't physics. You can't go out and determine the rights of a man through experimentation, or even through logical reasoning. It all rests on a few basic assumptions and perhaps a semantic argument or two.
The best way to prove this is to attach the burden of proof to rights. Keep asking why and eventually it all crumbles. Unless you have God.

Pozzo,... do you have the right to defend yourself if you are being attacked?
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
CGBSpender
Posts: 82
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2011 12:32:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/10/2011 12:05:22 PM, rarugged wrote:
What I see the definition of the "right to life" is that a person has the right to THEIR life in terms of self-defense, abortion, war, etc.

I generally characterize natural rights (especially the right to life) as rights you would have if you were living in an anarchist state or "the wild". You have the right to defend yourself and say whatever you want in the wild, so you should have that right in an organized society. Things like the right to health care didn't exist then and doesn't exist now. Liberals love saying that people have the right to life so everyone should get health care. The difference is the cost: when you get free health care, somebody else pays it for you. Don't we all have a right to healthy food then? We all have a right to a fitness gym in our backyard? Arguments from the left in this regard is absurd.

Issues like abortion are much more complicated.

That is exactly why I included the "relationship" in my definition of right. Treating an anarchistic state of nature and an organized society the same way seems a bit off. If people have certain rights to themselves, then they should have the right to deny those rights in order to create exchanges with other people. The formation of society is implicitly the trade of some of those rights for the purpose of security, or a better quality of life, or property protection (depending on who you're reading). What is a right within the social contract context is different, but is an extension of what is a right within the "natural world".
What is a right within that society is decided by the society itself insofar as it does not infringe on the initial rights that make that society possible to form (i.e. there are certain basic "sacred" rights that are necessary for any contract to be recognizable).

I am not saying this is the case, I am just saying that any number of other rights can come as a derivative of those "natural rights" you speak of and so it is absurd to not take into account the changed relationship inherent in an organized society.
rarugged
Posts: 172
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2011 12:32:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/10/2011 12:30:10 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 7/10/2011 12:05:22 PM, rarugged wrote:
What I see the definition of the "right to life" is that a person has the right to THEIR life in terms of self-defense, abortion, war, etc.

I generally characterize natural rights (especially the right to life) as rights you would have if you were living in an anarchist state or "the wild". You have the right to defend yourself and say whatever you want in the wild, so you should have that right in an organized society. Things like the right to health care didn't exist then and doesn't exist now. Liberals love saying that people have the right to life so everyone should get health care. The difference is the cost: when you get free health care, somebody else pays it for you. Don't we all have a right to healthy food then? We all have a right to a fitness gym in our backyard? Arguments from the left in this regard is absurd.

Issues like abortion are much more complicated.

Your definition comes very close to being the same as my own, Rugged.

I'll go ahead and post mine since you've touched on some of the aspects.

In my opinion, the right that any being (humans included) has to their life is a direct result of ownership. You have a right to YOUR life because it belongs to YOU.

As proof of that aspect, we all (most of us) agree that we have a right to defend ourselves. Just like you said. "Self defense" is illustrative of the right to life being defended.

You stated that issues like abortion are much more complicated, but I don't agree. I know it might seem complicated to some. But in reality, it's a life being taken and either justifications can be made, argued and defended or they can't.

That's what makes it complicated, IMO. Because abortion reflects self-ownership but also murder, in a sense, it makes it hard for someone to definitely say "abortion is X" without any doubt or contradiction to other principles. Most issues are easy to answer, but abortion doesn't have a clear yes or no answer,
If Jesus came back tomorrow, a cross would be the last thing he would want to see.
CGBSpender
Posts: 82
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2011 12:36:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
By power, I assume you mean the ability to do something?

Yes.

1) what is your definition of a right?

um.....

At 7/10/2011 11:46:52 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Right = Power.

2) you just asserted that, would you care to back it up?

What is there to back up?

3) Why bother having rights if that's going to be your definition?

I don't know what you mean by this. You clearly have rights by my definition.

No I just have power by your definition. If right and power mean the exact same thing than we should not have both words. For "having rights" to mean anything it must mean something different from "having power" otherwise we would jsut say having power. Your definition of rights reduces rights to, at best, a useless tautology.
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2011 12:40:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/10/2011 12:32:36 PM, rarugged wrote:
That's what makes it complicated, IMO. Because abortion reflects self-ownership but also murder, in a sense, it makes it hard for someone to definitely say "abortion is X" without any doubt or contradiction to other principles. Most issues are easy to answer, but abortion doesn't have a clear yes or no answer,

I make my living by taking very complicated (electronic) systems and breaking them down to the individual component level, troubleshooting and repairing that which is broken and putting the system back together.

There is nothing about abortion that is any more challenging (to me) than anything else I have to work with.

It's not like we don't have laws and a Constitution, legal definitions and such.... we do. So, we in essence have a schematic an understanding of the issues and even a troubleshooting guide of sorts.

The abortion issue may not be for everyone. I agree that it's not. But then, neither are a lot of complicated issues "everyones" forte.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2011 12:42:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/10/2011 12:36:49 PM, CGBSpender wrote:
By power, I assume you mean the ability to do something?

Yes.

1) what is your definition of a right?

um.....

At 7/10/2011 11:46:52 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Right = Power.

2) you just asserted that, would you care to back it up?

What is there to back up?

3) Why bother having rights if that's going to be your definition?

I don't know what you mean by this. You clearly have rights by my definition.

No I just have power by your definition. If right and power mean the exact same thing than we should not have both words. For "having rights" to mean anything it must mean something different from "having power" otherwise we would jsut say having power.

Ah.. well.. in that case..

*throws out thesaurus*

Your definition of rights reduces rights to, at best, a useless tautology.

It's the truth though.
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
CGBSpender
Posts: 82
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2011 12:42:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
This isn't physics. You can't go out and determine the rights of a man through experimentation, or even through logical reasoning. It all rests on a few basic assumptions and perhaps a semantic argument or two.

Physics is also based on a few basic assumptions that come from "a semantic argument or two".
Pozzo
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2011 12:43:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/10/2011 12:31:48 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 7/10/2011 12:24:23 PM, Pozzo wrote:
Rights do not exist. They're just nice little lies that we tell ourselves. To be honest, I find it incredible that people can believe in human rights as anything other than expressions of contemporary societal values. This isn't physics. You can't go out and determine the rights of a man through experimentation, or even through logical reasoning. It all rests on a few basic assumptions and perhaps a semantic argument or two.
The best way to prove this is to attach the burden of proof to rights. Keep asking why and eventually it all crumbles. Unless you have God.

Pozzo,... do you have the right to defend yourself if you are being attacked?

No. Rights don't exist. You can be damn sure that I will, of course. I have no right to do so though. I think you're missing my point. We exist in a moral vacuum. You have no entitlement or right to anything. Rights, morals, the lot are all social constructs.
Pozzo
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2011 12:46:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/10/2011 12:42:42 PM, CGBSpender wrote:
This isn't physics. You can't go out and determine the rights of a man through experimentation, or even through logical reasoning. It all rests on a few basic assumptions and perhaps a semantic argument or two.

Physics is also based on a few basic assumptions that come from "a semantic argument or two".

Go on?
CGBSpender
Posts: 82
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2011 12:49:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/10/2011 12:42:09 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 7/10/2011 12:36:49 PM, CGBSpender wrote:
By power, I assume you mean the ability to do something?

Yes.

1) what is your definition of a right?

um.....

At 7/10/2011 11:46:52 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Right = Power.

2) you just asserted that, would you care to back it up?

What is there to back up?

3) Why bother having rights if that's going to be your definition?

I don't know what you mean by this. You clearly have rights by my definition.

No I just have power by your definition. If right and power mean the exact same thing than we should not have both words. For "having rights" to mean anything it must mean something different from "having power" otherwise we would jsut say having power.

Ah.. well.. in that case..

*throws out thesaurus*

Your definition of rights reduces rights to, at best, a useless tautology.

It's the truth though.

Haha I don't mean to hurt the thesaurus business. I think that the fact that "I have rights" is not only intuitively, but also functionally a different statement from "I have power", is because there is something more there. I think it is that difference that will generate a more productive definition of rights.
CGBSpender
Posts: 82
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2011 12:54:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/10/2011 12:46:00 PM, Pozzo wrote:
At 7/10/2011 12:42:42 PM, CGBSpender wrote:
This isn't physics. You can't go out and determine the rights of a man through experimentation, or even through logical reasoning. It all rests on a few basic assumptions and perhaps a semantic argument or two.

Physics is also based on a few basic assumptions that come from "a semantic argument or two".

Go on?

Well firstly it's based on the assumption that anything is knowable. It is based on the assumption that not only are things knowable, but that internal consistency is the measure of this knowability (and our correctness). It assumes causality. It relies on the assumption that our personal experience can be subject to error and that calculation is not subject to those same errors. These are just examples, I don't think this undermines physics in any way, I just think it's important to show that just because there are assumptions doesn't mean a thing isn't worth pursuing.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2011 12:55:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/10/2011 12:49:17 PM, CGBSpender wrote:
At 7/10/2011 12:42:09 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 7/10/2011 12:36:49 PM, CGBSpender wrote:
By power, I assume you mean the ability to do something?

Yes.

1) what is your definition of a right?

um.....

At 7/10/2011 11:46:52 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Right = Power.

2) you just asserted that, would you care to back it up?

What is there to back up?

3) Why bother having rights if that's going to be your definition?

I don't know what you mean by this. You clearly have rights by my definition.

No I just have power by your definition. If right and power mean the exact same thing than we should not have both words. For "having rights" to mean anything it must mean something different from "having power" otherwise we would jsut say having power.

Ah.. well.. in that case..

*throws out thesaurus*

Your definition of rights reduces rights to, at best, a useless tautology.

It's the truth though.

Haha I don't mean to hurt the thesaurus business. I think that the fact that "I have rights" is not only intuitively, but also functionally a different statement from "I have power", is because there is something more there. I think it is that difference that will generate a more productive definition of rights.

I honestly can't think of any other definition of rights that even makes sense or can be considered real.

A right is the ability to do something. Some people have the right to take away other people's rights.

You can take this any way that you want, but that is how it is. Usually when people complain about rights, it is because they don't want someone or some institution to have the ability to take away certain powers they have. Certain freedoms require the ability to take away the rights of others. Freedom for one is slavery to another.
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
Pozzo
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2011 1:01:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/10/2011 12:54:28 PM, CGBSpender wrote:
At 7/10/2011 12:46:00 PM, Pozzo wrote:
At 7/10/2011 12:42:42 PM, CGBSpender wrote:
This isn't physics. You can't go out and determine the rights of a man through experimentation, or even through logical reasoning. It all rests on a few basic assumptions and perhaps a semantic argument or two.

Physics is also based on a few basic assumptions that come from "a semantic argument or two".

Go on?

Well firstly it's based on the assumption that anything is knowable. It is based on the assumption that not only are things knowable, but that internal consistency is the measure of this knowability (and our correctness). It assumes causality. It relies on the assumption that our personal experience can be subject to error and that calculation is not subject to those same errors. These are just examples, I don't think this undermines physics in any way, I just think it's important to show that just because there are assumptions doesn't mean a thing isn't worth pursuing.

Fair points. Forgive a subjective judgement, but these are very different. Essentially, physics relies on the fact (assumption) that the same thing will happen under the same circumstances. This is as provable as anything can possibly be.
Rights are completely different. There is no basis for any of it, no experimental ground, no experiential ground, nothing but assumption. Assumptions without substance.
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2011 1:03:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/10/2011 1:01:00 PM, Pozzo wrote:
Fair points. Forgive a subjective judgement, but these are very different. Essentially, physics relies on the fact (assumption) that the same thing will happen under the same circumstances. This is as provable as anything can possibly be.
Rights are completely different. There is no basis for any of it, no experimental ground, no experiential ground, nothing but assumption. Assumptions without substance.

POZO, do you have the right to DEFEND yourself if you are attacked?

Yes or no?
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
CGBSpender
Posts: 82
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2011 1:04:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
A right is the ability to do something. Some people have the right to take away other people's rights.

You can take this any way that you want, but that is how it is. Usually when people complain about rights, it is because they don't want someone or some institution to have the ability to take away certain powers they have. Certain freedoms require the ability to take away the rights of others. Freedom for one is slavery to another.

A right implies more than just ability, it also implies legitamacy. You would also have to be arguing that ability is the only source of legitimacy.

If P then Q (assuming this is true)
Where P is not true than Q necessarily is (recognized logical rule)

If I have the ability to do A I am legitimate in doing it
I cannot do A therefore I am legitimate in doing it.

Nothing is wrong with the last statement from a logical standpoint and so power/ability must not be the source of legitimacy. At least not the sole source. Therefore there must be something more to rights.
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2011 1:05:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/10/2011 1:03:46 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 7/10/2011 1:01:00 PM, Pozzo wrote:
Fair points. Forgive a subjective judgement, but these are very different. Essentially, physics relies on the fact (assumption) that the same thing will happen under the same circumstances. This is as provable as anything can possibly be.
Rights are completely different. There is no basis for any of it, no experimental ground, no experiential ground, nothing but assumption. Assumptions without substance.

POZO, do you have the right to DEFEND yourself if you are attacked?

Yes or no?

Disregard. I just found your last answer.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2011 1:06:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Pozzo, if you look at my understanding of rights, I think you will find that it clearly does exist.

The reason you believe rights do not exist happens to be because you don't know what rights are.

This tends to be the case with most nihilists, atheists, or other folks who have been raised around people who speak of things they know nothing about. When someone doesn't understand something, and they try to explain it, the result is something that sounds otherworldly or non-existent.
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
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2011 1:07:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/10/2011 12:43:22 PM, Pozzo wrote:
At 7/10/2011 12:31:48 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
Pozzo,... do you have the right to defend yourself if you are being attacked?

No.
Rights don't exist. You can be damn sure that I will, of course. I have no right to do so though. I think you're missing my point. We exist in a moral vacuum. You have no entitlement or right to anything. Rights, morals, the lot are all social constructs.

I see. So what about ownership claims?

Does your life belong to YOU?

Do you own it?

Do you claim ownership of it?
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
Pozzo
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2011 1:12:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/10/2011 1:06:31 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Pozzo, if you look at my understanding of rights, I think you will find that it clearly does exist.

The reason you believe rights do not exist happens to be because you don't know what rights are.

This tends to be the case with most nihilists, atheists, or other folks who have been raised around people who speak of things they know nothing about. When someone doesn't understand something, and they try to explain it, the result is something that sounds otherworldly or non-existent.

If your definition of a right is the ability to do something, yes. They exist under that definition. Your definition is different to pretty much everyone else here. The most logical word to use is "wrong". The discussion on rights was about rights as moral entitlements. Defining it differently doesn't make you superior, just irrelevant.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2011 1:14:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/10/2011 1:04:43 PM, CGBSpender wrote:
A right is the ability to do something. Some people have the right to take away other people's rights.

You can take this any way that you want, but that is how it is. Usually when people complain about rights, it is because they don't want someone or some institution to have the ability to take away certain powers they have. Certain freedoms require the ability to take away the rights of others. Freedom for one is slavery to another.

A right implies more than just ability, it also implies legitamacy. You would also have to be arguing that ability is the only source of legitimacy.


Yes, if you are performing an action, you are legitimately doing it under the law of God.

Governments and the like legitimately have the power to stop you from doing things, but they are not the ultimate authority. Legitimacy does not come from man's law.

If I have the ability to do A I am legitimate in doing it
I cannot do A therefore I am legitimate in doing it.

Nothing is wrong with the last statement from a logical standpoint and so power/ability must not be the source of legitimacy. At least not the sole source. Therefore there must be something more to rights.

Your logic doesn't make sense to me.

If you are not able to do something, how can you have the right to do it?
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
Pozzo
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2011 1:16:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/10/2011 1:07:18 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 7/10/2011 12:43:22 PM, Pozzo wrote:
At 7/10/2011 12:31:48 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
Pozzo,... do you have the right to defend yourself if you are being attacked?

No.
Rights don't exist. You can be damn sure that I will, of course. I have no right to do so though. I think you're missing my point. We exist in a moral vacuum. You have no entitlement or right to anything. Rights, morals, the lot are all social constructs.

I see. So what about ownership claims?

Does your life belong to YOU?

Do you own it?

Do you claim ownership of it?

This might go on for a while. Short answer: no.
But in a way, yes, I claim ownership of it in that I do what I wish with it. I do not own it in any moral sense. I own it in a legal sense in that the laws of my country dictate that it is so, and the state will defend my "right" to it. This doesn't make my ownership of it a moral truth, although it does make it a practical one.