Total Posts:77|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Human rights.

AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2013 1:37:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
What different human rights do you believe we should have? Some examples may be the "right to life", "right to privacy" and "right to create a family" etc. You may disagree with some of these. Do you think some are positive rights and some are negative. Do you believe there is a hierarchy of rights, such as the "right to life" may be more important than the "right to vote" etc. ?
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2013 5:05:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/15/2013 1:37:09 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
What different human rights do you believe we should have?
We should all possess the right to all personal liberties that don't interfere with the rights of another persons liberties IMO.

Exapmle: Drugs should be legal up to the point that they take away or interfere with another persons liberties.
Some examples may be the "right to life", "right to privacy" and "right to create a family" etc.
At the rate technology is growing I don't think anything is private. I also don't know if privacy is a right or a privilege. The only way I can think of to truly be "private" someone would have to work damn hard to do.
You may disagree with some of these. Do you think some are positive rights and some are negative. Do you believe there is a hierarchy of rights, such as the "right to life" may be more important than the "right to vote" etc. ?
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 9:52:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/15/2013 1:37:09 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
What different human rights do you believe we should have? Some examples may be the "right to life", "right to privacy" and "right to create a family" etc. You may disagree with some of these. Do you think some are positive rights and some are negative. Do you believe there is a hierarchy of rights, such as the "right to life" may be more important than the "right to vote" etc. ?

The Fool: Perhaps it is my foolishness, but I don't know what it means, to talk about the properties of something as being negative or positive, when I don't know what entity IS that is being referred to by the term "human rights"..

Perhaps you can help me have a better understanding of in what sense they exist, so that I too can have something to think about. You sound to have a lot of believe so you must have a lot of knowledge about them.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Bullish
Posts: 3,527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2013 10:05:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/15/2013 5:05:07 PM, pozessed wrote:
At 8/15/2013 1:37:09 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
What different human rights do you believe we should have?
We should all possess the right to all personal liberties that don't interfere with the rights of another persons liberties IMO.

Exapmle: Drugs should be legal up to the point that they take away or interfere with another persons liberties.

When we breathe, we exhale carbon dioxide that is harmful to other humans. Let's ban breathing.

Some examples may be the "right to life", "right to privacy" and "right to create a family" etc.
At the rate technology is growing I don't think anything is private. I also don't know if privacy is a right or a privilege. The only way I can think of to truly be "private" someone would have to work damn hard to do.

If privacy is a right, everyone has to close their eyes.

You may disagree with some of these. Do you think some are positive rights and some are negative. Do you believe there is a hierarchy of rights, such as the "right to life" may be more important than the "right to vote" etc. ?

Rights is a system humans invented in order to make society survivable. It is subjective.
0x5f3759df
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2013 10:11:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/16/2013 9:52:20 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 8/15/2013 1:37:09 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
What different human rights do you believe we should have? Some examples may be the "right to life", "right to privacy" and "right to create a family" etc. You may disagree with some of these. Do you think some are positive rights and some are negative. Do you believe there is a hierarchy of rights, such as the "right to life" may be more important than the "right to vote" etc. ?

The Fool: Perhaps it is my foolishness, but I don't know what it means, to talk about the properties of something as being negative or positive, when I don't know what entity IS that is being referred to by the term "human rights"..

I think it means more like active and passive; positive rights mean that we have an imperative to actively make sure those rights are being defended, while negative rights just mean that a particular person shouldn't infringe on those rights.

I think. :P


Perhaps you can help me have a better understanding of in what sense they exist, so that I too can have something to think about. You sound to have a lot of believe so you must have a lot of knowledge about them.

They are personal beliefs in which you decide whether people should have certain things in their life protected by way of some sort of social contract (the right to life for example can mean that no one should be allowed to unjustifiably kill another, such as in self defence. It can also mean that we have a duty to keep others alive, such as providing food, shelter and emergency health-care.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2013 10:14:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/16/2013 10:05:08 PM, Bullish wrote:
At 8/15/2013 5:05:07 PM, pozessed wrote:
At 8/15/2013 1:37:09 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
What different human rights do you believe we should have?
We should all possess the right to all personal liberties that don't interfere with the rights of another persons liberties IMO.

Exapmle: Drugs should be legal up to the point that they take away or interfere with another persons liberties.

When we breathe, we exhale carbon dioxide that is harmful to other humans. Let's ban breathing.

I think they mean in the practical sense.


Some examples may be the "right to life", "right to privacy" and "right to create a family" etc.
At the rate technology is growing I don't think anything is private. I also don't know if privacy is a right or a privilege. The only way I can think of to truly be "private" someone would have to work damn hard to do.

If privacy is a right, everyone has to close their eyes.

No one is asking for maximal privacy.


You may disagree with some of these. Do you think some are positive rights and some are negative. Do you believe there is a hierarchy of rights, such as the "right to life" may be more important than the "right to vote" etc. ?

Rights is a system humans invented in order to make society survivable. It is subjective.

Yes it is, which is why I'm asking for opinions. It could be argued that it is sort of not completely subjective, from your answer. If rights make a society greatly less survivable, then they aren't doing their job correctly, so not absolutely subjective.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Picard
Posts: 54
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2013 11:24:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/15/2013 1:37:09 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
What different human rights do you believe we should have? Some examples may be the "right to life", "right to privacy" and "right to create a family" etc. You may disagree with some of these. Do you think some are positive rights and some are negative. Do you believe there is a hierarchy of rights, such as the "right to life" may be more important than the "right to vote" etc. ?

At the level at which society is at the moment, we have NO rights, perhaps in the UK the right to life, but that is about it.

Everything else, privacy, freedom, voting is all a PRIVILEGE given to us by the government, however if we break the law, these PRIVILEGES are taken away (That is why the UK has the right to life as there is no death penalty).

But don't be deluded into thinking that you have any rights, if a right is not ABSOLUTE (E.g. if it can be taken away from you at the discretion of the government) then it is a PRIVILEGE.

P.S. I am not against this system, I just want people to know exactly what the system is.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2013 12:15:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/17/2013 11:24:45 AM, Picard wrote:
At 8/15/2013 1:37:09 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
What different human rights do you believe we should have? Some examples may be the "right to life", "right to privacy" and "right to create a family" etc. You may disagree with some of these. Do you think some are positive rights and some are negative. Do you believe there is a hierarchy of rights, such as the "right to life" may be more important than the "right to vote" etc. ?

At the level at which society is at the moment, we have NO rights, perhaps in the UK the right to life, but that is about it.

Everything else, privacy, freedom, voting is all a PRIVILEGE given to us by the government, however if we break the law, these PRIVILEGES are taken away (That is why the UK has the right to life as there is no death penalty).

But don't be deluded into thinking that you have any rights, if a right is not ABSOLUTE (E.g. if it can be taken away from you at the discretion of the government) then it is a PRIVILEGE.

P.S. I am not against this system, I just want people to know exactly what the system is.

Here's a very good point. When severely breaking "the social contract" there are some "rights" which can be taken away. Without breaking the "contract" though, these rights can be upheld. The right to vote also isn't held by under 18s, people who are quite severely mentally disabled, people who aren't citizens and prisoners. The European council thinks that it is discriminatory to have a blanket ban on voting in the prison system and that at least a portion of prisoners should retain that right.

Of course, the right to not be tortured isn't a flexible right either, it is another absolute right.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2013 9:06:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think that you are fundamentally sovereign over yourself, and you should have the liberty to exercise that sovereignty, which shouldn't be anyone's business until you interfere with someone else's.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2013 9:22:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/16/2013 9:52:20 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 8/15/2013 1:37:09 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
What different human rights do you believe we should have? Some examples may be the "right to life", "right to privacy" and "right to create a family" etc. You may disagree with some of these. Do you think some are positive rights and some are negative. Do you believe there is a hierarchy of rights, such as the "right to life" may be more important than the "right to vote" etc. ?

The Fool: Perhaps it is my foolishness, but I don't know what it means, to talk about the properties of something as being negative or positive, when I don't know what entity IS that is being referred to by the term "human rights"..

I think it means more like active and passive; positive rights mean that we have an imperative to actively make sure those rights are being defended, while negative rights just mean that a particular person shouldn't infringe on those rights.

I think. :P

Perhaps you can help me have a better understanding of in what sense they exist, so that I too can have something to think about. You sound to have a lot of believe so you must have a lot of knowledge about them.

AlbinoBunny: They are personal beliefs in which you decide whether people should have certain things in their life protected by way of some sort of social contract (the right to life for example can mean that no one should be allowed to unjustifiably kill another, such as in self defence.

The Fool: But a belief is already personal by virtue of being a belief, is it not? And many people have foolish beliefs as myself perhaps.

Nonetheless, it seems that if we're talking about people, in general, it is certainly not personal, as personal is a self-reference, and or private conception. And "the rights" are often spoken of as universal human rights. Would this not be the very extreme and opposite of personal?

But what I, myself, am asking is ""what is the "thing" which is "being believed""? For example, I believe that you are a human being, and by human being I mean, something which is conscious; that is, a thing which has perceptions, feelings, desires, and the ability to reason and judge truly or falsely with an external and physical humanoid shape, and relatively related chromosome organization as my own. I know what it is to suffer and be happy, And that suffering sucks and that happiness is good.

And it is by this simple reasoning alone that I understand that suffering ought to be demoted and that which is good should be promoted. For suck equals suck, and what is good is itself. And it is that very thing, which is "being believed" by me, perhaps even if so foolishly.

However, I do not understand where it exists in us or on our exterior, these "things", which are "The Human Rights". I certainly don't have them, they are not in my mind, Nor are they in my body . Perhaps I'm not human, but what is for sure is that I have no "idea" what the "entity" or "property" which "A Right" is, other than the linguistic "symbol" "Right". And that they are conveniently called "Right" by only some people and not others, from which they stem into existence by a sort of mystical truth, people who create them, keep to themselves. They must be very powerful skills, if nobody wants to share how they know they know such entities, and that they know it for others, and in others, and of others, they do not yet even know.

For if what they say is true, then it follows that I am inferior in nature, to such great creating beings. Fantastical powers I say, but maybe you can teach me, and I won't feel so lonely and left out. And with these powers I can show them that I can be a better person too.

AlbinoBunny: It can also mean that we have a duty to keep others alive, such as providing food, shelter and emergency health-care.

The Fool: What is "It"? That "means" this. If the term "Rights" means many things, then how could people know what they are communicating to each other, Especially If they are using the same term, but referring to all kinds of things, differently to each other, and themselves. This is why I find it so confusing, and even a little suspicious, that these personal beliefs may in fact be false beliefs.

Perhaps it is my naivety, but try as I might, I cannot bring myself to believe in something for which there exists "no entity" to "be believed" no matter how many people seem to pretend to themselves, and each other to know so.
And what would such a belief amount to other than a false belief in the strongest sense. Perhaps they truly know these things, but everybody so secretive about "where" they are and in what sense they exist.

They are so wealthy with wisdom, but too greedy to share. Perhaps they can see how foolish I am, and think it a waste to give me any. On the contrary I am pretty resourceful for what little I have. Take it for what it's worth.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2013 10:27:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/15/2013 1:37:09 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
What different human rights do you believe we should have?

I think that's the wrong question. Ideally I'd love it if everyone were entitled to everything they need/want (and that this entitlement could consistently and reliably obtain). But I think it would be more fruitful to ask what rights people *do* possess (and even that question is open to confusion put on by those who would blur the descriptive/prescriptive line even further- the "might makes right" crowd or those who afford 'legitimacy' to what is or what will be the case).

Some examples may be the "right to life", "right to privacy" and "right to create a family" etc. You may disagree with some of these. Do you think some are positive rights and some are negative. Do you believe there is a hierarchy of rights, such as the "right to life" may be more important than the "right to vote" etc. ?
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2013 10:40:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/18/2013 9:22:11 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 8/16/2013 9:52:20 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 8/15/2013 1:37:09 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
What different human rights do you believe we should have? Some examples may be the "right to life", "right to privacy" and "right to create a family" etc. You may disagree with some of these. Do you think some are positive rights and some are negative. Do you believe there is a hierarchy of rights, such as the "right to life" may be more important than the "right to vote" etc. ?

The Fool: Perhaps it is my foolishness, but I don't know what it means, to talk about the properties of something as being negative or positive, when I don't know what entity IS that is being referred to by the term "human rights"..

I think it means more like active and passive; positive rights mean that we have an imperative to actively make sure those rights are being defended, while negative rights just mean that a particular person shouldn't infringe on those rights.


I think. :P

Perhaps you can help me have a better understanding of in what sense they exist, so that I too can have something to think about. You sound to have a lot of believe so you must have a lot of knowledge about them.


AlbinoBunny: They are personal beliefs in which you decide whether people should have certain things in their life protected by way of some sort of social contract (the right to life for example can mean that no one should be allowed to unjustifiably kill another, such as in self defence.

The Fool: But a belief is already personal by virtue of being a belief, is it not? And many people have foolish beliefs as myself perhaps.

Nonetheless, it seems that if we're talking about people, in general, it is certainly not personal, as personal is a self-reference, and or private conception. And "the rights" are often spoken of as universal human rights. Would this not be the very extreme and opposite of personal?

But what I, myself, am asking is ""what is the "thing" which is "being believed""? For example, I believe that you are a human being, and by human being I mean, something which is conscious; that is, a thing which has perceptions, feelings, desires, and the ability to reason and judge truly or falsely with an external and physical humanoid shape, and relatively related chromosome organization as my own. I know what it is to suffer and be happy, And that suffering sucks and that happiness is good.

And it is by this simple reasoning alone that I understand that suffering ought to be demoted and that which is good should be promoted. For suck equals suck, and what is good is itself. And it is that very thing, which is "being believed" by me, perhaps even if so foolishly.

However, I do not understand where it exists in us or on our exterior, these "things", which are "The Human Rights". I certainly don't have them, they are not in my mind, Nor are they in my body . Perhaps I'm not human, but what is for sure is that I have no "idea" what the "entity" or "property" which "A Right" is, other than the linguistic "symbol" "Right". And that they are conveniently called "Right" by only some people and not others, from which they stem into existence by a sort of mystical truth, people who create them, keep to themselves. They must be very powerful skills, if nobody wants to share how they know they know such entities, and that they know it for others, and in others, and of others, they do not yet even know.

For if what they say is true, then it follows that I am inferior in nature, to such great creating beings. Fantastical powers I say, but maybe you can teach me, and I won't feel so lonely and left out. And with these powers I can show them that I can be a better person too.

AlbinoBunny: It can also mean that we have a duty to keep others alive, such as providing food, shelter and emergency health-care.

The Fool: What is "It"? That "means" this. If the term "Rights" means many things, then how could people know what they are communicating to each other, Especially If they are using the same term, but referring to all kinds of things, differently to each other, and themselves. This is why I find it so confusing, and even a little suspicious, that these personal beliefs may in fact be false beliefs.

Perhaps it is my naivety, but try as I might, I cannot bring myself to believe in something for which there exists "no entity" to "be believed" no matter how many people seem to pretend to themselves, and each other to know so.
And what would such a belief amount to other than a false belief in the strongest sense. Perhaps they truly know these things, but everybody so secretive about "where" they are and in what sense they exist.

They are so wealthy with wisdom, but too greedy to share. Perhaps they can see how foolish I am, and think it a waste to give me any. On the contrary I am pretty resourceful for what little I have. Take it for what it's worth.

So you don't think anyone deserves human rights? That's pretty cold of you.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2013 10:41:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/18/2013 9:06:44 PM, Wocambs wrote:
I think that you are fundamentally sovereign over yourself, and you should have the liberty to exercise that sovereignty, which shouldn't be anyone's business until you interfere with someone else's.

Everyone will interfere with everyone else. So what then?
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2013 10:44:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/18/2013 10:41:50 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 8/18/2013 9:06:44 PM, Wocambs wrote:
I think that you are fundamentally sovereign over yourself, and you should have the liberty to exercise that sovereignty, which shouldn't be anyone's business until you interfere with someone else's.

Everyone will interfere with everyone else. So what then?

He's probably speaking more specifically than just broad interference I.e., the non-aggression principle.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2013 10:50:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/18/2013 10:44:45 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 8/18/2013 10:41:50 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 8/18/2013 9:06:44 PM, Wocambs wrote:
I think that you are fundamentally sovereign over yourself, and you should have the liberty to exercise that sovereignty, which shouldn't be anyone's business until you interfere with someone else's.

Everyone will interfere with everyone else. So what then?

He's probably speaking more specifically than just broad interference I.e., the non-aggression principle.

Fair enough. Such a right probably couldn't be upheld.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2013 10:53:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/18/2013 10:50:06 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 8/18/2013 10:44:45 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 8/18/2013 10:41:50 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 8/18/2013 9:06:44 PM, Wocambs wrote:
I think that you are fundamentally sovereign over yourself, and you should have the liberty to exercise that sovereignty, which shouldn't be anyone's business until you interfere with someone else's.

Everyone will interfere with everyone else. So what then?

He's probably speaking more specifically than just broad interference I.e., the non-aggression principle.

Fair enough. Such a right probably couldn't be upheld.

That's what I was getting at in my initial post. Just asking what rights you think should obtain isn't a discussion given the variety of other presuppositions and beliefs that come into play. For example, yer caveat that a strictly non-interference wouldn't obtain. Do you intend that as a critique of his ethics or simply as practical sobriety as to the application of such?
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2013 10:57:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/15/2013 1:37:09 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
What different human rights do you believe we should have? Some examples may be the "right to life", "right to privacy" and "right to create a family" etc. You may disagree with some of these. Do you think some are positive rights and some are negative. Do you believe there is a hierarchy of rights, such as the "right to life" may be more important than the "right to vote" etc. ?

I'm more in favor of "lefts"
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2013 11:05:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/18/2013 10:53:00 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 8/18/2013 10:50:06 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 8/18/2013 10:44:45 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 8/18/2013 10:41:50 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 8/18/2013 9:06:44 PM, Wocambs wrote:
I think that you are fundamentally sovereign over yourself, and you should have the liberty to exercise that sovereignty, which shouldn't be anyone's business until you interfere with someone else's.

Everyone will interfere with everyone else. So what then?

He's probably speaking more specifically than just broad interference I.e., the non-aggression principle.

Fair enough. Such a right probably couldn't be upheld.

That's what I was getting at in my initial post. Just asking what rights you think should obtain isn't a discussion given the variety of other presuppositions and beliefs that come into play. For example, yer caveat that a strictly non-interference wouldn't obtain. Do you intend that as a critique of his ethics or simply as practical sobriety as to the application of such?

Ok. I was wondering how he might apply such a view to our world.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2013 11:07:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/18/2013 11:05:07 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 8/18/2013 10:53:00 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 8/18/2013 10:50:06 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 8/18/2013 10:44:45 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 8/18/2013 10:41:50 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 8/18/2013 9:06:44 PM, Wocambs wrote:
I think that you are fundamentally sovereign over yourself, and you should have the liberty to exercise that sovereignty, which shouldn't be anyone's business until you interfere with someone else's.

Everyone will interfere with everyone else. So what then?

He's probably speaking more specifically than just broad interference I.e., the non-aggression principle.

Fair enough. Such a right probably couldn't be upheld.

That's what I was getting at in my initial post. Just asking what rights you think should obtain isn't a discussion given the variety of other presuppositions and beliefs that come into play. For example, yer caveat that a strictly non-interference wouldn't obtain. Do you intend that as a critique of his ethics or simply as practical sobriety as to the application of such?

Ok. I was wondering how he might apply such a view to our world.

That's a different conversation entirely, complete with a different set of values, presuppositions, and rules of discourse. Fitting in a value with reality isn't the same as whatever standard/narrative one uses to arrive at said value (unless of course one takes 'realism' as said value- in which case that gets into a whole new set of problems which we shan't get into here).
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2013 11:48:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/18/2013 11:07:56 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 8/18/2013 11:05:07 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 8/18/2013 10:53:00 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 8/18/2013 10:50:06 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 8/18/2013 10:44:45 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 8/18/2013 10:41:50 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 8/18/2013 9:06:44 PM, Wocambs wrote:
I think that you are fundamentally sovereign over yourself, and you should have the liberty to exercise that sovereignty, which shouldn't be anyone's business until you interfere with someone else's.

Everyone will interfere with everyone else. So what then?

He's probably speaking more specifically than just broad interference I.e., the non-aggression principle.

Fair enough. Such a right probably couldn't be upheld.

That's what I was getting at in my initial post. Just asking what rights you think should obtain isn't a discussion given the variety of other presuppositions and beliefs that come into play. For example, yer caveat that a strictly non-interference wouldn't obtain. Do you intend that as a critique of his ethics or simply as practical sobriety as to the application of such?

Ok. I was wondering how he might apply such a view to our world.

That's a different conversation entirely, complete with a different set of values, presuppositions, and rules of discourse. Fitting in a value with reality isn't the same as whatever standard/narrative one uses to arrive at said value (unless of course one takes 'realism' as said value- in which case that gets into a whole new set of problems which we shan't get into here).

I was starting a different conversation.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2013 8:59:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Thank you, Noumena.

Indeed, I did not mean 'interference' in an absurdly broad sense. If you voluntarily agree to play monopoly with me and you voluntarily agree that tokens will be chosen in reverse alphabetical order, then I am not interfering with you when I choose the top hat, which you may have also wanted. Now, I'll attempt to discuss the implications of attempting to adopt liberty.

I think the idea I (and J.S. Mill) proposed is one that does not seem to be at fault in theory, and one that if society adopted to a greater extent would show immediate benefits to the well-being of its citizens. Unfortunately, society does not give a great deal of respect to liberty, which George Carlin explained very well. We are free to choose the colour of our underwear, but we don't have 'real' choices, or at least, we aren't aware of the possibility of those real choices. As Heidegger expressed, 'people do what one does'. Without becoming too much of a hippie, most people seem to live quite inauthentic lives, bereft of individuality. Liberty allows for the greatest degree of individuality that can be obtained morally.

What I am trying to express is that we live in a society where people are not taught to think, and we have developed a system where people would be lost without mindless conformity. The implications of liberty on the legitimacy of government need to be considered, but it seems possible that government can survive. I myself can think of a disturbing situation which may arise: a racist farmer might refuse to employ certain people on his farm for entirely prejudiced reasons, but it does not seem we can do anything about this, after all, it is definitely his property. Maybe we can defer to utilitarianism in some way, and say that the happiness of the employed man outweighs the disgust of the farmer, but it may also be possible to think of a solution to this within liberty. Personally, I feel that the only solution I can offer is that society is to blame for failing to educate the individual properly, perhaps he should receive treatment for his persistent delusion regarding the inferiority of other races.

The rosy picture I paint of a free society underpinned by intelligence and compassion is probably at best a distant prospect, but I think it is incredibly desirable. If it is possible to genetically engineer humans (similar to how it is depicted in Gattaca), then actually my hope becomes a lot more feasible, as I think most objections to the wholehearted adoption of liberty centre on there being a large number of moronic people existing in society - combine education and engineering, and that problem would shrink drastically.

In Brave New World it is described how a community of 'Alpha Plus' citizens failed, but I think this is because that group of intelligent people were controlled by a strictly authoritarian government, inevitably leading to frustration. Clearly they agreed with Mill when he said 'better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied'.
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2013 9:19:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I would like to discuss an alternative view of rights if anyone is interested.

Leaving human rights aside for the moment and considering all rights (including those tied to the role played by an individual rather than just their nature), I asked myself what rights really are. I am enamoured of contractarianism, the view that a right is an agreement between an individual and an entity who will uphold that right. Usually this involves some kind of agreement over what will be done to prevent violations of that right and some kind of payment for the service. In modern society this consists mostly of the state agreeing to uphold the law in return for the payment of taxes and participation in the work force (which also generates tax). There are also social expectations like voting and having children.

And this is where economics comes into play. The expected cost to the rights provider is the probability of a violation multiplied by the cost of imposing sanctions against the individual who committed the violation, plus operating costs associated with determining which alleged violations actually count.
The expected value of a right contract depends on three factors, the probability of a violation, the perceived loss attributed to a violation and the perceived ability of the provider to prevent such a violation.

This two party view is more important as far as I am concerned, considering only what rights should exists ignores the important question of who should protect those rights and how. Universal human rights would then be those rights that the vast majority of people pay to have protected (and thus say something about general human nature). There may be a second class of rights that everybody would pay for if it were practical to enforce them, and ways to bring down the cost of enforcement could be investigated as a result.

No doubt these rights would include a right to protection from harm, right to freedom from imprisonment, right to freedom of expression, association and travel. The last three are interesting in that they are very difficult to violate on a large scale and so are protected by virtue of expense. Rights to possession would also likely be included in those rights that are universally fought for. No doubt rights to cheap water, food and power would also be included (as people are always going to be willing to pay for these).

My last point is that in addition to regulation of anti-competitive behaviour (as in any market analysis), there needs to be regulation of conflicts of interest, otherwise a party may choose not to uphold an agreement even though they could if they wanted to (and it would be cost effective to do so). Part of this is resolved by reputation, but more needs to be done than simply rely on this.

Thoughts anyone?
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2013 11:07:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
My understanding is that a 'human right' is a right afforded to all humans irrespective of any other factor. Now, forgive me if this is a straw man, but it seems that you merely advocate 'might is right'. Your rights are established by your ability to protect those rights (or employ others to), rather than derived from reason or empathy.

I have a few main objections:

1. A man with no money has no rights.
2. A man with a vast fortune has (practically) any rights he wishes
3. Provided that you can make the cost of sanctioning you for your violations of others rights greater than the damage you inflict, you will not be punished.

Again, please correct me if those are inaccurate criticisms.
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2013 1:47:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
the_croftmeister, your case for rights seems less about rights and more about power. The two notions are not the same. I tend to agree with Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, which states, "Rights are held as trumps to other practical considerations, which requires seeing them not as themselves simply grounded in the interests of the right-holder, but existing in virtue of more central considerations of the duties we owe each other. The basic lists that have been drawn up of human rights to be respected by any legitimate sovereign are similar, suggesting a common conception of the conditions necessary for societies that accord human beings their full dignity and respect." We can take away from this explanation four things: (1) that a sovereign is not legitimate if it fails to respect human rights, (2) rights stem from duties to each other that we all have, (3) human rights are cross-cultural, and (4) rights are trumps against utilitarian concerns, that is to say, ethically and morally, they cannot be abridged.

This analysis illustrates that rights are not things that you have to protect for yourself. More so, they are protections for exercising their power against you. Rights are not rooted in power, in fact, they are the opposite--they're checks against power.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2013 4:58:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/15/2013 1:37:09 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
What different human rights do you believe we should have? Some examples may be the "right to life", "right to privacy" and "right to create a family" etc. You may disagree with some of these. Do you think some are positive rights and some are negative. Do you believe there is a hierarchy of rights, such as the "right to life" may be more important than the "right to vote" etc. ?

I think this is a pretty good start:

http://www.un.org...
Tsar of DDO
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2013 10:15:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/19/2013 11:07:48 PM, Wocambs wrote:
My understanding is that a 'human right' is a right afforded to all humans irrespective of any other factor. Now, forgive me if this is a straw man, but it seems that you merely advocate 'might is right'.
If you are including persuasive power with might and all other forms by which one can convince others then I would agree for the most part that they are equivalent. Keep in mind that power is granted and thus can be taken away. If people aren't hurt enough to do something about the situation then yes it isn't bad enough to stop.

Your rights are established by your ability to protect those rights (or employ others to), rather than derived from reason or empathy.
Reason and empathy are means by which we determine which rights we want to protect, thus the two are not mutually exclusive.

I have a few main objections:

1. A man with no money has no rights.
Not true. A man with no value has no rights. Very few individuals have no value.

2. A man with a vast fortune has (practically) any rights he wishes
No, someone still has to be willing to a. protect that fortune from being stolen by others, and b. accept payment in the form that the fortune is stored.

3. Provided that you can make the cost of sanctioning you for your violations of others rights greater than the damage you inflict, you will not be punished.
And this differs from the real world how? Should we not recognise how rights actually function in the world in order to decide what rights to pursue? Finally, it occurs to me that the cost of damaging others in retaliation is itself a punishment. Perhaps not a sufficient one in your mind, but you can hardly say there is no punishment.

Again, please correct me if those are inaccurate criticisms.
They are not inaccurate persay, though clearly steeped in the idea that 'money = wealth'. If we trade money for utility then we get closer to what I am going for. Utility can vary from person to person and this tends to even things out a bit. When you really get down to it, we all have pretty much the same powers if you strip away personal possession (which is a legal construct and hence a 'right').

We each have different wants, so why should we have the same rights? I mean if you are a moral objectivist then fair enough, but I'm not so it hardly makes sense to have objective rights. I mean we can discuss the merits of having an objective code even in a subjective system sure, but if you ask me, saying that there actually exist certain inalienable rights is tantamount to sticking your head in the sand and ignoring the way the world actually works.
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2013 10:27:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/21/2013 1:47:01 PM, bsh1 wrote:
the_croftmeister, your case for rights seems less about rights and more about power.
What exactly is it you think my case for rights is?
The two notions are not the same.
No, they aren't, I differentiate on the basis that one is an obligation exercised by an authority on your behalf.
I tend to agree with Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, which states, "Rights are held as trumps to other practical considerations, which requires seeing them not as themselves simply grounded in the interests of the right-holder, but existing in virtue of more central considerations of the duties we owe each other. The basic lists that have been drawn up of human rights to be respected by any legitimate sovereign are similar, suggesting a common conception of the conditions necessary for societies that accord human beings their full dignity and respect." We can take away from this explanation four things: (1) that a sovereign is not legitimate if it fails to respect human rights, (2) rights stem from duties to each other that we all have, (3) human rights are cross-cultural, and (4) rights are trumps against utilitarian concerns, that is to say, ethically and morally, they cannot be abridged.
This is all very nice from a rhetorical point of view and makes people feel all warm and fuzzy. Does it answer the question of what human rights we should have? No. It just says what a particular community of people has decided we have. For objectivists who agree with the code, it works pretty well. Everybody else just has to suck it up and deal.

This analysis illustrates that rights are not things that you have to protect for yourself. More so, they are protections for exercising their power against you. Rights are not rooted in power, in fact, they are the opposite--they're checks against power.
Power is a check against power last I checked. I could claim any right I desired, but if I couldn't enforce it then it doesn't mean squat. Now the advantage that so called 'human rights' have is that there is broad agreement on what they are in the world community (keep in mind there is nothing like the same agreement as to what they mean and what exactly count as violations of them). This means that there is a whole community of people who are willing to impose sanctions on others who violate those rights because if they don't, there will be more violations. I don't kill people because I can't prevent other people from killing me if they really wanted to. So I'm better off agreeing to a law which makes it very expensive to kill someone. It makes it expensive to me to, but the marginal benefit I gain by being able to kill someone is far less than the marginal benefit of not being killed.

Now whether you are a moral realist or not, this is how rights actually function in the world. I'm just injecting a pragmatic view of rights into the discussion in the hopes that it will help inform the debate over what rights we 'should' have, which unless I am mistaken was the point of the thread.
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2013 10:34:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Just wanted to add that human rights are definitely not cross cultural. We call them cross cultural because we claim they are universal, but I haven't seen enough evidence to conclude that every culture would eventually develop the same rights in isolation.