Total Posts:71|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Do rights exist?

Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2014 4:17:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/1/2014 8:38:26 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
And do you have the right to say that? ;)

Nope. No one has the right to f*ck with anyone else. The conclusion of this, of course, is we have plenty of 'rights'. You don't need a 'right to be free' when no one has the right to oppress you...
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2014 9:45:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
We have certain rights that are universally recognised to be self-evident (they do not require justification; they are intrinsically good). These rights would be the likes of:
Right to life
Right to basic education
Right to enough food and drink
etcetera...
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2014 11:29:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/3/2014 9:45:03 AM, Philocat wrote:
We have certain rights that are universally recognised to be self-evident (they do not require justification; they are intrinsically good). These rights would be the likes of:
Right to life
Right to basic education
Right to enough food and drink
etcetera...

All of those except the right to life aren't self evident and aren't rights. A right derives from an entitlement, so protected rights would only be those things we are entitled to as an extension of our existence, such as the right to life, liberty and property, since it would take an action to take those away from us and it takes nothing for us to have these rights whereas a right to education and food and drink doesn't exist since we aren't entitled to it simply for existing.
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2014 11:46:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/3/2014 11:29:23 AM, Objectivity wrote:
At 12/3/2014 9:45:03 AM, Philocat wrote:
We have certain rights that are universally recognised to be self-evident (they do not require justification; they are intrinsically good). These rights would be the likes of:
Right to life
Right to basic education
Right to enough food and drink
etcetera...

All of those except the right to life aren't self evident and aren't rights. A right derives from an entitlement, so protected rights would only be those things we are entitled to as an extension of our existence, such as the right to life, liberty and property, since it would take an action to take those away from us and it takes nothing for us to have these rights whereas a right to education and food and drink doesn't exist since we aren't entitled to it simply for existing.

Mhmm, I'm inclined to agree with you actually...
My mistake, they may be fundamental rights but I wouldn't now say that they are self-evident.
tim.ray
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2014 1:06:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Rights only exist when communities surrender certain levels of control to "authority figures". Every action not subjected under the control of the authority is called a right.
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 3:24:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/3/2014 11:29:23 AM, Objectivity wrote:
At 12/3/2014 9:45:03 AM, Philocat wrote:
We have certain rights that are universally recognised to be self-evident (they do not require justification; they are intrinsically good). These rights would be the likes of:
Right to life
Right to basic education
Right to enough food and drink
etcetera...

All of those except the right to life aren't self evident and aren't rights. A right derives from an entitlement, so protected rights would only be those things we are entitled to as an extension of our existence, such as the right to life, liberty and property, since it would take an action to take those away from us and it takes nothing for us to have these rights whereas a right to education and food and drink doesn't exist since we aren't entitled to it simply for existing.

Of course they exist and are self-evident. We have a right to food and drink because we need them to survive. We have a right to education because every person needs an education to get ahead in life. We actually do have rights simply for existing because we aren't responsible for our own existence. It's not like we can sign some sort of contract saying "I choose to exist under the conditions that I don't have a right to these certain things."

You have to make a distinction between positive and negative rights. A positive right is a right that the government must provide for us. A negative right is a right that the government doesn't have to provide but can't stop us from attaining. Education is a positive right; this is why there are government paid-for schools to educate kids (even though I am very much pro-homeschooling). The right to life is a negative right (after all, it doesn't make much sense to say the government must provide us with life, since we already have that life; the government cannot take it away from us, however).
SitaraMusica
Posts: 1,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 7:07:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/2/2014 4:17:17 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 12/1/2014 8:38:26 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
And do you have the right to say that? ;)

Nope. No one has the right to f*ck with anyone else. The conclusion of this, of course, is we have plenty of 'rights'. You don't need a 'right to be free' when no one has the right to oppress you...

If rights don't exist, you don't have the right to say that. ;)
SitaraMusica
Posts: 1,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 7:09:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/3/2014 9:45:03 AM, Philocat wrote:
We have certain rights that are universally recognised to be self-evident (they do not require justification; they are intrinsically good). These rights would be the likes of:
Right to life
Right to basic education
Right to enough food and drink
etcetera...

I agree.
SitaraMusica
Posts: 1,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 7:31:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/3/2014 11:29:23 AM, Objectivity wrote:
At 12/3/2014 9:45:03 AM, Philocat wrote:
We have certain rights that are universally recognised to be self-evident (they do not require justification; they are intrinsically good). These rights would be the likes of:
Right to life
Right to basic education
Right to enough food and drink
etcetera...

All of those except the right to life aren't self evident and aren't rights. A right derives from an entitlement, so protected rights would only be those things we are entitled to as an extension of our existence, such as the right to life, liberty and property, since it would take an action to take those away from us and it takes nothing for us to have these rights whereas a right to education and food and drink doesn't exist since we aren't entitled to it simply for existing.
People have the right to self defense.
SitaraMusica
Posts: 1,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 7:45:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/4/2014 3:24:02 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 12/3/2014 11:29:23 AM, Objectivity wrote:
At 12/3/2014 9:45:03 AM, Philocat wrote:
We have certain rights that are universally recognised to be self-evident (they do not require justification; they are intrinsically good). These rights would be the likes of:
Right to life
Right to basic education
Right to enough food and drink
etcetera...

All of those except the right to life aren't self evident and aren't rights. A right derives from an entitlement, so protected rights would only be those things we are entitled to as an extension of our existence, such as the right to life, liberty and property, since it would take an action to take those away from us and it takes nothing for us to have these rights whereas a right to education and food and drink doesn't exist since we aren't entitled to it simply for existing.

Of course they exist and are self-evident. We have a right to food and drink because we need them to survive. We have a right to education because every person needs an education to get ahead in life. We actually do have rights simply for existing because we aren't responsible for our own existence. It's not like we can sign some sort of contract saying "I choose to exist under the conditions that I don't have a right to these certain things."

You have to make a distinction between positive and negative rights. A positive right is a right that the government must provide for us. A negative right is a right that the government doesn't have to provide but can't stop us from attaining. Education is a positive right; this is why there are government paid-for schools to educate kids (even though I am very much pro-homeschooling). The right to life is a negative right (after all, it doesn't make much sense to say the government must provide us with life, since we already have that life; the government cannot take it away from us, however).
I agree.
Heterodox
Posts: 293
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2014 6:47:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/4/2014 3:24:02 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 12/3/2014 11:29:23 AM, Objectivity wrote:
At 12/3/2014 9:45:03 AM, Philocat wrote:
We have certain rights that are universally recognised to be self-evident (they do not require justification; they are intrinsically good). These rights would be the likes of:
Right to life
Right to basic education
Right to enough food and drink
etcetera...

All of those except the right to life aren't self evident and aren't rights. A right derives from an entitlement, so protected rights would only be those things we are entitled to as an extension of our existence, such as the right to life, liberty and property, since it would take an action to take those away from us and it takes nothing for us to have these rights whereas a right to education and food and drink doesn't exist since we aren't entitled to it simply for existing.

Of course they exist and are self-evident. We have a right to food and drink because we need them to survive. We have a right to education because every person needs an education to get ahead in life. We actually do have rights simply for existing because we aren't responsible for our own existence. It's not like we can sign some sort of contract saying "I choose to exist under the conditions that I don't have a right to these certain things."

You have to make a distinction between positive and negative rights. A positive right is a right that the government must provide for us. A negative right is a right that the government doesn't have to provide but can't stop us from attaining. Education is a positive right; this is why there are government paid-for schools to educate kids (even though I am very much pro-homeschooling). The right to life is a negative right (after all, it doesn't make much sense to say the government must provide us with life, since we already have that life; the government cannot take it away from us, however).

Food and drink is not a right. Just because you need something to survive doesn't make it a right.
Education is not a right. You really think you have the right to someone's labor other than your own?
Government provides NO rights. Government can only take away your rights!
SitaraMusica
Posts: 1,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2014 7:35:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/6/2014 6:47:28 AM, Heterodox wrote:
At 12/4/2014 3:24:02 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 12/3/2014 11:29:23 AM, Objectivity wrote:
At 12/3/2014 9:45:03 AM, Philocat wrote:
We have certain rights that are universally recognised to be self-evident (they do not require justification; they are intrinsically good). These rights would be the likes of:
Right to life
Right to basic education
Right to enough food and drink
etcetera...

All of those except the right to life aren't self evident and aren't rights. A right derives from an entitlement, so protected rights would only be those things we are entitled to as an extension of our existence, such as the right to life, liberty and property, since it would take an action to take those away from us and it takes nothing for us to have these rights whereas a right to education and food and drink doesn't exist since we aren't entitled to it simply for existing.

Of course they exist and are self-evident. We have a right to food and drink because we need them to survive. We have a right to education because every person needs an education to get ahead in life. We actually do have rights simply for existing because we aren't responsible for our own existence. It's not like we can sign some sort of contract saying "I choose to exist under the conditions that I don't have a right to these certain things."

You have to make a distinction between positive and negative rights. A positive right is a right that the government must provide for us. A negative right is a right that the government doesn't have to provide but can't stop us from attaining. Education is a positive right; this is why there are government paid-for schools to educate kids (even though I am very much pro-homeschooling). The right to life is a negative right (after all, it doesn't make much sense to say the government must provide us with life, since we already have that life; the government cannot take it away from us, however).

Food and drink is not a right. Just because you need something to survive doesn't make it a right.
Education is not a right. You really think you have the right to someone's labor other than your own?
Government provides NO rights. Government can only take away your rights!
You are wropng. Peo[ple need food and watyer to live, and the right to life is a right, therefore, food and water are both rights.
SitaraMusica
Posts: 1,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2014 7:51:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/2/2014 6:59:00 AM, Smithereens wrote:
If rights exist, then so do non-rights. Because I said so.

So you are saying that whatever you say is true? That os the circular reasoning fallacy.
Tweka
Posts: 129
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2014 9:10:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/12/2014 7:46:24 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 12/12/2014 9:43:47 AM, Tweka wrote:
At 12/1/2014 8:38:26 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
And do you have the right to say that? ;)

Yes.

Agreed.

Done.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2014 9:29:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/2/2014 4:17:17 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 12/1/2014 8:38:26 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
And do you have the right to say that? ;)

Nope. No one has the right to f*ck with anyone else. The conclusion of this, of course, is we have plenty of 'rights'. You don't need a 'right to be free' when no one has the right to oppress you...

But they aren't suppressing you if you have no intrinsic right to be free. :P
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2014 9:31:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/1/2014 8:38:26 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
And do you have the right to say that? ;)

I think that rights exist, because there is a "right" and a "wrong." A person can be wronged by the violation of their rights.
SitaraMusica
Posts: 1,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2014 9:34:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/12/2014 9:31:17 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 12/1/2014 8:38:26 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
And do you have the right to say that? ;)

I think that rights exist, because there is a "right" and a "wrong." A person can be wronged by the violation of their rights.

I agree.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2014 9:45:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/12/2014 9:29:58 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 12/2/2014 4:17:17 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 12/1/2014 8:38:26 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
And do you have the right to say that? ;)

Nope. No one has the right to f*ck with anyone else. The conclusion of this, of course, is we have plenty of 'rights'. You don't need a 'right to be free' when no one has the right to oppress you...

But they aren't suppressing you if you have no intrinsic right to be free. :P

Why do I keep getting these stupid responses with smiley faces at the end? 'The right to be free' is something that needs its existence proven, so from what divine source are you going to derive this magical 'right to be free'? If no one has any rights against anyone else, then you don't need any rights. The reason we have rights now is because people have rights against us. The government has the right to make laws, but it doesn't have the right to make a law against our right to free speech. Does that make my point clearer?
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2014 9:59:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/12/2014 9:45:26 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 12/12/2014 9:29:58 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 12/2/2014 4:17:17 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 12/1/2014 8:38:26 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
And do you have the right to say that? ;)

Nope. No one has the right to f*ck with anyone else. The conclusion of this, of course, is we have plenty of 'rights'. You don't need a 'right to be free' when no one has the right to oppress you...

But they aren't suppressing you if you have no intrinsic right to be free. :P

Why do I keep getting these stupid responses with smiley faces at the end? 'The right to be free' is something that needs its existence proven, so from what divine source are you going to derive this magical 'right to be free'? If no one has any rights against anyone else, then you don't need any rights. The reason we have rights now is because people have rights against us. The government has the right to make laws, but it doesn't have the right to make a law against our right to free speech. Does that make my point clearer?

That isn't a smiley face. Maybe you should spend a little more time boning-up on computer-speak if you're going to continue using public discussion boards? That symbolizes that what I said was meant in humor, as it's kinda difficult to add inflection to what I write without tone or expression at my disposal. It seems obvious that you have some confrontational attitude which you feel the need to dump on someone, but I'm not willing to be that person. And you insinuate that I'm stupid?
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2014 10:12:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/12/2014 9:59:48 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 12/12/2014 9:45:26 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 12/12/2014 9:29:58 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 12/2/2014 4:17:17 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 12/1/2014 8:38:26 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
And do you have the right to say that? ;)

Nope. No one has the right to f*ck with anyone else. The conclusion of this, of course, is we have plenty of 'rights'. You don't need a 'right to be free' when no one has the right to oppress you...

But they aren't suppressing you if you have no intrinsic right to be free. :P

Why do I keep getting these stupid responses with smiley faces at the end? 'The right to be free' is something that needs its existence proven, so from what divine source are you going to derive this magical 'right to be free'? If no one has any rights against anyone else, then you don't need any rights. The reason we have rights now is because people have rights against us. The government has the right to make laws, but it doesn't have the right to make a law against our right to free speech. Does that make my point clearer?

That isn't a smiley face. Maybe you should spend a little more time boning-up on computer-speak if you're going to continue using public discussion boards? That symbolizes that what I said was meant in humor, as it's kinda difficult to add inflection to what I write without tone or expression at my disposal. It seems obvious that you have some confrontational attitude which you feel the need to dump on someone, but I'm not willing to be that person. And you insinuate that I'm stupid?

Oh f*ck off. Emoticon, if you insist. What p*ssed me off was that your reply was almost identical to one I had previously received from another person who missed the point. Unfortunately I apparently lack the equanimity required to deal politely with people who sh*t on the ideas I think are important like I'm seven years old.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2014 10:25:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/12/2014 10:12:04 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 12/12/2014 9:59:48 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 12/12/2014 9:45:26 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 12/12/2014 9:29:58 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 12/2/2014 4:17:17 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 12/1/2014 8:38:26 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
And do you have the right to say that? ;)

Nope. No one has the right to f*ck with anyone else. The conclusion of this, of course, is we have plenty of 'rights'. You don't need a 'right to be free' when no one has the right to oppress you...

But they aren't suppressing you if you have no intrinsic right to be free. :P

Why do I keep getting these stupid responses with smiley faces at the end? 'The right to be free' is something that needs its existence proven, so from what divine source are you going to derive this magical 'right to be free'? If no one has any rights against anyone else, then you don't need any rights. The reason we have rights now is because people have rights against us. The government has the right to make laws, but it doesn't have the right to make a law against our right to free speech. Does that make my point clearer?

That isn't a smiley face. Maybe you should spend a little more time boning-up on computer-speak if you're going to continue using public discussion boards? That symbolizes that what I said was meant in humor, as it's kinda difficult to add inflection to what I write without tone or expression at my disposal. It seems obvious that you have some confrontational attitude which you feel the need to dump on someone, but I'm not willing to be that person. And you insinuate that I'm stupid?

Oh f*ck off. Emoticon, if you insist. What p*ssed me off was that your reply was almost identical to one I had previously received from another person who missed the point. Unfortunately I apparently lack the equanimity required to deal politely with people who sh*t on the ideas I think are important like I'm seven years old.

No, apparently you lack the social skills to differentiate between someone who trying to be facetious and someone who's merely trying to be friendly. I didn't even think of trying to sh*t on your idea. Have you never told a joke? Probably not, going by what you've written on this thread. I don't much care for humorless people.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2014 10:41:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/12/2014 10:25:22 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 12/12/2014 10:12:04 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 12/12/2014 9:59:48 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 12/12/2014 9:45:26 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 12/12/2014 9:29:58 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 12/2/2014 4:17:17 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 12/1/2014 8:38:26 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
And do you have the right to say that? ;)

Nope. No one has the right to f*ck with anyone else. The conclusion of this, of course, is we have plenty of 'rights'. You don't need a 'right to be free' when no one has the right to oppress you...

But they aren't suppressing you if you have no intrinsic right to be free. :P

Why do I keep getting these stupid responses with smiley faces at the end? 'The right to be free' is something that needs its existence proven, so from what divine source are you going to derive this magical 'right to be free'? If no one has any rights against anyone else, then you don't need any rights. The reason we have rights now is because people have rights against us. The government has the right to make laws, but it doesn't have the right to make a law against our right to free speech. Does that make my point clearer?

That isn't a smiley face. Maybe you should spend a little more time boning-up on computer-speak if you're going to continue using public discussion boards? That symbolizes that what I said was meant in humor, as it's kinda difficult to add inflection to what I write without tone or expression at my disposal. It seems obvious that you have some confrontational attitude which you feel the need to dump on someone, but I'm not willing to be that person. And you insinuate that I'm stupid?

Oh f*ck off. Emoticon, if you insist. What p*ssed me off was that your reply was almost identical to one I had previously received from another person who missed the point. Unfortunately I apparently lack the equanimity required to deal politely with people who sh*t on the ideas I think are important like I'm seven years old.

No, apparently you lack the social skills to differentiate between someone who trying to be facetious and someone who's merely trying to be friendly. I didn't even think of trying to sh*t on your idea. Have you never told a joke? Probably not, going by what you've written on this thread. I don't much care for humorless people.

Hah, damn. I'm sorry. Turns out I can still misinterpret your attitude even with all sorts of faces.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2014 11:18:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/12/2014 10:41:20 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 12/12/2014 10:25:22 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 12/12/2014 10:12:04 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 12/12/2014 9:59:48 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 12/12/2014 9:45:26 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 12/12/2014 9:29:58 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 12/2/2014 4:17:17 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 12/1/2014 8:38:26 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
And do you have the right to say that? ;)

Nope. No one has the right to f*ck with anyone else. The conclusion of this, of course, is we have plenty of 'rights'. You don't need a 'right to be free' when no one has the right to oppress you...

But they aren't suppressing you if you have no intrinsic right to be free. :P

Why do I keep getting these stupid responses with smiley faces at the end? 'The right to be free' is something that needs its existence proven, so from what divine source are you going to derive this magical 'right to be free'? If no one has any rights against anyone else, then you don't need any rights. The reason we have rights now is because people have rights against us. The government has the right to make laws, but it doesn't have the right to make a law against our right to free speech. Does that make my point clearer?

That isn't a smiley face. Maybe you should spend a little more time boning-up on computer-speak if you're going to continue using public discussion boards? That symbolizes that what I said was meant in humor, as it's kinda difficult to add inflection to what I write without tone or expression at my disposal. It seems obvious that you have some confrontational attitude which you feel the need to dump on someone, but I'm not willing to be that person. And you insinuate that I'm stupid?

Oh f*ck off. Emoticon, if you insist. What p*ssed me off was that your reply was almost identical to one I had previously received from another person who missed the point. Unfortunately I apparently lack the equanimity required to deal politely with people who sh*t on the ideas I think are important like I'm seven years old.

No, apparently you lack the social skills to differentiate between someone who trying to be facetious and someone who's merely trying to be friendly. I didn't even think of trying to sh*t on your idea. Have you never told a joke? Probably not, going by what you've written on this thread. I don't much care for humorless people.

Hah, damn. I'm sorry. Turns out I can still misinterpret your attitude even with all sorts of faces.

Apology accepted (with no smiley faces). A more serious answer to the question posed would be that yes, I think people have rights. As I said to another poster, we have rights because there is a right and a wrong, and when people are wronged then their rights are abused. It's actually an important subject for me as well, but the definition of a possessed right is pretty ambiguous. Do we really have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? I guess it depends on the circumstances. If you get drafted into the military during a war then you are liable to lose all three of those things promised by the government, and do so against your will, so did the government have the right to take them from you in order to protect itself? It gets very sticky very quickly. Personally I think we have the right to be treated as decent humans unless we demonstrate ourselves to be something else than that. As part of a community we willingly subject ourselves to certain rules which are part of that community, and we are compensated by such things as mutual protection and group strength. I was a hard-working man until I reached the age of 40, when I became disabled by a rare disease. After decades of complaining about paying tons of Social Security (especially since I owned my own business) I now found myself a beneficiary of it, and to tell the truth it has returned to me more than I ever paid it. Do I have a right to that? The law says I do, but a lot of people think I don't, and to be perfectly honest I tend to feel a lot of guilt over the fact that I can no longer completely support myself. Okay, I'm rambling now, but I hope you get what I'm trying to say. The subject of inherent rights is so very complicated in so many ways that it would (and does) take an eternity to keep the public opinion fine-tuned. What do you think about it?
UX
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2014 2:04:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
You see, I actually kind of hate that we have that term --- 'right'.
There is a connotation that 'rights' are privileges, and that these 'privileges' can be controlled and policed ----> laws, etc etc.

To me, 'rights' are all representation of Freedom; the Freedom of life. And as units of life, individuals are their own agents through which they interact with the world, their own agents of choice. They are naturally, by definition as a unit of life, their own agency. They police, dictate, and choose to make all of their conscious decisions.

Now, we as a society, have deemed what is 'right' and what is 'wrong' in life --- 'good' and 'bad'. The truth is: 'right' and 'wrong'; 'good' and 'bad'; they are all constructs. We have deemed certain choices and freedoms of actions as 'right' and we have deemed certain choices and freedoms of actions as 'wrong' (note: constructionism). We, as humans, give meaning to our environment, our world, other individuals, etc etc.

Now, what I often ask myself: why would we have to give meaning about other individuals' actions; we don't care what they do; we only care about ourselves?

But, unfortunately, we don't just care about ourselves. This is because we are a society. We are no longer just individuals; we are in a space and time where individualism comes second, and the body of the society (the people) comes first. And this is, what I believe, to be the real issue around 'rights'. This conflict between individualism and collectiveness (society) causes tensions around agency of choice. Individuals are policed about their agency because they live in society, they live in a world of collectiveness; it isn't just about them anymore.

And then I often think to myself: well, why should I care what people think of my choices? It's my life. I am my own unit of life, my own agent of choice. I have the will to make my own decisions, etc etc.

Again, it's about the conflict between individualism and collectiveness. We are policed about our actions because society has deemed whatever actions they see as 'unnecessary' or 'bad' or 'wrong' for or to the society.

And guess who deemed this actions 'wrong' or 'bad'? The society (the majority).

And guess how or why they deemed them that way? They came to a consensus that those freedoms and choices were 'bad' (majority rule; majority law).

And guess how or why they all thought that way/came to a consensus? They believed in the same/similar things and had the same goals.

And guess how or why they believed in those things? Because they believed those ideologies and things were good and beneficial to every individual.

And guess how they knew those things were 'good' and 'beneficial'? Constructionism.

You see (as I already mentioned), life has no meaning at face value ---- even if there is such a thing as 'True Meaning', we don't know about it ---- and we will never know it, thus we create meanings for ourselves (the 'good', the 'bad', etc etc) so that we can comes to terms with trying to understanding life, trying to understand the world we're living in.

And now, to finally answer the thread question: we have given the 'societal meaning' of 'rights' as being 'rights' relating to the society. What I mean by this is that all 'rights' are for the [benefit] of society. Individuals are just afterthought. There is not one thing in law that says 'Anyone has the right to do anything because they are their own agency of choice. We support every choice from every person because we value their own right to life!' --- no. Like I said, we have become a society.

'Rights' exist (or what I call 'Freedom of Life' or 'Freedom of Individualism'), but we have become a body (a society) that values the health of the majority over the individual --- again, this is why we have laws; they are for the majority, the society.

And this is actually why I kind of 'innately' hate society -- or rather, I should say I hate that one of the perks/drawbacks of living in a collectiveness/society is that we have to fork over individualism and the absoluteness of the freedom of self-agency for the sake of society.

In short, rights only exist if and when the society deems so. The only true right is the individual's right to life and choice. That's all that matters in life: you. Everything else is just constructed by the society, and unfortunately because we do live in a society, we have to live by those constructions. ---- This is where social justice issues come to light and civil rights movements. But I've already spoken too much in this post. LOL.......I should probably stop now.
Heterodox
Posts: 293
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2014 2:43:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/12/2014 7:35:10 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 12/6/2014 6:47:28 AM, Heterodox wrote:
At 12/4/2014 3:24:02 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 12/3/2014 11:29:23 AM, Objectivity wrote:
At 12/3/2014 9:45:03 AM, Philocat wrote:
We have certain rights that are universally recognised to be self-evident (they do not require justification; they are intrinsically good). These rights would be the likes of:
Right to life
Right to basic education
Right to enough food and drink
etcetera...

All of those except the right to life aren't self evident and aren't rights. A right derives from an entitlement, so protected rights would only be those things we are entitled to as an extension of our existence, such as the right to life, liberty and property, since it would take an action to take those away from us and it takes nothing for us to have these rights whereas a right to education and food and drink doesn't exist since we aren't entitled to it simply for existing.

Of course they exist and are self-evident. We have a right to food and drink because we need them to survive. We have a right to education because every person needs an education to get ahead in life. We actually do have rights simply for existing because we aren't responsible for our own existence. It's not like we can sign some sort of contract saying "I choose to exist under the conditions that I don't have a right to these certain things."

You have to make a distinction between positive and negative rights. A positive right is a right that the government must provide for us. A negative right is a right that the government doesn't have to provide but can't stop us from attaining. Education is a positive right; this is why there are government paid-for schools to educate kids (even though I am very much pro-homeschooling). The right to life is a negative right (after all, it doesn't make much sense to say the government must provide us with life, since we already have that life; the government cannot take it away from us, however).

Food and drink is not a right. Just because you need something to survive doesn't make it a right.
Education is not a right. You really think you have the right to someone's labor other than your own?
Government provides NO rights. Government can only take away your rights!
You are wropng. Peo[ple need food and watyer to live, and the right to life is a right, therefore, food and water are both rights.
I disagree. You have the right to hunt and forage for food and water, but you do not have the right to own other people's property/labor.
Just like you don't have a right to someone's heart if you need a transplant.
Just like you don't have a right to medical aid if you are dying.
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2014 2:51:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/12/2014 7:51:11 PM, SitaraMusica wrote:
At 12/2/2014 6:59:00 AM, Smithereens wrote:
If rights exist, then so do non-rights. Because I said so.

So you are saying that whatever you say is true? That os the circular reasoning fallacy.

It's in parody of the OP. An assertion was made that rights exist. No reason given. By the same logic, I can posit that the negative is true, and for the same lack of reason.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...