Total Posts:115|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Why do you think individuals have rights?

YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2013 9:12:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Do rights come from God? Government? Nature? Natural law? Human nature? Human law?

Do people have them just for being born? Are they inalienable? Why?

In the western tradition, people are taught that they have a numerous volume of rights. They are given reasons to believe that they have rights, and generally believe them.

I want to challenge that: Give me a good reason why you think you have a right to life, liberty or property. Try not to plagiarize Jefferson, who was plagiarizing Locke and Montesquieu...
Tsar of DDO
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2013 9:18:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Social contract theory. We get together and decide that we don't do certain things in order to prevent other worse things from happening to us. This is codified into law, certain laws govern nations which are more succesful then others, and the rights adopted by them become standardized. I think that the idea of 'god gave us rights, and only he can take them away' is ludicrous, as is the idea of positive rights.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2013 9:20:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'm tempted to run argumentation ethics but only because people who disbelieve in "rights" tend to turn to a gross form of nihilistic utilitarianism.
: 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.
YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2013 9:27:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/19/2013 9:18:30 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Social contract theory.

(1) Boring. (2) Social contract theory presupposes a binding endorsement of society by individuals who merely inherit (that is to say, are born into) a social order but made no individual choice to enter into any given society.

We get together and decide that we don't do certain things in order to prevent other worse things from happening to us.

Locke, Hobbes, (to an extent) Bentham... and still boring. To be a b@stard, I'll use the classic rebuttal: "you're presupposing an unprovable degree of malevolence in human nature."

This is codified into law, certain laws govern nations which are more succesful then others, and the rights adopted by them become standardized.

Indeed. And I still find it amusing that Locke never saw the problem with this.

I think that the idea of 'god gave us rights, and only he can take them away' is ludicrous, as is the idea of positive rights.

I agree, but would go a step further. I think the idea that "people have rights" is ludicrous.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2013 9:28:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/19/2013 9:20:58 PM, Noumena wrote:
I'm tempted to run argumentation ethics but only because people who disbelieve in "rights" tend to turn to a gross form of nihilistic utilitarianism.

That sounds like fun. Write away. I may or may not take that route -or go a step further.
Tsar of DDO
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2013 9:34:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/19/2013 9:27:51 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/19/2013 9:18:30 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Social contract theory.

(1) Boring. (2) Social contract theory presupposes a binding endorsement of society by individuals who merely inherit (that is to say, are born into) a social order but made no individual choice to enter into any given society.

Well, that's the way it works. It sucks, but oh well. I didn't sign the Constitution, but I'm bound to it. I can't very well right my own either.

We get together and decide that we don't do certain things in order to prevent other worse things from happening to us.

Locke, Hobbes, (to an extent) Bentham... and still boring. To be a b@stard, I'll use the classic rebuttal: "you're presupposing an unprovable degree of malevolence in human nature."

Lock doesn't presuppose said malevolence, that's the primary difference between he and Hobbes. Personally, I think that they're both partially right. In the state of nature, humans are protective towards those related to them, to members of their 'tribe', but brutally callous to those who are deemed outsiders.

This is codified into law, certain laws govern nations which are more succesful then others, and the rights adopted by them become standardized.

Indeed. And I still find it amusing that Locke never saw the problem with this.

Oh, it's not ideal by many standards. But it still happens.

I think that the idea of 'god gave us rights, and only he can take them away' is ludicrous, as is the idea of positive rights.

I agree, but would go a step further. I think the idea that "people have rights" is ludicrous.

Only if you view rights as some sacred magical principle and not a practical and unavoidable aspect of human behavior and societal evolution.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
FourTrouble
Posts: 12,757
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2013 9:37:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Self-ownership seems like the place I'd start if I were trying to justify them. You think individuals shouldn't have rights?
YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2013 9:39:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/19/2013 9:34:39 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/19/2013 9:27:51 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/19/2013 9:18:30 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Social contract theory.

(1) Boring. (2) Social contract theory presupposes a binding endorsement of society by individuals who merely inherit (that is to say, are born into) a social order but made no individual choice to enter into any given society.

Well, that's the way it works. It sucks, but oh well. I didn't sign the Constitution, but I'm bound to it. I can't very well right my own either.

To say that a system predicated upon the protection of "rights" is not to say that people have rights, or that people deserve rights. It is only to say that 'society X recognizes rights' of various kinds.

We get together and decide that we don't do certain things in order to prevent other worse things from happening to us.

Locke, Hobbes, (to an extent) Bentham... and still boring. To be a b@stard, I'll use the classic rebuttal: "you're presupposing an unprovable degree of malevolence in human nature."

Lock doesn't presuppose said malevolence,

Did you miss the state of nature/state of war bit in his Second Treatise on Government?

that's the primary difference between he and Hobbes.

lol... Hobbes' logic says only that men are born inclined to do bad things. Locke says men WILL do bad things. In both cases... men are doing bad things to one another. The distinction is less of a distinction in function than in premise.

Personally, I think that they're both partially right.

So: human nature ==> rights?

This is codified into law, certain laws govern nations which are more succesful then others, and the rights adopted by them become standardized.

Indeed. And I still find it amusing that Locke never saw the problem with this.

Oh, it's not ideal by many standards. But it still happens.

I think that the idea of 'god gave us rights, and only he can take them away' is ludicrous, as is the idea of positive rights.

I agree, but would go a step further. I think the idea that "people have rights" is ludicrous.

Only if you view rights as some sacred magical principle and not a practical and unavoidable aspect of human behavior and societal evolution.

Not really. To say that a society legally defends X is not to say that people are due to X.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2013 9:41:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/19/2013 9:37:31 PM, FourTrouble wrote:
Self-ownership seems like the place I'd start if I were trying to justify them.

So... let's see that justification. I'm quite interested.

You think individuals shouldn't have rights?

Life? Sure. Liberty? No. Property? Absolutely not. (at least for this week, pursuant to Freedo's ideology challenge)

But really though, this gives me the chance to vent my frustration with enlightenment philosophy.
Tsar of DDO
Zaradi
Posts: 14,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2013 9:49:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I don't particularly know where, I'd say we were born with them but that only begs the questions of why and how, so instead I'll go down a different road of thought:

Why do we have to ask the question of where they come from? Why can't we be satisfied with "We have rights! Woo!" and leave it at that? Do we really have to understand everything?
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2013 9:53:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/19/2013 9:12:39 PM, YYW wrote:
Do rights come from God? Government? Nature? Natural law? Human nature? Human law?

Do people have them just for being born? Are they inalienable? Why?

In the western tradition, people are taught that they have a numerous volume of rights. They are given reasons to believe that they have rights, and generally believe them.

I want to challenge that: Give me a good reason why you think you have a right to life, liberty or property. Try not to plagiarize Jefferson, who was plagiarizing Locke and Montesquieu...

It stems from more basic metaphysical notions like intrinsic value or perhaps the goodness in self-actualization/the potential embodied.

This might sound a little wacky, but I'd like to turn the burden of proof to those who say we don't have rights. We've all had times where we've walked along on a dark street and thought of someone pulling a knife on us and ending us right there; if every bone in your body is against this then, well, perhaps we could take these intuitions as at least situating the debate in terms of who has BoP?

I can see people objecting to rights claims being absolute, but to deny them in their usual sense seems to deny something very basic. It seems tantamount to admitting that humans - you included - don't have value and that if someone walked along and stabbed you in the head that person wouldn't be doing anything wrong.
FourTrouble
Posts: 12,757
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2013 9:53:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/19/2013 9:50:16 PM, FourTrouble wrote:
I'm not too interested in doing that, though. I'm more inclined to agree with you -- rights don't exist.

Of course, this depends on WHAT we are talking about here. I find liberalism incoherent, so of course the related notion of rights is just as incoherent. That doesn't mean we don't have rights -- the Constitution explicitly grants us rights -- it just means those rights can never be distributed equally or fairly, as liberals imagine they can be.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2013 9:53:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/19/2013 9:28:58 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/19/2013 9:20:58 PM, Noumena wrote:
I'm tempted to run argumentation ethics but only because people who disbelieve in "rights" tend to turn to a gross form of nihilistic utilitarianism.

That sounds like fun. Write away. I may or may not take that route -or go a step further.

I'll summarize. Any proposition within the context of argumentation must conform to the inter-subjectively agreed upon rules of such. In this case that includes the law of non-contradiction. (Now whether such logical laws obtain in actuality is another point- here we deal only within the context of communicative argumentation). Since ethical argumentation exists within the context of general argumentation, it too (in reasoning/conclusions) must conform to these rules. Denying any of this in fact presupposes the opposite since to argumentatively make a claim in the first place is the same as making claims according to a set of rules governing intellectual conduct.

Hoppe called the ethical prescriptions, which he thought, inherent in communicative argumentation norms. Certain norms are inherent (implicitly) wherever we decide to argue with one another. One such norm is exclusive control over one's person. This is so, he argues, due to the fact that we necessarily utilize our bodies in order to argue. Myopically, this would include vocal chords, a tongue, etc. if we're dealing only with that which is immediately necessary. Basically, freedom in regards to actually making an argument is necessarily presupposes anywhere and in all ethical debates. Denying this amounts to forwarding propositional content at odds with the norms presupposed in forwarding propositions in the first place.

But Hoppe's utter rejection of egalitarianism or a "communal ethic" seems problematic to me essentially because there are factors which have profound effects on our ability to engage in discourse not immediately present in our bodies alone. Our ability to find shelter, clothing, sustenance, our social position, etc. all profoundly effect our ability to engage in free discourse. Hoppe's "control norms" applied only to one's body precludes the idea that discussion between two actors of incredibly unequal wealth distribution (and where the former's economic interests lend towards agreement with the former) could be seen as "non-free" discourse. But this to me seems perverse and indicative of a myopically empty conception of "freedom" and "free discourse".

But from all this, I'm drawn to two positions. One is a solid acceptance of Hoppe's own position in regards to self-ownership. I see it as profoundly contradictory to argue against the concept. On the other hand I see Hoppe's position as merely a necessary (though not sufficient) condition for the attainment of a genuinely free discourse. To this I bring the second norm, which is merely a presumption in favor of distributions (social, economic, etc.) which lend to greater stages of equality wherein the first principle isn't infringed upon. I think it's impossible to achieve full equality in almost any respect without infringing on the first principle (Nozick's "Chamberlain argument" is a perfect exposition on why) which is why I only take it as a presumption. I don't want to preclude my "right-wing" roots entirely as AnCom's tend to erronously do.

I haven't really worked this position out too much yet. It's still in an incredibly rudimentary stage of development so go easy.
: 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.
YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2013 9:53:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/19/2013 9:49:33 PM, Zaradi wrote:
I don't particularly know where, I'd say we were born with them but that only begs the questions of why and how, so instead I'll go down a different road of thought:

Why do we have to ask the question of where they come from? Why can't we be satisfied with "We have rights! Woo!" and leave it at that? Do we really have to understand everything?

Rights without grounding are not rights, but fantasies of human imagination. And yes, I'm a strong believer in understanding to the extent that humans are able.
Tsar of DDO
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2013 9:55:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/19/2013 9:53:01 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 3/19/2013 9:12:39 PM, YYW wrote:
Do rights come from God? Government? Nature? Natural law? Human nature? Human law?

Do people have them just for being born? Are they inalienable? Why?

In the western tradition, people are taught that they have a numerous volume of rights. They are given reasons to believe that they have rights, and generally believe them.

I want to challenge that: Give me a good reason why you think you have a right to life, liberty or property. Try not to plagiarize Jefferson, who was plagiarizing Locke and Montesquieu...

It stems from more basic metaphysical notions like intrinsic value or perhaps the goodness in self-actualization/the potential embodied.

This might sound a little wacky, but I'd like to turn the burden of proof to those who say we don't have rights. We've all had times where we've walked along on a dark street and thought of someone pulling a knife on us and ending us right there; if every bone in your body is against this then, well, perhaps we could take these intuitions as at least situating the debate in terms of who has BoP?

I can see people objecting to rights claims being absolute, but to deny them in their usual sense seems to deny something very basic. It seems tantamount to admitting that humans - you included - don't have value and that if someone walked along and stabbed you in the head that person wouldn't be doing anything wrong.

Incredibly lazy, all of this. I genuinely forgot that you place such importance on intuition.
: 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.
YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2013 9:55:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/19/2013 9:53:27 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 3/19/2013 9:28:58 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/19/2013 9:20:58 PM, Noumena wrote:
I'm tempted to run argumentation ethics but only because people who disbelieve in "rights" tend to turn to a gross form of nihilistic utilitarianism.

That sounds like fun. Write away. I may or may not take that route -or go a step further.

I'll summarize. Any proposition within the context of argumentation must conform to the inter-subjectively agreed upon rules of such. In this case that includes the law of non-contradiction. (Now whether such logical laws obtain in actuality is another point- here we deal only within the context of communicative argumentation). Since ethical argumentation exists within the context of general argumentation, it too (in reasoning/conclusions) must conform to these rules. Denying any of this in fact presupposes the opposite since to argumentatively make a claim in the first place is the same as making claims according to a set of rules governing intellectual conduct.

Hoppe called the ethical prescriptions, which he thought, inherent in communicative argumentation norms. Certain norms are inherent (implicitly) wherever we decide to argue with one another. One such norm is exclusive control over one's person. This is so, he argues, due to the fact that we necessarily utilize our bodies in order to argue. Myopically, this would include vocal chords, a tongue, etc. if we're dealing only with that which is immediately necessary. Basically, freedom in regards to actually making an argument is necessarily presupposes anywhere and in all ethical debates. Denying this amounts to forwarding propositional content at odds with the norms presupposed in forwarding propositions in the first place.

But Hoppe's utter rejection of egalitarianism or a "communal ethic" seems problematic to me essentially because there are factors which have profound effects on our ability to engage in discourse not immediately present in our bodies alone. Our ability to find shelter, clothing, sustenance, our social position, etc. all profoundly effect our ability to engage in free discourse. Hoppe's "control norms" applied only to one's body precludes the idea that discussion between two actors of incredibly unequal wealth distribution (and where the former's economic interests lend towards agreement with the former) could be seen as "non-free" discourse. But this to me seems perverse and indicative of a myopically empty conception of "freedom" and "free discourse".

But from all this, I'm drawn to two positions. One is a solid acceptance of Hoppe's own position in regards to self-ownership. I see it as profoundly contradictory to argue against the concept. On the other hand I see Hoppe's position as merely a necessary (though not sufficient) condition for the attainment of a genuinely free discourse. To this I bring the second norm, which is merely a presumption in favor of distributions (social, economic, etc.) which lend to greater stages of equality wherein the first principle isn't infringed upon. I think it's impossible to achieve full equality in almost any respect without infringing on the first principle (Nozick's "Chamberlain argument" is a perfect exposition on why) which is why I only take it as a presumption. I don't want to preclude my "right-wing" roots entirely as AnCom's tend to erronously do.

I haven't really worked this position out too much yet. It's still in an incredibly rudimentary stage of development so go easy.

You should read Judith Butler's Giving an Account of Oneself. And I'll give you a chance to hone the logic of this before I respond. Not bad though... for having only a few minutes to come up with it.
Tsar of DDO
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2013 9:55:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/19/2013 9:39:38 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/19/2013 9:34:39 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/19/2013 9:27:51 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/19/2013 9:18:30 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Social contract theory.

(1) Boring. (2) Social contract theory presupposes a binding endorsement of society by individuals who merely inherit (that is to say, are born into) a social order but made no individual choice to enter into any given society.

Well, that's the way it works. It sucks, but oh well. I didn't sign the Constitution, but I'm bound to it. I can't very well right my own either.

To say that a system predicated upon the protection of "rights" is not to say that people have rights, or that people deserve rights. It is only to say that 'society X recognizes rights' of various kinds.

So in order to defend rights I have to defend them in some sort of mystical, amorphous way with no basis in reality? Rights are created by society. They didn't exist, then they did, and they came into existence when societies began respecting them. They are snuffed out when societies decide to stop doing so.

We get together and decide that we don't do certain things in order to prevent other worse things from happening to us.

Locke, Hobbes, (to an extent) Bentham... and still boring. To be a b@stard, I'll use the classic rebuttal: "you're presupposing an unprovable degree of malevolence in human nature."

Lock doesn't presuppose said malevolence,

Did you miss the state of nature/state of war bit in his Second Treatise on Government?

I'm not saying that he doesn't presuppose any malevolence, just that he doesn't go over-the-top like Hobbes does and addresses what malevolence does exist. In short, that the degree of malevolence supposed by Locke is quite provable.

that's the primary difference between he and Hobbes.

lol... Hobbes' logic says only that men are born inclined to do bad things. Locke says men WILL do bad things. In both cases... men are doing bad things to one another. The distinction is less of a distinction in function than in premise.

It's a distinction of degree. Hobbes held that all men would do bad things, Locke held that some would and that people bond together in order to counter this.

Personally, I think that they're both partially right.

So: human nature ==> rights?

In a sense, yes. Those societies which succeed and become expansionist empires will adopt rights, at least for their own citizens. Rights are selected for in many such cases.

This is codified into law, certain laws govern nations which are more succesful then others, and the rights adopted by them become standardized.

Indeed. And I still find it amusing that Locke never saw the problem with this.

Oh, it's not ideal by many standards. But it still happens.

I think that the idea of 'god gave us rights, and only he can take them away' is ludicrous, as is the idea of positive rights.

I agree, but would go a step further. I think the idea that "people have rights" is ludicrous.

Only if you view rights as some sacred magical principle and not a practical and unavoidable aspect of human behavior and societal evolution.

Not really. To say that a society legally defends X is not to say that people are due to X.

It is if X is defined by said legal action.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2013 9:57:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/19/2013 9:53:01 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 3/19/2013 9:12:39 PM, YYW wrote:
Do rights come from God? Government? Nature? Natural law? Human nature? Human law?

Do people have them just for being born? Are they inalienable? Why?

In the western tradition, people are taught that they have a numerous volume of rights. They are given reasons to believe that they have rights, and generally believe them.

I want to challenge that: Give me a good reason why you think you have a right to life, liberty or property. Try not to plagiarize Jefferson, who was plagiarizing Locke and Montesquieu...

It stems from more basic metaphysical notions like intrinsic value or perhaps the goodness in self-actualization/the potential embodied.

This might sound a little wacky, but I'd like to turn the burden of proof to those who say we don't have rights. We've all had times where we've walked along on a dark street and thought of someone pulling a knife on us and ending us right there; if every bone in your body is against this then, well, perhaps we could take these intuitions as at least situating the debate in terms of who has BoP?

I can see people objecting to rights claims being absolute, but to deny them in their usual sense seems to deny something very basic. It seems tantamount to admitting that humans - you included - don't have value and that if someone walked along and stabbed you in the head that person wouldn't be doing anything wrong.

So human life has no value without the recognition of human rights? I think even Stalin might disagree with that... though you would probably take issue with how he measured value.
Tsar of DDO
FourTrouble
Posts: 12,757
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2013 9:57:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
If someone stabbed you in the head, the question you should ask is not, "is it wrong?" but "to whom is it wrong?" Context is everything when you are talking about rights.

Example: supposedly we are given the right to practice our religion. Yet certain religions are clearly privileged over others. There are certain religious practices the government does not allow. Is that fair? No. Where is the religious "right" there? Point is, rights don't exist in the way we normally conceive of them.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2013 9:57:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/19/2013 9:55:11 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 3/19/2013 9:53:01 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 3/19/2013 9:12:39 PM, YYW wrote:
Do rights come from God? Government? Nature? Natural law? Human nature? Human law?

Do people have them just for being born? Are they inalienable? Why?

In the western tradition, people are taught that they have a numerous volume of rights. They are given reasons to believe that they have rights, and generally believe them.

I want to challenge that: Give me a good reason why you think you have a right to life, liberty or property. Try not to plagiarize Jefferson, who was plagiarizing Locke and Montesquieu...

It stems from more basic metaphysical notions like intrinsic value or perhaps the goodness in self-actualization/the potential embodied.

This might sound a little wacky, but I'd like to turn the burden of proof to those who say we don't have rights. We've all had times where we've walked along on a dark street and thought of someone pulling a knife on us and ending us right there; if every bone in your body is against this then, well, perhaps we could take these intuitions as at least situating the debate in terms of who has BoP?

I can see people objecting to rights claims being absolute, but to deny them in their usual sense seems to deny something very basic. It seems tantamount to admitting that humans - you included - don't have value and that if someone walked along and stabbed you in the head that person wouldn't be doing anything wrong.


Incredibly lazy, all of this. I genuinely forgot that you place such importance on intuition.

It's not that I'm sold on the matter, but it's one school of thought. I do think if you're not willing to take intuitions into account you're doing ethics without an anchor.

If very basic moral intuitions just don't click with you then we're going to have a very difficult time discussing.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2013 9:58:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/19/2013 9:57:03 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/19/2013 9:53:01 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 3/19/2013 9:12:39 PM, YYW wrote:
Do rights come from God? Government? Nature? Natural law? Human nature? Human law?

Do people have them just for being born? Are they inalienable? Why?

In the western tradition, people are taught that they have a numerous volume of rights. They are given reasons to believe that they have rights, and generally believe them.

I want to challenge that: Give me a good reason why you think you have a right to life, liberty or property. Try not to plagiarize Jefferson, who was plagiarizing Locke and Montesquieu...

It stems from more basic metaphysical notions like intrinsic value or perhaps the goodness in self-actualization/the potential embodied.

This might sound a little wacky, but I'd like to turn the burden of proof to those who say we don't have rights. We've all had times where we've walked along on a dark street and thought of someone pulling a knife on us and ending us right there; if every bone in your body is against this then, well, perhaps we could take these intuitions as at least situating the debate in terms of who has BoP?

I can see people objecting to rights claims being absolute, but to deny them in their usual sense seems to deny something very basic. It seems tantamount to admitting that humans - you included - don't have value and that if someone walked along and stabbed you in the head that person wouldn't be doing anything wrong.

So human life has no value without the recognition of human rights? I think even Stalin might disagree with that... though you would probably take issue with how he measured value.

Did I say that somewhere?
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2013 10:00:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/19/2013 9:57:08 PM, FourTrouble wrote:
If someone stabbed you in the head, the question you should ask is not, "is it wrong?" but "to whom is it wrong?" Context is everything when you are talking about rights.

Example: supposedly we are given the right to practice our religion. Yet certain religions are clearly privileged over others. There are certain religious practices the government does not allow. Is that fair? No. Where is the religious "right" there? Point is, rights don't exist in the way we normally conceive of them.

The "right" would still be there, just not protected or allowed. Human rights are denied all the time, this has no bearing on whether they exist.
Zaradi
Posts: 14,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2013 10:03:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/19/2013 9:53:34 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/19/2013 9:49:33 PM, Zaradi wrote:
I don't particularly know where, I'd say we were born with them but that only begs the questions of why and how, so instead I'll go down a different road of thought:

Why do we have to ask the question of where they come from? Why can't we be satisfied with "We have rights! Woo!" and leave it at that? Do we really have to understand everything?

Rights without grounding are not rights, but fantasies of human imagination. And yes, I'm a strong believer in understanding to the extent that humans are able.

These "fantasies" that you describe groundless rights seem to be lacking an impact - why are these fantasies bad? Moreover you just re-state that you believe in understanding without answer my question, which your answer begs.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2013 10:04:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/19/2013 9:55:51 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/19/2013 9:39:38 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/19/2013 9:34:39 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/19/2013 9:27:51 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/19/2013 9:18:30 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Social contract theory.

(1) Boring. (2) Social contract theory presupposes a binding endorsement of society by individuals who merely inherit (that is to say, are born into) a social order but made no individual choice to enter into any given society.

Well, that's the way it works. It sucks, but oh well. I didn't sign the Constitution, but I'm bound to it. I can't very well right my own either.

To say that a system predicated upon the protection of "rights" is not to say that people have rights, or that people deserve rights. It is only to say that 'society X recognizes rights' of various kinds.

So in order to defend rights I have to defend them in some sort of mystical, amorphous way with no basis in reality?

No, you just have to tell me why people are due rights. Ground the claim any way you please.

Rights are created by society. They didn't exist, then they did, and they came into existence when societies began respecting them. They are snuffed out when societies decide to stop doing so.

So rights are alienable, not intrinsic, and contingent upon the power of enforcement? Talk about an assault to the value of rights in and of themselves... you're sounding like a relativist now.


We get together and decide that we don't do certain things in order to prevent other worse things from happening to us.

Locke, Hobbes, (to an extent) Bentham... and still boring. To be a b@stard, I'll use the classic rebuttal: "you're presupposing an unprovable degree of malevolence in human nature."

Lock doesn't presuppose said malevolence,

Did you miss the state of nature/state of war bit in his Second Treatise on Government?

I'm not saying that he doesn't presuppose any malevolence, just that he doesn't go over-the-top like Hobbes does and addresses what malevolence does exist. In short, that the degree of malevolence supposed by Locke is quite provable.

No, it's quite normative -just like Locke. It's also a lot of philosophical smoke in mirrors, that is to say... unsubstantiated intellectual hyperbole that attempts to establish a reasoning for something that people want in reaction to something they don't want.

that's the primary difference between he and Hobbes.

lol... Hobbes' logic says only that men are born inclined to do bad things. Locke says men WILL do bad things. In both cases... men are doing bad things to one another. The distinction is less of a distinction in function than in premise.

It's a distinction of degree. Hobbes held that all men would do bad things, Locke held that some would and that people bond together in order to counter this.

I grant the distinction of degrees. Hobbes is quite a bit more dramatic in tone than Locke, but the points are functionally equivalent. Men will do bad things to each other.

Personally, I think that they're both partially right.

So: human nature ==> rights?

In a sense, yes. Those societies which succeed and become expansionist empires will adopt rights, at least for their own citizens. Rights are selected for in many such cases.

So... give me your view of human nature.

This is codified into law, certain laws govern nations which are more succesful then others, and the rights adopted by them become standardized.

Indeed. And I still find it amusing that Locke never saw the problem with this.

Oh, it's not ideal by many standards. But it still happens.

I think that the idea of 'god gave us rights, and only he can take them away' is ludicrous, as is the idea of positive rights.

I agree, but would go a step further. I think the idea that "people have rights" is ludicrous.

Only if you view rights as some sacred magical principle and not a practical and unavoidable aspect of human behavior and societal evolution.

Not really. To say that a society legally defends X is not to say that people are due to X.

It is if X is defined by said legal action.

The law is not the metric of justice, but the social insurance against injustice -because of its reactionary nature. That is to say, the law does not tell us what is right/what is just/what ought to be -only what one may not do. The law is intended to correlate to justice, but that intention does not make it's success to that end necessarily the case.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2013 10:05:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/19/2013 9:58:12 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 3/19/2013 9:57:03 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/19/2013 9:53:01 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 3/19/2013 9:12:39 PM, YYW wrote:
Do rights come from God? Government? Nature? Natural law? Human nature? Human law?

Do people have them just for being born? Are they inalienable? Why?

In the western tradition, people are taught that they have a numerous volume of rights. They are given reasons to believe that they have rights, and generally believe them.

I want to challenge that: Give me a good reason why you think you have a right to life, liberty or property. Try not to plagiarize Jefferson, who was plagiarizing Locke and Montesquieu...

It stems from more basic metaphysical notions like intrinsic value or perhaps the goodness in self-actualization/the potential embodied.

This might sound a little wacky, but I'd like to turn the burden of proof to those who say we don't have rights. We've all had times where we've walked along on a dark street and thought of someone pulling a knife on us and ending us right there; if every bone in your body is against this then, well, perhaps we could take these intuitions as at least situating the debate in terms of who has BoP?

I can see people objecting to rights claims being absolute, but to deny them in their usual sense seems to deny something very basic. It seems tantamount to admitting that humans - you included - don't have value and that if someone walked along and stabbed you in the head that person wouldn't be doing anything wrong.

So human life has no value without the recognition of human rights (specifically a right to life)? I think even Stalin might disagree with that... though you would probably take issue with how he measured value.

Did I say that somewhere?

Yup.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2013 10:06:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/19/2013 9:58:00 PM, FourTrouble wrote:
Yea, I agree with YYW completely on this issue.

Dude, you know I'm only pretending to be a fascist for this week... right?
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2013 10:07:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/19/2013 10:03:02 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 3/19/2013 9:53:34 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/19/2013 9:49:33 PM, Zaradi wrote:
I don't particularly know where, I'd say we were born with them but that only begs the questions of why and how, so instead I'll go down a different road of thought:

Why do we have to ask the question of where they come from? Why can't we be satisfied with "We have rights! Woo!" and leave it at that? Do we really have to understand everything?

Rights without grounding are not rights, but fantasies of human imagination. And yes, I'm a strong believer in understanding to the extent that humans are able.

These "fantasies" that you describe groundless rights seem to be lacking an impact - why are these fantasies bad? Moreover you just re-state that you believe in understanding without answer my question, which your answer begs.

Try that again, Zaradi ;)
Tsar of DDO
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2013 10:10:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/19/2013 10:05:50 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/19/2013 9:58:12 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 3/19/2013 9:57:03 PM, YYW wrote:
At 3/19/2013 9:53:01 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 3/19/2013 9:12:39 PM, YYW wrote:
Do rights come from God? Government? Nature? Natural law? Human nature? Human law?

Do people have them just for being born? Are they inalienable? Why?

In the western tradition, people are taught that they have a numerous volume of rights. They are given reasons to believe that they have rights, and generally believe them.

I want to challenge that: Give me a good reason why you think you have a right to life, liberty or property. Try not to plagiarize Jefferson, who was plagiarizing Locke and Montesquieu...

It stems from more basic metaphysical notions like intrinsic value or perhaps the goodness in self-actualization/the potential embodied.

This might sound a little wacky, but I'd like to turn the burden of proof to those who say we don't have rights. We've all had times where we've walked along on a dark street and thought of someone pulling a knife on us and ending us right there; if every bone in your body is against this then, well, perhaps we could take these intuitions as at least situating the debate in terms of who has BoP?

I can see people objecting to rights claims being absolute, but to deny them in their usual sense seems to deny something very basic. It seems tantamount to admitting that humans - you included - don't have value and that if someone walked along and stabbed you in the head that person wouldn't be doing anything wrong.

So human life has no value without the recognition of human rights (specifically a right to life)? I think even Stalin might disagree with that... though you would probably take issue with how he measured value.

Did I say that somewhere?

Yup.

Value is prior to rights.