Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

Modern Concept of 'Rights'

Objectivity
Posts: 1,744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2014 11:19:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I believe the modern concept of rights has been distorted and some people do not even know what a 'right' is. A right being: a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way.

The confusion derives from the entitlement issue. A lot of people believe that even if their 'right' to something involves taking something that is not theirs or depriving someone else of something they are entitled to, that it's still a 'right' and not just a desire. For example, the current debate surrounding denying service based on immutable characteristics, the side that is against this commonly advocates their argument based on 'rights'. This includes democrats stating that denying gays service is an infringement on their 'rights'. The absurdity surrounding this is that their entitlement derives from nothing as it is not their product, property or business, and therefore they are not entitled to be on the property, make use of someone's services, or purchase their goods. Their entitlement derives from nothing as none of the things being denied to them are theirs in the first place. The same applies to the 'right' to healthcare, the entitlement derives from nothing if it means you are receiving healthcare on someone else's dollar, it's essentially asserting that you have the right to someone else's money.

The debate can be further discussed once we are intellectually honest and admit that a lot of the issues debated today as a matter of 'rights' are simply desires that actually involve infringing on someone else's rights. Once we accept that fact, we can move on to actually debating about whether these desires should be fulfilled or not.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2014 11:39:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/14/2014 11:19:45 AM, Objectivity wrote:
I believe the modern concept of rights has been distorted and some people do not even know what a 'right' is. A right being: a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way.

I agree with this definition. Allot of people conflate rights and liberties. Liberty being the absence of arbitrary restraints on one's speech, thoughts, and actions.

The confusion derives from the entitlement issue. A lot of people believe that even if their 'right' to something involves taking something that is not theirs or depriving someone else of something they are entitled to, that it's still a 'right' and not just a desire. For example, the current debate surrounding denying service based on immutable characteristics, the side that is against this commonly advocates their argument based on 'rights'. This includes democrats stating that denying gays service is an infringement on their 'rights'. The absurdity surrounding this is that their entitlement derives from nothing as it is not their product, property or business, and therefore they are not entitled to be on the property, make use of someone's services, or purchase their goods. Their entitlement derives from nothing as none of the things being denied to them are theirs in the first place. The same applies to the 'right' to healthcare, the entitlement derives from nothing if it means you are receiving healthcare on someone else's dollar, it's essentially asserting that you have the right to someone else's money.

I think the confusion arises from conflating words. Just as conflating rights (ius) with being right (rectus), or conflating rights with liberties.

People misuse words all the time, and as a result messages are distorted. When messages are distorted, misinformation is spread.

As Sun Tzu would say; "If words of command are not clear and distinct, if orders are not thoroughly understood, then the general is to blame. But, if orders are clear and the soldiers nevertheless disobey, then it is the fault of their officers."

In other words, the person conveying the message must speak clearly, and the person receiving the message must listen clearly; it is not solely the responsibility of the speaker nor the listener to ensure the message is clear, but rather it is a shared responsibility. If the Person conveying the message uses different definitions than the one receiving the message, it causes a semantic shift, and the message is distorted.

The debate can be further discussed once we are intellectually honest and admit that a lot of the issues debated today as a matter of 'rights' are simply desires that actually involve infringing on someone else's rights. Once we accept that fact, we can move on to actually debating about whether these desires should be fulfilled or not.

Rights may sometimes conflict. For example, if I inherit land from a deceased relative, and my brother inherits the trees on my inherited land. I know of a similar situation where after a divorce the husband got the trees and the wife got the land, so the husband had the trees cut and sold for lumber, thereby devaluing the land.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
YYW
Posts: 41,729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2014 4:37:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/14/2014 11:19:45 AM, Objectivity wrote:
I believe the modern concept of rights has been distorted and some people do not even know what a 'right' is. A right being: a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way.

What a right is depends on who you ask. Fundamentally, a right is an entitlement to be a treated or not treated in a certain way. There are legal rights, which entail duties for others and there are moral/ethical rights, which are established by how we conceive that others ought to be treated. Sometimes there's an overlap between moral/ethical and legal rights, but sometimes not.

The confusion derives from the entitlement issue. A lot of people believe that even if their 'right' to something involves taking something that is not theirs or depriving someone else of something they are entitled to, that it's still a 'right' and not just a desire.

So, that's certainly one opinion about what "rights" are, but it's based on an ethical and political principle of limited governmental involvement/individual freedom. But, in a practical sense, the "negative" rights you're talking about have never been the only way that we regarded civil liberties in the United States, or western culture, generally.

There is some other stuff you said, but I don't really care about it. What you've proffered is certainly "an" opinion, but it's not "the" way that we (the rest of the world) or US law regards rights. As a gay guy, too, it's disappointing to see this kind of nonsense as well... but w/e. After all, it's a free country.
Trump's Criminal Campaign and Presidency:

http://www.debate.org...

Where we were, on Trump:

http://www.debate.org...

Russia: The Update

http://www.debate.org...
Objectivity
Posts: 1,744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2014 8:01:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/14/2014 4:37:45 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/14/2014 11:19:45 AM, Objectivity wrote:
I believe the modern concept of rights has been distorted and some people do not even know what a 'right' is. A right being: a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way.

What a right is depends on who you ask. Fundamentally, a right is an entitlement to be a treated or not treated in a certain way. There are legal rights, which entail duties for others and there are moral/ethical rights, which are established by how we conceive that others ought to be treated. Sometimes there's an overlap between moral/ethical and legal rights, but sometimes not.

I think you bring up an interesting point, but it is not giving justice to a very controversial issue that affects the outlook on most modern civil rights issue we are faced with today, and many other issues. There is a clear distinction between legal rights and moral rights, and if the issue was being looked at from a more neutral concept based on obligations and entitlement, I don't think there would be a problem. Rights, at least in the US, can be analyzed by our amendment and constitutional rights, this is our social contract, the foundation of our government and what gives our government it's legitimacy, no? So we can conclude that my two examples given, upon further analyzation, the side I advocated for had constitutional rights, the side I was against did not or the rights they had were arguably vastly inferior. We can also conclude that the subjective moral principal of how one is to be treated is more a "to each his own" issue that doesn't really involve entitlement. I don't believe I'm entitled to be treated a certain way, I have a reactionary outlook on the ideas of respect and fair treatment, if I am given it it will be returned, if not it won't be, although I'll never coerce someone in to treating me a certain way or giving me something that is theirs that they don't want to. So we can conclude that the notion of moral rights on how someone is to be treated is more subjective, whereas the right to private property, and furthermore our sixth amendment rights are integral to upholding the principles our nation was founded upon and to the continuance of our free society. We can see that the right to deny service is deeply rooted in our sixth amendment rights, I will elaborate if need be.

The confusion derives from the entitlement issue. A lot of people believe that even if their 'right' to something involves taking something that is not theirs or depriving someone else of something they are entitled to, that it's still a 'right' and not just a desire.

So, that's certainly one opinion about what "rights" are, but it's based on an ethical and political principle of limited governmental involvement/individual freedom. But, in a practical sense, the "negative" rights you're talking about have never been the only way that we regarded civil liberties in the United States, or western culture, generally.

I am trying to advocate the idea that 'negative' rights are the only rights that exist in the semantic sense. A little maxim for you, if you will:

A. Rights derive from entitlement
B. One cannot have a right to something they are not entitled to
C: Entitlement derives from what you are owed
D. You are only owed things that you earned, and if you did not earn something you are only owed it if it doesn't impose a burden on others
C: Therefore negative rights are the only rights that truly exist

There is some other stuff you said, but I don't really care about it. What you've proffered is certainly "an" opinion, but it's not "the" way that we (the rest of the world) or US law regards rights. As a gay guy, too, it's disappointing to see this kind of nonsense as well... but w/e. After all, it's a free country.

I am looking at it from a more philosophical perspective. It is unfortunate that anyone, including a gay guy would believe that they have rights they are not entitled to. As a libertarian I support your right to equal marriage benefits and many other things that the homosexual group is being denied that are rights, although I find myself advocating less for gay rights nowadays and more often combating the faction of LGBT activists that has this idea (as you do) that they are entitled to rights that involve depriving someone else of their rights.
YYW
Posts: 41,729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2014 8:21:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/14/2014 8:01:49 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 5/14/2014 4:37:45 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/14/2014 11:19:45 AM, Objectivity wrote:
I believe the modern concept of rights has been distorted and some people do not even know what a 'right' is. A right being: a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way.

What a right is depends on who you ask. Fundamentally, a right is an entitlement to be a treated or not treated in a certain way. There are legal rights, which entail duties for others and there are moral/ethical rights, which are established by how we conceive that others ought to be treated. Sometimes there's an overlap between moral/ethical and legal rights, but sometimes not.

I think you bring up an interesting point, but it is not giving justice to a very controversial issue that affects the outlook on most modern civil rights issue we are faced with today, and many other issues. There is a clear distinction between legal rights and moral rights, and if the issue was being looked at from a more neutral concept based on obligations and entitlement, I don't think there would be a problem.

There really isn't a problem, as you frame it in your OP.

Rights, at least in the US, can be analyzed by our amendment and constitutional rights, this is our social contract, the foundation of our government and what gives our government it's legitimacy, no?

After the constitution was ratified, when the Bill of Rights was being debated, the primary objection to its passage was that the framers were afraid that future generations would interpret the BOR as an sufficient list of rights rather than only as a baseline of restraints on governmental infringement on civil liberties. In this way, they anticipated the legalists but the BoR'ers won their day and here we are...

[You said some other stuff, but I don't really care about it. If that bothers you, sorry.]
Trump's Criminal Campaign and Presidency:

http://www.debate.org...

Where we were, on Trump:

http://www.debate.org...

Russia: The Update

http://www.debate.org...
Objectivity
Posts: 1,744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2014 8:29:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/14/2014 8:21:55 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/14/2014 8:01:49 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 5/14/2014 4:37:45 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/14/2014 11:19:45 AM, Objectivity wrote:
I believe the modern concept of rights has been distorted and some people do not even know what a 'right' is. A right being: a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way.

What a right is depends on who you ask. Fundamentally, a right is an entitlement to be a treated or not treated in a certain way. There are legal rights, which entail duties for others and there are moral/ethical rights, which are established by how we conceive that others ought to be treated. Sometimes there's an overlap between moral/ethical and legal rights, but sometimes not.

I think you bring up an interesting point, but it is not giving justice to a very controversial issue that affects the outlook on most modern civil rights issue we are faced with today, and many other issues. There is a clear distinction between legal rights and moral rights, and if the issue was being looked at from a more neutral concept based on obligations and entitlement, I don't think there would be a problem.

There really isn't a problem, as you frame it in your OP.

What, exactly do you mean? The problem I am pointing out is that people, even some modern philosophers, have this notion of 'positive' rights, while I am arguing that technically the only 'rights' that exists are the so called 'negative' rights. That is the problem that needs to be addressed.

Rights, at least in the US, can be analyzed by our amendment and constitutional rights, this is our social contract, the foundation of our government and what gives our government it's legitimacy, no?

After the constitution was ratified, when the Bill of Rights was being debated, the primary objection to its passage was that the framers were afraid that future generations would interpret the BOR as an sufficient list of rights rather than only as a baseline of restraints on governmental infringement on civil liberties. In this way, they anticipated the legalists but the BoR'ers won their day and here we are...

I'd like evidence of this, but even so, while we can assume that (as it is explicit pointed out in the amendments) we have more rights than the respective amendments afford us, the amendment rights are the only rights guaranteed to all US citizens and mos scholars and philosophers would argue that it is indeed our social contract. We only agree to let the government make laws to govern us if we decide who makes these laws and we are allowed to impose restrictions on the laws they make, per the BOR.

[You said some other stuff, but I don't really care about it. If that bothers you, sorry.]

I suppose it only offends me if you are considering this an actual debate rather than a casual discussion where you are addressing points of concern in my argument. If it's the latter, it doesn't bother me.
YYW
Posts: 41,729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2014 8:31:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/14/2014 8:29:11 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 5/14/2014 8:21:55 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/14/2014 8:01:49 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 5/14/2014 4:37:45 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/14/2014 11:19:45 AM, Objectivity wrote:
I believe the modern concept of rights has been distorted and some people do not even know what a 'right' is. A right being: a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way.

What a right is depends on who you ask. Fundamentally, a right is an entitlement to be a treated or not treated in a certain way. There are legal rights, which entail duties for others and there are moral/ethical rights, which are established by how we conceive that others ought to be treated. Sometimes there's an overlap between moral/ethical and legal rights, but sometimes not.

I think you bring up an interesting point, but it is not giving justice to a very controversial issue that affects the outlook on most modern civil rights issue we are faced with today, and many other issues. There is a clear distinction between legal rights and moral rights, and if the issue was being looked at from a more neutral concept based on obligations and entitlement, I don't think there would be a problem.

There really isn't a problem, as you frame it in your OP.

What, exactly do you mean? The problem I am pointing out is that people, even some modern philosophers, have this notion of 'positive' rights, while I am arguing that technically the only 'rights' that exists are the so called 'negative' rights. That is the problem that needs to be addressed.

Your opinion that only negative rights exist is just as much an opinion as the notion that positive rights exist. Your issue is that some (and in fact, many) people don't buy into the way that you see the landscape of rights in political society -and that issue isn't really an issue, where the law or body politic is concerned.
Trump's Criminal Campaign and Presidency:

http://www.debate.org...

Where we were, on Trump:

http://www.debate.org...

Russia: The Update

http://www.debate.org...
Objectivity
Posts: 1,744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2014 9:04:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/14/2014 8:31:58 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/14/2014 8:29:11 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 5/14/2014 8:21:55 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/14/2014 8:01:49 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 5/14/2014 4:37:45 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/14/2014 11:19:45 AM, Objectivity wrote:
I believe the modern concept of rights has been distorted and some people do not even know what a 'right' is. A right being: a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way.

What a right is depends on who you ask. Fundamentally, a right is an entitlement to be a treated or not treated in a certain way. There are legal rights, which entail duties for others and there are moral/ethical rights, which are established by how we conceive that others ought to be treated. Sometimes there's an overlap between moral/ethical and legal rights, but sometimes not.

I think you bring up an interesting point, but it is not giving justice to a very controversial issue that affects the outlook on most modern civil rights issue we are faced with today, and many other issues. There is a clear distinction between legal rights and moral rights, and if the issue was being looked at from a more neutral concept based on obligations and entitlement, I don't think there would be a problem.

There really isn't a problem, as you frame it in your OP.

What, exactly do you mean? The problem I am pointing out is that people, even some modern philosophers, have this notion of 'positive' rights, while I am arguing that technically the only 'rights' that exists are the so called 'negative' rights. That is the problem that needs to be addressed.

Your opinion that only negative rights exist is just as much an opinion as the notion that positive rights exist. Your issue is that some (and in fact, many) people don't buy into the way that you see the landscape of rights in political society -and that issue isn't really an issue, where the law or body politic is concerned.

It's an opinion, sure, but this is a debate website where we debate opinion oriented issues. If your whole point this entire time was that my argument is an opinion, then I am truly baffled at the time both you and myself have wasted. I understand that the notion of rights is controversial and not a simplistic issue, and that is why I am here presenting my opinion about the notion of rights and how in my opinion they are not applicable for the advocates of some of today's civil rights issues and arguments.
YYW
Posts: 41,729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2014 9:05:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/14/2014 9:04:00 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 5/14/2014 8:31:58 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/14/2014 8:29:11 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 5/14/2014 8:21:55 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/14/2014 8:01:49 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 5/14/2014 4:37:45 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/14/2014 11:19:45 AM, Objectivity wrote:
I believe the modern concept of rights has been distorted and some people do not even know what a 'right' is. A right being: a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way.

What a right is depends on who you ask. Fundamentally, a right is an entitlement to be a treated or not treated in a certain way. There are legal rights, which entail duties for others and there are moral/ethical rights, which are established by how we conceive that others ought to be treated. Sometimes there's an overlap between moral/ethical and legal rights, but sometimes not.

I think you bring up an interesting point, but it is not giving justice to a very controversial issue that affects the outlook on most modern civil rights issue we are faced with today, and many other issues. There is a clear distinction between legal rights and moral rights, and if the issue was being looked at from a more neutral concept based on obligations and entitlement, I don't think there would be a problem.

There really isn't a problem, as you frame it in your OP.

What, exactly do you mean? The problem I am pointing out is that people, even some modern philosophers, have this notion of 'positive' rights, while I am arguing that technically the only 'rights' that exists are the so called 'negative' rights. That is the problem that needs to be addressed.

Your opinion that only negative rights exist is just as much an opinion as the notion that positive rights exist. Your issue is that some (and in fact, many) people don't buy into the way that you see the landscape of rights in political society -and that issue isn't really an issue, where the law or body politic is concerned.

It's an opinion, sure, but this is a debate website where we debate opinion oriented issues.

Sure. This is the place to share differing opinions, but that's tangential to what we were originally talking about.

If your whole point this entire time was that my argument is an opinion, then I am truly baffled at the time both you and myself have wasted. I understand that the notion of rights is controversial and not a simplistic issue, and that is why I am here presenting my opinion about the notion of rights and how in my opinion they are not applicable for the advocates of some of today's civil rights issues and arguments.

lol... w/e
Trump's Criminal Campaign and Presidency:

http://www.debate.org...

Where we were, on Trump:

http://www.debate.org...

Russia: The Update

http://www.debate.org...
Objectivity
Posts: 1,744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2014 9:10:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/14/2014 9:05:08 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/14/2014 9:04:00 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 5/14/2014 8:31:58 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/14/2014 8:29:11 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 5/14/2014 8:21:55 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/14/2014 8:01:49 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 5/14/2014 4:37:45 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/14/2014 11:19:45 AM, Objectivity wrote:
I believe the modern concept of rights has been distorted and some people do not even know what a 'right' is. A right being: a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way.

What a right is depends on who you ask. Fundamentally, a right is an entitlement to be a treated or not treated in a certain way. There are legal rights, which entail duties for others and there are moral/ethical rights, which are established by how we conceive that others ought to be treated. Sometimes there's an overlap between moral/ethical and legal rights, but sometimes not.

I think you bring up an interesting point, but it is not giving justice to a very controversial issue that affects the outlook on most modern civil rights issue we are faced with today, and many other issues. There is a clear distinction between legal rights and moral rights, and if the issue was being looked at from a more neutral concept based on obligations and entitlement, I don't think there would be a problem.

There really isn't a problem, as you frame it in your OP.

What, exactly do you mean? The problem I am pointing out is that people, even some modern philosophers, have this notion of 'positive' rights, while I am arguing that technically the only 'rights' that exists are the so called 'negative' rights. That is the problem that needs to be addressed.

Your opinion that only negative rights exist is just as much an opinion as the notion that positive rights exist. Your issue is that some (and in fact, many) people don't buy into the way that you see the landscape of rights in political society -and that issue isn't really an issue, where the law or body politic is concerned.

It's an opinion, sure, but this is a debate website where we debate opinion oriented issues.

Sure. This is the place to share differing opinions, but that's tangential to what we were originally talking about.

But you are presupposing that I asserted my argument as fact, which I never did. I stated that I do not believe in the notion of positive rights and have spent time arguing the point that the only rights that truly exist are negative rights. That is my opinion, sure, it is a controversial opinion, sure, but I don't see why that detracts from it's legitimacy as an opinion.

If your whole point this entire time was that my argument is an opinion, then I am truly baffled at the time both you and myself have wasted. I understand that the notion of rights is controversial and not a simplistic issue, and that is why I am here presenting my opinion about the notion of rights and how in my opinion they are not applicable for the advocates of some of today's civil rights issues and arguments.

lol... w/e

-facedesk-
YYW
Posts: 41,729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2014 9:11:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/14/2014 9:10:45 PM, Objectivity wrote:
-facedesk-

haha, dude... me too!
Trump's Criminal Campaign and Presidency:

http://www.debate.org...

Where we were, on Trump:

http://www.debate.org...

Russia: The Update

http://www.debate.org...
bsh1
Posts: 28,400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2014 9:14:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/14/2014 11:19:45 AM, Objectivity wrote:
I believe the modern concept of rights has been distorted and some people do not even know what a 'right' is. A right being: a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way.

The confusion derives from the entitlement issue. A lot of people believe that even if their 'right' to something involves taking something that is not theirs or depriving someone else of something they are entitled to, that it's still a 'right' and not just a desire. For example, the current debate surrounding denying service based on immutable characteristics, the side that is against this commonly advocates their argument based on 'rights'. This includes democrats stating that denying gays service is an infringement on their 'rights'. The absurdity surrounding this is that their entitlement derives from nothing as it is not their product, property or business, and therefore they are not entitled to be on the property, make use of someone's services, or purchase their goods. Their entitlement derives from nothing as none of the things being denied to them are theirs in the first place. The same applies to the 'right' to healthcare, the entitlement derives from nothing if it means you are receiving healthcare on someone else's dollar, it's essentially asserting that you have the right to someone else's money.

This is very similar to Nozick's notion of "right," where he views taxation as, essentially, slavery.

However, I would question the underlying premise. Why can I not be entitled to your money?

Let us say that you and I sign a contract whereby I agree to mow your lawn in exchange for $50. As long as I fulfill my side of the bargain (mowing the lawn), I am entitled to you money.

Now, let's blow this up onto a larger scale. Let us assume that we are all part of a social contract, one which guarantees everyone equal treatment, healthcare, due process of law, etc. In exchange for these benefits, the population pools money so that these guarantees can be provided. These are the terms of the contract.

In this example, I am entitled to your money, insofar as I am entitled to healthcare which you agreed to pay for, in part. I also have a right to be served anywhere, even though I am gay, because the parties to the contract agreed that equal treatment should be provided to all parties.

Basically, we can say that in totally free, anarchic condition, you may be right. But how do we determine what one is entitled to absent society? Society sets some norms for us that determine this, whether by social contract or mutual consensus. Our society has agreed that I, as a gay man, have the right not to be denied service as a result of my sexual orientation.
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

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...

Summertime Tournament: http://www.debate.org...
Objectivity
Posts: 1,744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2014 9:16:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/14/2014 9:11:52 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/14/2014 9:10:45 PM, Objectivity wrote:
-facedesk-

haha, dude... me too!

can't tell if trolling, or simply not motivated enough to seriously address me points.

im assuming you're not stupid because it doesn't seem like you are

oh well, qq
YYW
Posts: 41,729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2014 9:17:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/14/2014 9:16:17 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 5/14/2014 9:11:52 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/14/2014 9:10:45 PM, Objectivity wrote:
-facedesk-

haha, dude... me too!

can't tell if trolling, or simply not motivated enough to seriously address me points.

im assuming you're not stupid because it doesn't seem like you are

oh well, qq

I'm tired and I don't feel like wearing my professor hat tonight...
Trump's Criminal Campaign and Presidency:

http://www.debate.org...

Where we were, on Trump:

http://www.debate.org...

Russia: The Update

http://www.debate.org...
Objectivity
Posts: 1,744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2014 9:33:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/14/2014 9:14:45 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 5/14/2014 11:19:45 AM, Objectivity wrote:
I believe the modern concept of rights has been distorted and some people do not even know what a 'right' is. A right being: a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way.

The confusion derives from the entitlement issue. A lot of people believe that even if their 'right' to something involves taking something that is not theirs or depriving someone else of something they are entitled to, that it's still a 'right' and not just a desire. For example, the current debate surrounding denying service based on immutable characteristics, the side that is against this commonly advocates their argument based on 'rights'. This includes democrats stating that denying gays service is an infringement on their 'rights'. The absurdity surrounding this is that their entitlement derives from nothing as it is not their product, property or business, and therefore they are not entitled to be on the property, make use of someone's services, or purchase their goods. Their entitlement derives from nothing as none of the things being denied to them are theirs in the first place. The same applies to the 'right' to healthcare, the entitlement derives from nothing if it means you are receiving healthcare on someone else's dollar, it's essentially asserting that you have the right to someone else's money.

This is very similar to Nozick's notion of "right," where he views taxation as, essentially, slavery.

From a philosophical and logical perspective, I'd tend to agree, although for practical reasons I recognize the necessity of government and even the redistribution of wealth through services on a small scale, hence my libertarian ideology.

However, I would question the underlying premise. Why can I not be entitled to your money?

Let us say that you and I sign a contract whereby I agree to mow your lawn in exchange for $50. As long as I fulfill my side of the bargain (mowing the lawn), I am entitled to you money.

Per my maxim used before, you would earn this money because you earned it by fulfilling your end of a contract we both consciously agreed to.

Now, let's blow this up onto a larger scale. Let us assume that we are all part of a social contract, one which guarantees everyone equal treatment, healthcare, due process of law, etc. In exchange for these benefits, the population pools money so that these guarantees can be provided. These are the terms of the contract.

This social contract that you speak of can be interpreted many different ways. To me our sole social contract is our constitution and BOR's. What you are advocating for are collective rights, that as a society each individual has an obligation to fulfill to ensure certain 'positive' rights are given to all people. I am not even necessarily disagreeing that there is a social contract that exists in our society, possibly even more than the BOR and constitution, but what I am advocating for today is changing that social contract, not attempting to negate it's legitimacy as a whole. My view is that our social contract should encompass this definition of rights I am advocating for. May I also point out that social contract in the sense you are advocating for it has no legitimacy, as I cannot really consent to this contract. Sure, you can argue that there is implied consent if I choose to live in this country, but I would retort with my established definition of rights, leaving the country would impose a burden on me so you could gain something you aren't entitled to (because you didn't earn it) in the first place.

In this example, I am entitled to your money, insofar as I am entitled to healthcare which you agreed to pay for, in part. I also have a right to be served anywhere, even though I am gay, because the parties to the contract agreed that equal treatment should be provided to all parties.

Above. Essentially, unless we made up physical (not abstract) contracts for each individual to consent to, the social contract is invalid since the consent is implied based on the notion that because I decide to stay in my country, any rule or restriction my government imposes on me must be legitimate and just, this is basically the logic of those who use social contract to justify positive rights.

Basically, we can say that in totally free, anarchic condition, you may be right. But how do we determine what one is entitled to absent society? Society sets some norms for us that determine this, whether by social contract or mutual consensus. Our society has agreed that I, as a gay man, have the right not to be denied service as a result of my sexual orientation.

As mentioned above, we cannot assume that just because I live in this country any rule or burden imposed on me through the notion of 'positive' rights must be legitimate. That could be used to justify a whole slew of ugly things that would annihilate individual rights absolutely.
Objectivity
Posts: 1,744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2014 9:36:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I am entitled to live in this country because it doesn't impose a burden on anyone else (certain byproducts might, varying based on my socioeconomic and physical conditions, but simply the act of living in this country does not), however imposing a controversial social contract on me does impose a burden on me.
bsh1
Posts: 28,400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2014 9:43:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/14/2014 9:33:46 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 5/14/2014 9:14:45 PM, bsh1 wrote:

However, I would question the underlying premise. Why can I not be entitled to your money?

Let us say that you and I sign a contract whereby I agree to mow your lawn in exchange for $50. As long as I fulfill my side of the bargain (mowing the lawn), I am entitled to you money.

Per my maxim used before, you would earn this money because you earned it by fulfilling your end of a contract we both consciously agreed to.

Yes, so by fulfilling my obligations under the social contract, I have earned my promise returns (be they healthcare or equality).

Now, let's blow this up onto a larger scale. Let us assume that we are all part of a social contract, one which guarantees everyone equal treatment, healthcare, due process of law, etc. In exchange for these benefits, the population pools money so that these guarantees can be provided. These are the terms of the contract.

This social contract that you speak of can be interpreted many different ways. To me our sole social contract is our constitution and BOR's. What you are advocating for are collective rights, that as a society each individual has an obligation to fulfill to ensure certain 'positive' rights are given to all people.

I think there is an expectation of certain positive expectations in society. If my nation guarantees me a right to property, we can expect that the nation is permitted to tax people to support a police force to protect those rights.

Similarly, if my nation grants me a right to health care, we can expect that it can tax people to uphold that right.

I am not even necessarily disagreeing that there is a social contract that exists in our society, possibly even more than the BOR and constitution, but what I am advocating for today is changing that social contract, not attempting to negate it's legitimacy as a whole. My view is that our social contract should encompass this definition of rights I am advocating for.

I think that would be regressive. There are myriad problems with Nozick's philosophy that could consume a whole other thread.

May I also point out that social contract in the sense you are advocating for it has no legitimacy, as I cannot really consent to this contract. Sure, you can argue that there is implied consent if I choose to live in this country, but I would retort with my established definition of rights, leaving the country would impose a burden on me so you could gain something you aren't entitled to (because you didn't earn it) in the first place.

I think that there is implied consent. The burden is on you. Nationality is an opt-out, not an opt-in. The burden imposed is not unreasonable, and therefore not unjustified.

In this example, I am entitled to your money, insofar as I am entitled to healthcare which you agreed to pay for, in part. I also have a right to be served anywhere, even though I am gay, because the parties to the contract agreed that equal treatment should be provided to all parties.

Above. Essentially, unless we made up physical (not abstract) contracts for each individual to consent to, the social contract is invalid since the consent is implied based on the notion that because I decide to stay in my country, any rule or restriction my government imposes on me must be legitimate and just, this is basically the logic of those who use social contract to justify positive rights.

Let's move beyond the social contract. You seem to be ascribing to a naturalistic view of rights. How would you respond to the claim that rights cannot exist absent society?
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

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...

Summertime Tournament: http://www.debate.org...
Objectivity
Posts: 1,744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2014 10:11:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/14/2014 9:43:55 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 5/14/2014 9:33:46 PM, Objectivity wrote:
At 5/14/2014 9:14:45 PM, bsh1 wrote:

However, I would question the underlying premise. Why can I not be entitled to your money?

Let us say that you and I sign a contract whereby I agree to mow your lawn in exchange for $50. As long as I fulfill my side of the bargain (mowing the lawn), I am entitled to you money.

Per my maxim used before, you would earn this money because you earned it by fulfilling your end of a contract we both consciously agreed to.

Yes, so by fulfilling my obligations under the social contract, I have earned my promise returns (be they healthcare or equality).

It isn't a social contract, it isn't abstract, there is a conscious agreement between two parties to fulfill an obligation. There is a distinction, seeing as how under this abstract social contract, the consent it implied based on controversial, and in my opinion illogical pretenses.

Now, let's blow this up onto a larger scale. Let us assume that we are all part of a social contract, one which guarantees everyone equal treatment, healthcare, due process of law, etc. In exchange for these benefits, the population pools money so that these guarantees can be provided. These are the terms of the contract.

This social contract that you speak of can be interpreted many different ways. To me our sole social contract is our constitution and BOR's. What you are advocating for are collective rights, that as a society each individual has an obligation to fulfill to ensure certain 'positive' rights are given to all people.

I think there is an expectation of certain positive expectations in society. If my nation guarantees me a right to property, we can expect that the nation is permitted to tax people to support a police force to protect those rights.

Similarly, if my nation grants me a right to health care, we can expect that it can tax people to uphold that right.

There is a distinction, I am advocating today that the only duty of government should be to protect negative rights, these are rights that inherently do not involve violating someone else's rights. Me owning a piece of land that was created by either intelligent design or the big bang theory or whatever else you believe in doesn't impose a burden on you. Me developing that land doesn't impose a burden on you. Me selling that land doesn't impose a burden on you. On the other hand, you having healthcare that involves someone providing you services and giving you medical products does impose a burden on them that is offset by the price they charge for that product or service. Asking me to pay for these products or services is imposing a burden on me. The point is that no one has a right to take away my property because it's mine, I'm entitled to it, so we form this government to ensure that no one takes from me what I am entitled to. I am arguing that no one is entitled to healthcare, something can't be taken away from you that isn't yours in the first place.

I am not even necessarily disagreeing that there is a social contract that exists in our society, possibly even more than the BOR and constitution, but what I am advocating for today is changing that social contract, not attempting to negate it's legitimacy as a whole. My view is that our social contract should encompass this definition of rights I am advocating for.

I think that would be regressive. There are myriad problems with Nozick's philosophy that could consume a whole other thread.

Not necessarily disagreeing with you, but I am advocating for my own personalized version of his philosophy.

May I also point out that social contract in the sense you are advocating for it has no legitimacy, as I cannot really consent to this contract. Sure, you can argue that there is implied consent if I choose to live in this country, but I would retort with my established definition of rights, leaving the country would impose a burden on me so you could gain something you aren't entitled to (because you didn't earn it) in the first place.

I think that there is implied consent. The burden is on you. Nationality is an opt-out, not an opt-in. The burden imposed is not unreasonable, and therefore not unjustified.

As stated below, your argument basically asserts that because I choose to live in my country, any rules and restrictions imposed on me must be legitimate and just because I could just leave if I didn't like them. I cannot help where I am born, I was born here and am therefore a naturalized citizen here, making me leave because you want desires fulfilled that you are not entitled to imposes a burden on me.

In this example, I am entitled to your money, insofar as I am entitled to healthcare which you agreed to pay for, in part. I also have a right to be served anywhere, even though I am gay, because the parties to the contract agreed that equal treatment should be provided to all parties.

Above. Essentially, unless we made up physical (not abstract) contracts for each individual to consent to, the social contract is invalid since the consent is implied based on the notion that because I decide to stay in my country, any rule or restriction my government imposes on me must be legitimate and just, this is basically the logic of those who use social contract to justify positive rights.

Let's move beyond the social contract. You seem to be ascribing to a naturalistic view of rights. How would you respond to the claim that rights cannot exist absent society

Could you elaborate so I can be sure that I am giving a clear and concise response to your statement?