Total Posts:123|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Rights

Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2010 1:39:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
This is probably old hat, but from whence are rights derived, on what are they based?

Is it that we decide that human happiness is the highest virtue, that a mutual recognition of such rights is one of the best ways to acheive it?

Is it simply to appease our 'innate' sense of empathy?

Is it that we decide that sentience is the virtue, and that sentience deserves rights|
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2010 1:49:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
For me... it's mainly this one:

At 9/10/2010 1:39:20 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Is it simply to appease our 'innate' sense of empathy?


and a little bit this one sometimes:
Is it that we decide that human happiness is the highest virtue, that a mutual recognition of such rights is one of the best ways to acheive it?
though then the "rights" are more conditional on the state of affairs... and not due to that thing which your "granting" rights to... but dependent upon the power relations between the two of you... more like a "truce".. or a deal than what you usually think of when you think of "rights"

Is it that we decide that sentience is the virtue, and that sentience deserves rights|

Not I.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2010 1:50:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/10/2010 1:39:20 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
This is probably old hat, but from whence are rights derived, on what are they based?


Everyone is born with rights, human and animal. Some grow to obtain more or less based on actions.

Is it that we decide that human happiness is the highest virtue, that a mutual recognition of such rights is one of the best ways to acheive it?


Everybody living happy healthy lives is the ultimate goal. If you want rights you respect others, if you infringe on some, even without laws society would start to crumble and decay and your own happiness and/or life would be lost.

Is it simply to appease our 'innate' sense of empathy?


To a degree. I suppose it is. Empaathy is a survival instinct. For a species to prosper the organisms in that population cannot be completely selfish or everyone ends up dying. Since everybody is inherently selfish to different degrees they are also inherently empathetic.

Is it that we decide that sentience is the virtue, and that sentience deserves rights|

Hmm I suppose its a virtue, but do you mean that sentience deserves rights, or that it creates rights?
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2010 2:06:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Well to you all rights are arbitrary.

The rights one chooses are based on 3 maxims.

>Ones individual best interest
>Unitarianism, Maximum Utility/Pareto efficiency. (radical or not radical)
>Biocentric, Pacifist - avoids all infringements on liberty as possible.

They all follow the categorical imperative, or at least the first formulation.

Now guess what each user on DDO values or what ideologies each represents fiscally.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2010 2:08:22 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/10/2010 1:39:20 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
This is probably old hat, but from whence are rights derived, on what are they based?

From a natural rights perspective:

Each human being owns his or her own body. Since people own themselves, they are responsible for their actions. (In other words, they "own" their actions) Owning one's actions implies owning the consequences of one's actions. For example, if you beat someone up, you should be held responsible for that action. Conversely, if you create something through your actions, you own it.

That is essentially how property rights are derived, and all other rights are contained within property rights.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2010 2:12:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/10/2010 2:08:22 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 9/10/2010 1:39:20 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
This is probably old hat, but from whence are rights derived, on what are they based?

From a natural rights perspective:

Each human being owns his or her own body. Since people own themselves, they are responsible for their actions. (In other words, they "own" their actions) Owning one's actions implies owning the consequences of one's actions. For example, if you beat someone up, you should be held responsible for that action. Conversely, if you create something through your actions, you own it.

That is essentially how property rights are derived, and all other rights are contained within property rights.

>Ones individual best interest.

Don't do it, C_N.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2010 2:16:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/10/2010 1:50:23 PM, lovelife wrote:
At 9/10/2010 1:39:20 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
This is probably old hat, but from whence are rights derived, on what are they based?


Everyone is born with rights, human and animal. Some grow to obtain more or less based on actions.

False. http://www.debate.org...
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2010 2:30:59 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/10/2010 2:16:23 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 9/10/2010 1:50:23 PM, lovelife wrote:
At 9/10/2010 1:39:20 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
This is probably old hat, but from whence are rights derived, on what are they based?


Everyone is born with rights, human and animal. Some grow to obtain more or less based on actions.

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

A debate is not a reliable source. Sorry I didn't look at it really because votes mean nothing since its all individuals' thoughts and bias.

Humans are born with the right to live and obtain happiness, and be treated correctly.
Animals have the same rights.
With life comes death. Perhaps the most natural of all is for food.
If there was something higher on the food chain then us they would have the right to eat us and it would not be an infringements on one's rights, it would be life.

Chilren grow and through good deeds obtain more rights. Through bad deeds they lose rights.
Same with animals.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2010 2:36:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/10/2010 2:30:59 PM, lovelife wrote:
At 9/10/2010 2:16:23 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 9/10/2010 1:50:23 PM, lovelife wrote:
At 9/10/2010 1:39:20 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
This is probably old hat, but from whence are rights derived, on what are they based?


Everyone is born with rights, human and animal. Some grow to obtain more or less based on actions.

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

A debate is not a reliable source. Sorry I didn't look at it really because votes mean nothing since its all individuals' thoughts and bias.

Each debate comes with sources, shockingly.


Humans are born with the right to live and obtain happiness, and be treated correctly.
Animals have the same rights.

False. Humans are not the same as humans. Animals cannot have rights as rights require both parties to recognise said rights, which animals cannot do.

With life comes death. Perhaps the most natural of all is for food.
If there was something higher on the food chain then us they would have the right to eat us and it would not be an infringements on one's rights, it would be life.


A creature higher than us? We are technically the highest creature on the food chain. We have the right to kill animals so long as they are not anyones property, or on anyones property.

Chilren grow and through good deeds obtain more rights. Through bad deeds they lose rights.

That's a very childish way of operating. What are good deeds? What are bad deeds?

Same with animals.

Animals can't recognise a good or a bad deed. Furthermore, are we gonna track EVERY animal and tally each ones individually to track their rights, and if a hunter infringes of aniamls Xs' right they will get arrested, but infringing on Y's is no big deal.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2010 2:37:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/10/2010 2:36:55 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 9/10/2010 2:30:59 PM, lovelife wrote:
At 9/10/2010 2:16:23 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 9/10/2010 1:50:23 PM, lovelife wrote:
At 9/10/2010 1:39:20 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:


Humans are born with the right to live and obtain happiness, and be treated correctly.
Animals have the same rights.

False. Animals are not the same as humans. Animals cannot have rights as rights require both parties to recognise said rights, which animals cannot do.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2010 2:43:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Rights are born out of what it is you require, and what recognition you can get for those requirements.

Essentially, rights are simply what I claim to be in my purview, for example, my right to property, my right to free speech, my right to free association, my right to believe what I wish, my right to exit (from country, from relationship, etc.), and on it goes.

However, it's easy to claim something as a "right," but a little more difficult to get recognition for that right. And without recognition, rights carry little weight, as recognition is what makes those rights legitimate to others, and given that rights are what you're saying is yours separate from the purview and power of others, you can't have a legitimate right without recognition.

This is what makes rights more than a little hard to pin down, as by their very nature they're subjective and usually conditional. However, rights are a very real idea - they're the claims, grievances, and motivations for every single human on the planet. Kind of hard to ignore them, eh.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2010 2:46:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/10/2010 2:30:59 PM, lovelife wrote:
At 9/10/2010 2:16:23 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 9/10/2010 1:50:23 PM, lovelife wrote:
At 9/10/2010 1:39:20 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
This is probably old hat, but from whence are rights derived, on what are they based?


Everyone is born with rights, human and animal. Some grow to obtain more or less based on actions.

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

A debate is not a reliable source. Sorry I didn't look at it really because votes mean nothing since its all individuals' thoughts and bias.

STOP. Why isn't a debate a reliable source? TheSkeptic is a philosophy major, I'd say his thoughts on the matter carry some weight.

Humans are born with the right to live and obtain happiness, and be treated correctly.
Animals have the same rights.

LOL!

With life comes death. Perhaps the most natural of all is for food.
If there was something higher on the food chain then us they would have the right to eat us and it would not be an infringements on one's rights, it would be life.

So when I try to feed you to a grizzly bear, you won't object?

Chilren grow and through good deeds obtain more rights. Through bad deeds they lose rights.

Actually, I kind of agree with this.

Same with animals.

What actions could animals possibly perform to justify giving them "rights?"
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2010 2:49:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/10/2010 2:48:06 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I just want to point out that animals seem to have some kind of rights since abusing them is usually a criminal offence.

Begging the question.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2010 2:51:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/10/2010 2:48:06 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I just want to point out that animals seem to have some kind of rights since abusing them is usually a criminal offence.

That doesn't make them correct.

It depends on the "abuse"; it's a minor criminal offence.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2010 2:52:59 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/10/2010 2:49:32 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 9/10/2010 2:48:06 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I just want to point out that animals seem to have some kind of rights since abusing them is usually a criminal offence.

Begging the question.

No, an appeal to law is not begging the question.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2010 2:53:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/10/2010 2:52:49 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 9/10/2010 2:48:18 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
Lovelife, why must I value animal life?
Without them, you would not be here.
O rly?
'sup DDO -- july 2013
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2010 2:54:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Obviously does not understand.

At 9/10/2010 2:36:55 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 9/10/2010 2:30:59 PM, lovelife wrote:
At 9/10/2010 2:16:23 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 9/10/2010 1:50:23 PM, lovelife wrote:
At 9/10/2010 1:39:20 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
This is probably old hat, but from whence are rights derived, on what are they based?


Everyone is born with rights, human and animal. Some grow to obtain more or less based on actions.

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

A debate is not a reliable source. Sorry I didn't look at it really because votes mean nothing since its all individuals' thoughts and bias.

Each debate comes with sources, shockingly.


Cite the sources, not the debate.


Humans are born with the right to live and obtain happiness, and be treated correctly.
Animals have the same rights.

False. Humans are not the same as humans. Animals cannot have rights as rights require both parties to recognise said rights, which animals cannot do.


Not really. Small children don't recognise their's and others' rights. They don't even believe other people feel until a certain stage. Can we skin them alive and perform tests on them then? They don't have rights as they can't recognise them, so don't matter.

With life comes death. Perhaps the most natural of all is for food.
If there was something higher on the food chain then us they would have the right to eat us and it would not be an infringements on one's rights, it would be life.


A creature higher than us? We are technically the highest creature on the food chain. We have the right to kill animals so long as they are not anyones property, or on anyones property.


Animals are not property, that is an outdated mindset.
I never said there was a creature hgher than us jst that if it ate humans, that does not infringe on any of said rights, its part of nature. Nature is where all rights derive. That none is created any less or more important than others, but through works gains more rights, responsibility, and respect.

Chilren grow and through good deeds obtain more rights. Through bad deeds they lose rights.

That's a very childish way of operating. What are good deeds? What are bad deeds?


What do you mean? Its as simple as to maintain the basic rights, you live by the law. If you break the law you lose rights. If you give more you get more.

Same with animals.

Animals can't recognise a good or a bad deed.

Yes they can, and they can commit good and bad.

Furthermore, are we gonna track EVERY animal and tally each ones individually to track their rights, and if a hunter infringes of aniamls Xs' right they will get arrested, but infringing on Y's is no big deal.

No, and my example of some being higher on the food chain than us addressed that issue...
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2010 2:54:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/10/2010 2:53:43 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 9/10/2010 2:52:49 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 9/10/2010 2:48:18 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
Lovelife, why must I value animal life?
Without them, you would not be here.
O rly?
Yes.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2010 2:55:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/10/2010 2:54:56 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 9/10/2010 2:53:43 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 9/10/2010 2:52:49 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 9/10/2010 2:48:18 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
Lovelife, why must I value animal life?
Without them, you would not be here.
O rly?
Yes.
How so?
'sup DDO -- july 2013
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2010 2:57:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/10/2010 2:52:59 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 9/10/2010 2:49:32 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 9/10/2010 2:48:06 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I just want to point out that animals seem to have some kind of rights since abusing them is usually a criminal offence.

Begging the question.

No, an appeal to law is not begging the question.

Um, yes when you're discussing whether or not something should be a law, merely saying that something is the law is a pretty clear cut case of begging the question.
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2010 2:58:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/10/2010 2:51:17 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 9/10/2010 2:48:06 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I just want to point out that animals seem to have some kind of rights since abusing them is usually a criminal offence.

That doesn't make them correct.

It depends on the "abuse"; it's a minor criminal offence.

It should be the same amount of offense as child abuse. Some of what people do to animals because they can't be bothered to be ethical sickens me, and I include PETA lady in that.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2010 3:00:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/10/2010 2:55:45 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 9/10/2010 2:54:56 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 9/10/2010 2:53:43 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 9/10/2010 2:52:49 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 9/10/2010 2:48:18 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
Lovelife, why must I value animal life?
Without them, you would not be here.
O rly?
Yes.
How so?
Environmental/ecological cycles. Animal species are dependent on each other.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2010 3:01:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/10/2010 2:54:56 PM, lovelife wrote:
Obviously does not understand.


At 9/10/2010 2:36:55 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 9/10/2010 2:30:59 PM, lovelife wrote:
At 9/10/2010 2:16:23 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 9/10/2010 1:50:23 PM, lovelife wrote:
At 9/10/2010 1:39:20 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
This is probably old hat, but from whence are rights derived, on what are they based?


Everyone is born with rights, human and animal. Some grow to obtain more or less based on actions.

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

A debate is not a reliable source. Sorry I didn't look at it really because votes mean nothing since its all individuals' thoughts and bias.

Each debate comes with sources, shockingly.


Cite the sources, not the debate.

Skeptic is also a Philosophy Major. Appeal to authority.



Humans are born with the right to live and obtain happiness, and be treated correctly.
Animals have the same rights.

False. Humans are not the same as humans. Animals cannot have rights as rights require both parties to recognise said rights, which animals cannot do.


Not really. Small children don't recognise their's and others' rights. They don't even believe other people feel until a certain stage. Can we skin them alive and perform tests on them then? They don't have rights as they can't recognise them, so don't matter.

They have guardians, or parents, who are burdened with the responsibility of looking after their rights. The difference is these children will become rational beings, animals won't and never will.


With life comes death. Perhaps the most natural of all is for food.
If there was something higher on the food chain then us they would have the right to eat us and it would not be an infringements on one's rights, it would be life.


A creature higher than us? We are technically the highest creature on the food chain. We have the right to kill animals so long as they are not anyones property, or on anyones property.


Animals are not property, that is an outdated mindset.

Animals are property. They can't recognise any rights we can bestow upon them. They can't enter mutual agreements. Any form of ownership must be in the form of property. This is especially crucial for livestock farmers.

I never said there was a creature hgher than us jst that if it ate humans, that does not infringe on any of said rights, its part of nature. Nature is where all rights derive. That none is created any less or more important than others, but through works gains more rights, responsibility, and respect.

A rational creature eating another rational creature? Both creatures can recognise eachothers rights, where's the issue?


Chilren grow and through good deeds obtain more rights. Through bad deeds they lose rights.

That's a very childish way of operating. What are good deeds? What are bad deeds?


What do you mean? Its as simple as to maintain the basic rights, you live by the law. If you break the law you lose rights. If you give more you get more.

That presumes people start with a set of rights that are limited. I can only gain rights by obeying rights over time? That retarded, so I only gain the right to say, have sex, at 21 when I've observed my very limited set of rights?


Same with animals.

Animals can't recognise a good or a bad deed.

Yes they can, and they can commit good and bad.

They can't recognise these acts. Many animas commit bad deeds but are completley unaware of it being bad, good, neutral, whatever.


Furthermore, are we gonna track EVERY animal and tally each ones individually to track their rights, and if a hunter infringes of aniamls Xs' right they will get arrested, but infringing on Y's is no big deal.

No, and my example of some being higher on the food chain than us addressed that issue...

No, no it didn't.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2010 3:11:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/10/2010 2:57:06 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 9/10/2010 2:52:59 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 9/10/2010 2:49:32 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 9/10/2010 2:48:06 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I just want to point out that animals seem to have some kind of rights since abusing them is usually a criminal offence.

Begging the question.

No, an appeal to law is not begging the question.

Um, yes when you're discussing whether or not something should be a law, merely saying that something is the law is a pretty clear cut case of begging the question.

It was in termed for her own rhetoric, a self reflection. It wasn't necessarily a directed argument to anyone or questioning what anyone believes. I was on whether the rights existed. I quote:
I just want to point out that animals seem to have some kind of rights since abusing them is usually a criminal offence.

lol.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2010 3:12:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/10/2010 2:58:44 PM, lovelife wrote:
At 9/10/2010 2:51:17 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 9/10/2010 2:48:06 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I just want to point out that animals seem to have some kind of rights since abusing them is usually a criminal offence.

That doesn't make them correct.

It depends on the "abuse"; it's a minor criminal offence.

It should be the same amount of offense as child abuse. Some of what people do to animals because they can't be bothered to be ethical sickens me, and I include PETA lady in that.

lol, Pro choice people that can't be bothered to be ethical sicken me.

Do I have to care?
'sup DDO -- july 2013
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2010 5:19:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/10/2010 1:39:20 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
This is probably old hat, but from whence are rights derived, on what are they based?

Is it that we decide that human happiness is the highest virtue, that a mutual recognition of such rights is one of the best ways to acheive it?

Is it simply to appease our 'innate' sense of empathy?

Is it that we decide that sentience is the virtue, and that sentience deserves rights|

Rights are created by human beings to achieve a higher standard of living. The path to create the correct rights is one of trial and error. Anything with the ability to feel pleasure and displeasure deserves rights.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord