If rights, whither from?

[midcan5]

Rights are ideas, abstractions, that form a part of our conscious being. It doesn't even seem necessary to enumerate them as from the perceptive of the conscious agent we recognize situations as fitting or not. Meeting head on on any path requires compromise. But significantly we both affirm and extend rights as social creatures to all including the infirm or injured. I am wondering if life itself is the source of any discussion of rights we could all agree on, whither animal rights? Or the care of the planet on which they reside?

Human Rights: History of the Bill of Rights

"The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was created following the Holocaust during World War II. The sheer atrocities committed by the Nazis through the enslavement and annihilation of Jews in Europe caused the world to cry out for justice. The Holocaust changed the worldview on human rights. Prior to the war, human rights were initially considered a "domestic concern"; they were to be enforced by only the governments of individual countries. This view shifted during the war, as human rights were then considered a "universal concern"; they were to be a concern for every person. By the end of the war, the world as a whole felt the need for the security of inalienable human rights."

International Law

 

[editec]

Your faith that your rights are INalineable or (if you prefer to speak in 18th century English? UNalienable) is based on your faith that your soul exists and that GOD has granted you those inalienable rights even (but not ONLY, which is why we are having this debate, really) after death.

That your soul may be endowed by the creator with inalienable rights may be true in some cosmic sense.

But your earthy body is subject to the visicitudes of earthly outcomes.

I am just humble enough to suggest to you that I am wholly unqualified (and I believe that you are, too) to address the legal nicities of Heavenly law.

Now perhaps when we are in that heavenly sphere, we can discuss what rights you and I have there.

Until that happy time, QW, you and I are pretty much stuck dealing with the world as we find it, not as you and I would like it to be.

The DEAD have no EARTHLY rights.

Pretty simple, really.

My faith in rights has nothing to do with God, you are assuming facts not in evidence.

Then in that case you are TRULY making no sense.

You assert that you have rights that are NOT alienable.

You offer no evidence that that is true, yet assert that your thinking isn't based on MAGICAL THINKING.

I will state categorically that I do not have an immortal soul, and neither does anyone else. Some people believe they do, but I believe they are wrong. How can my faith in rights be based on something I do not believe I have?

If you want to discuss my rights with me, feel free. If you want to discuss them with someone who believes that they have a soul, feel free there also, just do not expect that person to be me.

We cannot discuss anything rationally if you are unwilling support your claims with some logic.

Show me a RIGHT you THINK you have that I cannot take away from you.

To date you have Not done that.

You have taken the stance of a contrarian.

Yours is the argumentitive tactic of a freaking five year old.

It's the "No it not" means of debate.

Ergo, your argument to date is entirely lacking in any logic that anyone can discuss rationally.

And every time this debate manifests, we see exatly the same contrarian technique to support that specious claim.

Your superpower here is nothing but either your inability to even understand what a the lgic of debate requires, or your superpower here is sheer mendacity -- if you understand that and are simply refusing to acknowledge that you have made no logical argument.

I don't think you're stupid.

I merely think you're in childish denial in face of the logical arguments brought before you by pretty much every poster here.

 

[Intense]

How would that stop me from pursuing happiness? I think it might help, as I would be able to ignore the distractions that make me angry, purge my body of poisons, and loose some weight.

There is no way you can take away my right to pursue happiness.

Yeah right.

Any nitwit with a gun can end that pursuit, eaily enough.

The dead have no rights, sport.

People keep insisting that is true, I wonder why.

Neither do convicted felons.

Wanna bet?

That depends, On paper or in the real world???

 

[Intense]

Yeah right.

Any nitwit with a gun can end that pursuit, eaily enough.

The dead have no rights, sport.

Neither do convicted felons.

8th amendment

Prisoners' Rights | American Civil Liberties Union

On paper, yes. The same source that is supposed to protect innocent life, but too often comes up short, even if by no fault of it's own.

 

[Smartt33]

Rights come from God. They can't come from anywhere else.

Is there any non-theological argument for human rights?

I'll take that as a 'no'. You realize, of course, that means you have no rights unless you can prove your particular god exists.

If rights are individual, they are created within one's own being. That means that everyone has whatever rights they feel are right for them. (whose morals are right?)

If rights are societal, then a society can determine what rights who has, and there can be no vote, or choice on the part of the individual because if there has to be a vote, or people have a right to determine what their rights are then it is not societal. (Can a society have moral correctness?)

If rights are detemined universally then societies that don't agree with the universal list of rights don't have any rights, and individuals have no rights, and some universal power determines what rights people have. (Is there a universal moral code?)

If the Constitution is correct, our rights come from the Creator. Is it possible that the Creator might have the absolute moral standards?)

 

[JBeukema]

i assert rights are constant and independent from the society or interaction in which they are employed. i simplify their definition to freedoms to act, and you are right to point out that these freedoms can infringe on those of others. that is why i attribute the boundaries to which rights must be constrained to the social paradigm which employs them. in this sense, rights - the freedom to act in any way - is universal and the use and distribution of those rights within a society or any interaction is specific to that interaction.

Is not to define rights as freedom not to define rights as social rights and not as natural rights freedom is a concept that hold no meaning outside of the context of human interaction?

freedom is only possible outside the context of human interaction. your observation is inverse.

Freedom, like property, is a meaningless concept outside of the social context.

rather, i separate the social context of rights from their natural form. i only speak of social context when addressing the role of right within the context of a social contact.

You've not yet demonstrated that they exist in nature. Rather, you keep coming back, time and again, to their social nature.

government is a product of a social contract which, as i'd said, is conferred rights possessed of its constituents. these rights are explicit (chiefly), and aren't the same as those which are retained by its citizens

Again, review our own Constitution. The government is given power and authority, not rights. Only the individual is recognized as possessing any rights.

the rights are possessed by the organization, and are separate from those rights possessed by those operating it. this understanding, my definition of rights, is based on that of natural rights

How can random collections of persons suddenly come to possess natural rights they did not possess before, simply because a name is ascribed to the collective? Indeed, they can only come to possess these new rights these rights are social in nature.

once again, i point out that studies of adaptations to environmental characteristics hardly constitute a study of the characteristics themselves.

Again, to understand morality, which, along with mutual self-interest, underlies ethics, which is the basis for the concept of 'rights', you study how it came into being as well as how society expands upon it.


Again, you keep insisting that natural rights exist but you offer zero evidence. Instead, you keep demonstrating that rights are a social construct given, taken, and recognized or not in the context of the social contract.

You offer zero evidence for your own assertion and you keep arguing rather effectively for the other side.

 

[JBeukema]

Neither do convicted felons.

8th amendment

Prisoners' Rights | American Civil Liberties Union

On paper, yes. The same source that is supposed to protect innocent life, but too often comes up short, even if by no fault of it's own.

You are wrong. just admit it. You assert that I have no rights, but the Law disagrees.

 

[antagon]

Freedom, like property, is a meaningless concept outside of the social context.

one couldn't possibly begin to grasp the very concept of rights with such a misguided understanding.

'meaning' isn't cogent to the absolute existence of freedom in solitude. it is also highly subjective. many people ascribe great meaning and value to the rights afforded them by solitude where they are otherwise contracted to compromise them when in the context of a social contract.

editec was wise to present robinson crusoe for the purpose of probing the existence of freedom in solitude. like yourself, he argued that rights did not exist until a social contract enumerated them. i dispatched this poorly considered position pointing out as above that rights are in total possession of the lonesome party, and arguing that a social contract requires forfeiture of these rights for compliance. in so arguing, i demonstrated that your logic is the inverse of reality.

it went something like r. crusoe could shit anywhere he liked when alone in the woods, but if he tried pinching lumber on a busy public sidewalk, he'd be acting outside the rights he'd forfeited when he'd entered a social-contract-governed environment, and would be hauled off to jail. simple as that.

maybe your backwards position is defensible. start with explaining what impedes the rights of those outside a social contract. continue by explaining the consistent anomaly to this impediment by which freedom is realized when one goes into the woods or out to sea alone, relative to the constriction of freedom arising from cohabitation with others in an urban environment.

this exercise might deepen your understanding of rights sufficient to comprehend what i'm on about with respect to right's roles in a social contract, and their very existence outside that context.

one hurdle at a time.

 

[JBeukema]

It's not that complicated.

The concept of freedom (liberty) only has meaning in the social context. Those who seek solitude are still interpreting freedom in this way, as their 'freedom' from outside coercion or constraint s only meaningless in the context of that outside constraint by other persons. Liberty/freedom from outside constraint, by definition, only has any meaning in the social context, as it is defined in that context- that is, as not being bound by that outside coercion or constraint. Without that social context, 'liberty' has no meaning, just as 'weightless' has no meaning without the context of gravity and and at least one other object and the resulting resulting 'weight' to contrast it.

 

[JBeukema]

editec was wise to present robinson crusoe for the purpose of probing the existence of freedom in solitude. like yourself, he argued that rights did not exist until a social contract enumerated them. i dispatched this poorly considered position pointing out as above that rights are in total possession of the lonesome party, and arguing that a social contract requires forfeiture of these rights for compliance. in so arguing, i demonstrated that your logic is the inverse of reality.


it went something like r. crusoe could shit anywhere he liked when alone in the woods, but if he tried pinching lumber on a busy public sidewalk, he'd be acting outside the rights he'd forfeited when he'd entered a social-contract-governed environment, and would be hauled off to jail. simple as that.

Actually, you're proving my point. You can only call him 'free' or make mention of any 'liberty' by putting his state in a given context and contrasting it with a state in which one is bound by outside coercion or restraint, just as one 'darkness' (the absence of light) only has meaning when put into context and contrasted with the presence of light.

 

[antagon]

so you've got the meaning argument down, albeit subjective and lacking cogency as i'd pointed out.

perhaps you could explore your contention that rights don't exist outside the social contract context, as if to say that weightless objects magically don't have mass outside of a gravitational field.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Then in that case you are TRULY making no sense.

You assert that you have rights that are NOT alienable.

You offer no evidence that that is true, yet assert that your thinking isn't based on MAGICAL THINKING.

Everyone acknowledges I have rights, yet you are insisting that a random thug on the street has the power to take them away from me simply because he wants to. And you accuse me of magical thinking because I insist it is not that easy.

We cannot discuss anything rationally if you are unwilling support your claims with some logic.

Show me a RIGHT you THINK you have that I cannot take away from you.

To date you have Not done that.

You have taken the stance of a contrarian.

Yours is the argumentitive tactic of a freaking five year old.

It's the "No it not" means of debate.

Ergo, your argument to date is entirely lacking in any logic that anyone can discuss rationally.

And every time this debate manifests, we see exatly the same contrarian technique to support that specious claim.

Your superpower here is nothing but either your inability to even understand what a the lgic of debate requires, or your superpower here is sheer mendacity -- if you understand that and are simply refusing to acknowledge that you have made no logical argument.

I don't think you're stupid.

I merely think you're in childish denial in face of the logical arguments brought before you by pretty much every poster here.

Now you are starting to get ridiculous.

Rights exist. That fact has been established. You think they can be taken away by other people like they are physical things, they are not. They are concepts and ideas, they cannot be taken away. They can, however, be violated or infringed upon. Yet, because you do not understand the fundamental difference, you think I am being contrary and childish.

You have presented no logical arguments, you have simply made assertions, because you, and others, do not understand the concept of rights completely, you think your arguments are logical.

They are not logical unless I accept your premise that rights have a physical reality.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That depends, On paper or in the real world???

I will give you that one, felons rights are infringed all the time because no one cares.

 

[JBeukema]

so you've got the meaning argument down, albeit subjective and lacking cogency as i'd pointed out.

perhaps you could explore your contention that rights don't exist outside the social contract context, as if to say that weightless objects magically don't have mass outside of a gravitational field.

Your analogy fails, as you suddenly change from weight to mass. Whether you're blind to your fallacy or purposefully dishonest, you've still yet to demonstrate the existence of a single 'natural right'.

As there is no 'my contention'; I have not made any assertions regarding the existence of natural rights. it is you that is convinving you they are social in nature, because you are the one who keeps falling back to the social aspect.

 

[JBeukema]

Then in that case you are TRULY making no sense.

You assert that you have rights that are NOT alienable.

You offer no evidence that that is true, yet assert that your thinking isn't based on MAGICAL THINKING.

Everyone acknowledges I have rights

That's not true.

Rights exist. That fact has been established.

No, it hasn't. It's just been asserted time and and again without a shred of evidence and you've been shouting down anyone who questions you and ignoring the facts.

Turns out rights are a lot like God.

You have presented no logical arguments, you have simply made assertions,

Holy irony, batman!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That's not true.

Yet you insist my rights can be taken away from me. How can anyone take something that does not exist?

Silly me. I forgot you believe in telepathy proves that coma patients can think, so I know you have no problem trying to argue from untenable positions.

No, it hasn't. It's just been asserted time and and again without a shred of evidence and you've been shouting down anyone who questions you and ignoring the facts.

I pointed out that the Bill of Rights proves that my rights exist, and you agreed, you just want to quibble about where they come from. That is not something I have tried to debate because it is irrelevant, which I have tried to point out to you. Just like the universe, just because you do not like it does not make it go away.

Turns out rights are a lot like God.

Only in your head. The Constitution does not mention God, but it does mention rights. Can you possibly explain the equivalency to me in words that make sense in the real world?

Holy irony, batman!

Isn't it though? If you keep this up you will have to argue that God exists because rights exist, which is what I pointed out to you a long time ago.

 

[antagon]

so you've got the meaning argument down, albeit subjective and lacking cogency as i'd pointed out.

perhaps you could explore your contention that rights don't exist outside the social contract context, as if to say that weightless objects magically don't have mass outside of a gravitational field.

Your analogy fails, as you suddenly change from weight to mass. Whether you're blind to your fallacy or purposefully dishonest, you've still yet to demonstrate the existence of a single 'natural right'.

no sudden change. the relationship between weight and mass is one of context. i find the analogy quite successful in exploring the flaws in your understanding of rights within or outside the context of a social contract.

i simply point out that an object's weight is determined by its mass in the context of another object's gravitational field, just as your obsession with meaning draws to light the existence of rights when in the context of a social contract. that you dont ascribe meaning to them outside that paradigm doesn't nullify their existence in any way, just as the weightlessness of an object outside of a gravity field does not nullify its mass.

I have not made any assertions regarding the existence of natural rights. it is you that is convinving you they are social in nature, because you are the one who keeps falling back to the social aspect.

remember? one hurdle at a time. perhaps if you can digest that 'meaning' is not consequential to 'existence' in the least, you can make the baby steps toward comprehending the necessity for rights to exist before they are employed as the capital of a social contract. perhaps then you could realize that the possessor of your meaningless rights is in possession of something, despite your opinion that they have no meaning. then, perhaps, despite your claims that i fall back to 'social aspects' of rights, you may comprehend the plain definition i've presented of rights, and my distinct explanation as to how they are employed as the basis of concerted social contracts. as it is, getting into all that before you've overcome these simple fallacies you adhere to is fruitless as it has proved.

Actually, you're proving my point. You can only call him 'free' or make mention of any 'liberty' by putting his state in a given context and contrasting it with a state in which one is bound by outside coercion or restraint, just as one 'darkness' (the absence of light) only has meaning when put into context and contrasted with the presence of light.

proving your point? fail. where i've defined rights as freedom of action, variety of choice draws sufficient contrast to stand as evidence that rights exist outside a social contract. there's no need for infringement in a social paradigm to be introduced to afford such understanding or recognition.

i've arrived at my position from 'internal debate' which raised alternative (but ultimately inferior) arguments. have you one that has been marginally considered?

 

[JBeukema]

I pointed out that the Bill of Rights proves that my rights exist

The Law proves only that social rights exist. TBoR does nothing to bolster your assertion that natural rights exist.

That is not something I have tried to debate because it is irrelevant,

Fail.

It's the entire discussion.

which I have tried to point out to you. Just like the universe, just because you do not like it does not make it go away.

Holy irony, batman!

Isn't it though? If you keep this up you will have to argue that God exists because rights exist, which is what I pointed out to you a long time ago.

So now you not only keep insisting natural rights exist, but now that repetition proves your god exists?

 

[JBeukema]

so you've got the meaning argument down, albeit subjective and lacking cogency as i'd pointed out.

perhaps you could explore your contention that rights don't exist outside the social contract context, as if to say that weightless objects magically don't have mass outside of a gravitational field.

Your analogy fails, as you suddenly change from weight to mass. Whether you're blind to your fallacy or purposefully dishonest, you've still yet to demonstrate the existence of a single 'natural right'.

no sudden change. the relationship between weight and mass is one of context. i find the analogy quite successful in exploring the flaws in your understanding of rights within or outside the context of a social contract.

Demonstrate. I've shown that, as 'weight' has no meaning without the context of mass and the gravitational constant (indeed, 'weight' cannot exist without both- and two objects- being present), 'freedom' or 'liberty' only has meaning within the social context, by the very manner in which it is defined.

You then twisted it into 'weightless objects magically don't have mass outside of a gravitational field.' Whether you just don't get it or you're being deliberately dishonest out of frustration arising from the fact that you keep painting yourself into a corner and relying on the existence of social rights false equivalence to argue that your 'natural rights' exist despite a total absence of any absence to support your assertion that 'natural rights' exist, I've yet to determine. I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're simply thick.

You keep falling back on social recognition. This proves the only rights are social rights, as you are totally unable to present an iota of evidence to support your claim that 'natural rights' exist and the only 'rights' you've been able to demonstrate are those that are given (regardless of what legal or mythical fiction might surround the matter in a given document or popular rhetoric) by society/other persons in accordance with the social contract(s) that arise(s) in the course of human interaction and the formation of societies.

You have failed to present any evidence for your claims and have instead argued quite effectively for the opposing hypothesis.

i simply point out that an object's weight is determined by its mass in the context of another object's gravitational field

As the rights one possesses are determined via the social contract- as you have shown us.

perhaps if you can digest that 'meaning' is not consequential to 'existence' in the least

What are you babbling about? We're talking whether a word has meaning, a definition - that is whether 'psnvoidnvolsnv' has any meaning whatsoever until it is properly defined and whether a concept such as 'the presence of photons' has any meaning unless it is defined in such a manner that allows it to be distinguished from something that is not itself- eg the absence of photons.

It's that simple. Stop trying to make it needlessly complicated and twist my words around.

You insist a thing exists. You have presented zero evidence. You have not shows that it must exist mathematically, that is is the logical implication of known facts, or that it can be measured or detected through any means. You have presented absolutely nothing except your own assertion of its existence. And you have taken seven pages to present that nothing over and over again. You are dismissed until you return with some evidence supporting your claims.

, you can make the baby steps toward comprehending the necessity for rights to exist before they are employed as the capital of a social contract.

Laws don't exist before they are formed through social contract. Hence, a thing need not exist before it is invented.

where i've defined rights as freedom of action

Again, 'freedom', like property is a meaningless concept outside of the social context.

, variety of choice draws sufficient contrast to stand as evidence that rights exist outside a social contract.

That there exist two kinds of edible fruit proves nothing more than that two kinds of edible fruit exist. Or do you intend to rob 'rights' of all its meaning and redefine it as nothing more than a synonym for 'ability'?

 

[editec]

variety of choice draws sufficient contrast to stand as evidence that rights exist outside a social contract

So by that definition you believe that all sentient creatures have unalienable rights?

Interesting definition of the term

Which means this whole debate is about semantics, not about rights.