Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
We as individuals can enter into contracts or agreements that define what we are referring here to as basic rights and work together to exercise these rights and remove anything that stands in the way of us exercising these rights. We really don't need to explain where the rights were derived from because we ourselves just invented them and treat them as priorities.
Let say one of the rights that we invent is the right to be free from hunger. In order to benefit from this right we need food. Who is responsible for our food if not ourselves ? If it is not ourselves we are then making someone else responsible for providing us with nourishment. Besides having the right to be free from hunger to we also have the right to force others to provide us with food ?
Again I suggest that any right that depends on others to defend and provide is nothing more than a self declared entitlement. Our right to be free of hunger is a condition that is our individual responsibility to create.
Why does it necessarily have to be an individual responsibility? Why couldn't it, at least in theory, be a collective one?
let me put it this way--if I want to satisfy my right to be fed I'm going to get my own food as opposed to waiting for the collective to do it. Creating a right doesn't ensure any action will be taken.
Why does it necessarily have to be an individual responsibility? Why couldn't it, at least in theory, be a collective one?
let me put it this way--if I want to satisfy my right to be fed I'm going to get my own food as opposed to waiting for the collective to do it. Creating a right doesn't ensure any action will be taken.
That's your choice. It doesn't follow that the collective can't have such responsibility.
At any rate, the OP has never been about "what rights require action and from whom?" Only what rights are included in the "fundamental" category.
Tell me, which rights MUST a government violate in order to ensure any entitlement?
The most fundamental of all of them: the right to be left alone. Entitlements, by definition, require the service of others. Government can't guarantee an entitlement without forcing someone to provide it.
Government can always pay someone to provide the entitlement, which doesn't seem to be the equivalent of "forcing" them.
Tell me, which rights MUST a government violate in order to ensure any entitlement?
The most fundamental of all of them: the right to be left alone. Entitlements, by definition, require the service of others. Government can't guarantee an entitlement without forcing someone to provide it.
Government can always pay someone to provide the entitlement, which doesn't seem to be the equivalent of "forcing" them.
The most fundamental of all of them: the right to be left alone. Entitlements, by definition, require the service of others. Government can't guarantee an entitlement without forcing someone to provide it.
Government can always pay someone to provide the entitlement, which doesn't seem to be the equivalent of "forcing" them.
Do they use magic money for that, or do they get it the normal way, taking it by force from people?
Reading the replies it is as if a whole segment of America lives in lalaland, and rights are only about entitlements. Entitlements are variously defined as taxes, welfare, or other assumed distributive policies. Why debate rights at all? There's only one, 'get what you can, when you can, where you can.' A 'you are entitled, you are not' logic that forgets how we arrive at the place we arrive at. The focus of the wingnuts and their partners, the libertarians, is one that can be summed up as a narcissistic worldview that assumes the benefits they possess, aka rights(?), are creations of their own will. It assumes they arrived at this point in time through some magical fantasy in which all of existence came into being with their birth and is examined and justified by their current worldview. Consider that none of them ever build a road, made a car, a computer, or even a garden, and you see that they fail to see their own dependency on what they oddly call a collective. Left alone on a island their ideas would remain as useless as they are in the real world. Their world is a childish social construction of privileged choir boys.
And of course no one answered my questions? I added a few.
Who decides when rights collide?
Did slave owners have the right to own slaves?
Did slaves have rights?
Do women have the right to control their family decisions?
Do gay people have the right to marry?
Who defines these rights?
Do rights change with time? Culture? Religion?
If an unborn child has a right to life does it then have a right to support?
Isn't intervening in the right to life granting entitlement and creating a right?
If cells have rights think of that the next time you....?
Do the animals have any rights? Explain?
If rights are fundamental how does a child learn them?
Does a child have a right to proper nutrition? Education? If no, why?
Does an orphaned child have a right to proper nutrition? Education? If no, why?
Don't rights follow from certain preconditions?
Do rights fit all humans regardless of age and abilities?
Do handicapped people have a right to access? Explain?
Do you have the right to impose your religious beliefs on others?
What gives you that right?
Does your labor grant you any rights?
Is there a right for pornography?
Do you have a right to safe working conditions? Why?
Does the fact your labor and perks only exist because you live in America grant you any special rights? Or do you consider your rights universal universal rights?
Consider how many die in America over gun rights?
If a person has a right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness does that include more than words?
The term "right" is loaded. It's a subjective term, based on morals.
I prefer to think about it in terms of will, not right.
The world isn't separated into things that I have a "right" to do, and things I don't have a "right" to do. Just things I decide to do, and things I decide not to do.
Reading the replies it is as if a whole segment of America lives in lalaland, and rights are only about entitlements. Entitlements are variously defined as taxes, welfare, or other assumed distributive policies. Why debate rights at all? There's only one, 'get what you can, when you can, where you can.' A 'you are entitled, you are not' logic that forgets how we arrive at the place we arrive at. The focus of the wingnuts and their partners, the libertarians, is one that can be summed up as a narcissistic worldview that assumes the benefits they possess, aka rights(?), are creations of their own will. It assumes they arrived at this point in time through some magical fantasy in which all of existence came into being with their birth and is examined and justified by their current worldview. Consider that none of them ever build a road, made a car, a computer, or even a garden, and you see that they fail to see their own dependency on what they oddly call a collective. Left alone on a island their ideas would remain as useless as they are in the real world. Their world is a childish social construction of privileged choir boys.
And of course no one answered my questions? I added a few.
Basic human rights are a western concept and thus, if you were to go to a communist nation or Islamic nation, basic human rights would differ. In Islamic nations, your rights extend only as far as Sharia religious law would allow. If you were in a strictly Communist nation such as North Korea, your rights would be limited to the whim of its dictator.
So, if you say all humans have certain definitive rights, you can only speak of those nations that are in concurrence with your stance.
The term "right" is loaded. It's a subjective term, based on morals.
I prefer to think about it in terms of will, not right.
The world isn't separated into things that I have a "right" to do, and things I don't have a "right" to do. Just things I decide to do, and things I decide not to do.
Untrue, Rights are based on ethics, not morals. Morals change through time, ethics don't.
The term "right" is loaded. It's a subjective term, based on morals.
I prefer to think about it in terms of will, not right.
The world isn't separated into things that I have a "right" to do, and things I don't have a "right" to do. Just things I decide to do, and things I decide not to do.
Untrue, Rights are based on ethics, not morals. Morals change through time, ethics don't.
Damn, that was ignorant.
If you live in a time and place where slavery is legal the proper ethical response to an escaped slave is to call the authorities so they can contact the owner and let him know where to pick up his property. The proper moral response would be to help the slave escape. On the other hand, if you live in a time and place where slavery is legal the proper ethical response would be to call the authorities and report the fact that someone was illegally keeping a slave, the proper moral response would remain the same, help the slave escape.
Untrue, Rights are based on ethics, not morals. Morals change through time, ethics don't.
Damn, that was ignorant.
If you live in a time and place where slavery is legal the proper ethical response to an escaped slave is to call the authorities so they can contact the owner and let him know where to pick up his property. The proper moral response would be to help the slave escape. On the other hand, if you live in a time and place where slavery is legal the proper ethical response would be to call the authorities and report the fact that someone was illegally keeping a slave, the proper moral response would remain the same, help the slave escape.
Wrong. It is NEVER ethical to own another person. It is never ethical to murder someone.
It is never ethical to steal from someone. The golden rule is the basis of ethics.
It can be morally correct based on your culture however....you know "cultural relativism" and all that. Ethics don't change, morals do.
Damn, that was ignorant.
If you live in a time and place where slavery is legal the proper ethical response to an escaped slave is to call the authorities so they can contact the owner and let him know where to pick up his property. The proper moral response would be to help the slave escape. On the other hand, if you live in a time and place where slavery is legal the proper ethical response would be to call the authorities and report the fact that someone was illegally keeping a slave, the proper moral response would remain the same, help the slave escape.
Wrong. It is NEVER ethical to own another person. It is never ethical to murder someone.
It is never ethical to steal from someone. The golden rule is the basis of ethics.
It can be morally correct based on your culture however....you know "cultural relativism" and all that. Ethics don't change, morals do.
Are you claiming absolutes now ? Who invented these ethics of yours?
Wrong. It is NEVER ethical to own another person. It is never ethical to murder someone.
It is never ethical to steal from someone. The golden rule is the basis of ethics.
It can be morally correct based on your culture however....you know "cultural relativism" and all that. Ethics don't change, morals do.
Are you claiming absolutes now ? Who invented these ethics of yours?
Do unto others......... I'll let you fill in the remainder. No religion necessary, cavemen probably felt that they would like to be treated like they treated others....
That's your foundation of ethics.
Untrue, Rights are based on ethics, not morals. Morals change through time, ethics don't.
Damn, that was ignorant.
If you live in a time and place where slavery is legal the proper ethical response to an escaped slave is to call the authorities so they can contact the owner and let him know where to pick up his property. The proper moral response would be to help the slave escape. On the other hand, if you live in a time and place where slavery is legal the proper ethical response would be to call the authorities and report the fact that someone was illegally keeping a slave, the proper moral response would remain the same, help the slave escape.
Wrong. It is NEVER ethical to own another person. It is never ethical to murder someone.
It is never ethical to steal from someone. The golden rule is the basis of ethics.
It can be morally correct based on your culture however....you know "cultural relativism" and all that. Ethics don't change, morals do.
According to Tomas Paul and Linda Elder of the Foundation for Critical Thinking, "most people confuse ethics with behaving in accordance with social conventions, religious beliefs and the law", and don't treat ethics as a stand-alone concept.[2] Paul and Elder define ethics as "a set of concepts and principles that guide us in determining what behavior helps or harms sentient creatures".[2] The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy states that the word ethics is "commonly used interchangeably with 'morality' ... and sometimes it is used more narrowly to mean the moral principles of a particular tradition, group or individual."[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics
The difference between ethics and morals can seem somewhat arbitrary to many, but there is a basic, albeit subtle, difference. Morals define personal character, while ethics stress a social system in which those morals are applied. In other words, ethics point to standards or codes of behavior expected by the group to which the individual belongs. This could be national ethics, social ethics, company ethics, professional ethics, or even family ethics. So while a persons moral code is usually unchanging, the ethics he or she practices can be other-dependent.
When considering the difference between ethics and morals, it may be helpful to consider a criminal defense lawyer. Though the lawyers personal moral code likely finds murder immoral and reprehensible, ethics demand the accused client be defended as vigorously as possible, even when the lawyer knows the party is guilty and that a freed defendant would potentially lead to more crime. Legal ethics must override personal morals for the greater good of upholding a justice system in which the accused are given a fair trial and the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The prosecution and court must also deal with the difference between ethics and morals. In some cases past actions of the accused might resonate with the current charge, but are kept out of evidence so as not to prejudice the jury. In a sense, the prosecutor lies by omission in representing the case, never revealing the prejudicial evidence. The same prosecutor, however, would likely find it reprehensible to fail to tell a friend if her date had a potentially dangerous or suspect history.
Wrong. It is NEVER ethical to own another person. It is never ethical to murder someone.
It is never ethical to steal from someone. The golden rule is the basis of ethics.
It can be morally correct based on your culture however....you know "cultural relativism" and all that. Ethics don't change, morals do.
Are you claiming absolutes now ? Who invented these ethics of yours?
Do unto others......... I'll let you fill in the remainder. No religion necessary, cavemen probably felt that they would like to be treated like they treated others....
That's your foundation of ethics.
