What Constitutes a "Right?"

[Diuretic]

The tools we created were created to help us understand the natural world. But the natural world exists whether we can study it or not. Its existence doesn't require us, it's independent of us.

I'm not saying people have rights only by government. I'm saying that rights are a concept we humans invented so that we could more readily order our various forms of society. And they were recognised only for some, not all, depending on the society which contained them.

Yes, we created the tools. Thank you. The world exists, but I think it was Chomsky who said, "the map is not the territory."

We still have not addressed the question of which came first: society or rights. I think we need a solid definition of society before we can do that.

You still fail to recognize that Rights existed before Society. I do think that there is treatment for your condition. You need to change your diaper first.

If you claim that rights existed before human society then explain your argument, it would be interesting to discuss it.

 

[Intense]

Yes, we created the tools. Thank you. The world exists, but I think it was Chomsky who said, "the map is not the territory."

We still have not addressed the question of which came first: society or rights. I think we need a solid definition of society before we can do that.

You still fail to recognize that Rights existed before Society. I do think that there is treatment for your condition. You need to change your diaper first.

If you claim that rights existed before human society then explain your argument, it would be interesting to discuss it.

67 pages of it already. It's pretty much been said more than a few times over. Why should it matter now?

 

[Diuretic]

You still fail to recognize that Rights existed before Society. I do think that there is treatment for your condition. You need to change your diaper first.

If you claim that rights existed before human society then explain your argument, it would be interesting to discuss it.

67 pages of it already. It's pretty much been said more than a few times over. Why should it matter now?

You just suggested rubberhead failed to recognise your claim. While I can't speak for rubberhead I was wondering if you could encapsulate your argument for the existence of rights outside of human society because I thought it was an interesting claim. I didn't want to assume I knew but I suspect you might be arguing that a Creator has something to do with the situation.

 

[Contumacious]

Here's a Constitutional Right:

Every citizen has the right to health care. The State shall maintain public
health and provide the means of prevention and treatment by building different
types of hospitals and health institutions.


It's in Article 31 of the Iraqi Constitution. And they're a theocracy. They were endowed by their Creator with the right to healthcare, maintained and provided by the State.

ROFLMNAO...

Now understand what this imbecile is saying...

That Iraqis are endowed by their Creator with the right to force the state to infringe upon the rights of another so as to provide for their healthcare.

The simple fact is that Iraq's government has no means to provide anything to anyone, until Iraq's government infringes upon the right to pursue the fulfillment of their life.

Such is typical of the idiot... to demand a right for which SOMEONE else is responsible for providing; a circumstance in which the existance of a right is not possible.

Did you support the Iraq war?

btw, ALL your rights and liberties are protected by SOMEONE else. Aren't the troops overseas there to protect your rights and liberties?

Nope.

They are there to support HALLIBURTON, kbr AND OTHER WAR PROFITEERS BANK ACCOUNTS.


.

 

[JBeukema]

I'm not about to read 30+ pages.

The concept of 'rights' is flawed, an inheritance from theistic ideology and Descartes.


There are 'no rights'; there is only liberty(the freedom and ability to do any given thing) and the limits put upon liberty by the self and others.


No system of prescriptive ethics has ever withstood an honest examination

 

[Contumacious]

I'm not about to read 30+ pages.

The concept of 'rights' is flawed, an inheritance from theistic ideology and Descartes.


There are 'no rights'; there is only liberty(the freedom and ability to do any given thing) and the limits put upon liberty by the self and others.


No system of prescriptive ethics has ever withstood an honest examination

Incorrect, I am an atheist yet I believe in natural rights.


.

 

[rubberhead]

Equilibrium? A lack of protest or some other form of social pressure I would think.

A natural process within the context of human activity. I think it's a manifestation of every maturely developed human's desire for self-actualisation in their social context.

OK, so there is social pressure if the rights that one desires are violated. I have to say, this is starting to seem like a bit of a chicken or egg argument. Is it possible to remove that cooperation and support structure called society without removing peoples' desire for self-actualization? I think so. Would a group of maturely developed humans find themselves surrounded by people all in complete competition in their individual actions? Probably not, because it goes against our nature. But if all people were in complete competition on an individual basis (parents competing with children, brothers with sisters), there would surely be pressure between individuals similar to that which a group in a society exerts on a government or policy that violates the peoples' rights. This pressure would not be moderated by a legal system, but it would be pressure all the same.

 

[rubberhead]

I'm not about to read 30+ pages.

The concept of 'rights' is flawed, an inheritance from theistic ideology and Descartes.


There are 'no rights'; there is only liberty(the freedom and ability to do any given thing) and the limits put upon liberty by the self and others.


No system of prescriptive ethics has ever withstood an honest examination

Thanks for your worthless two cents. Why bother wasting all that time reading when you were just going to think you're right no matter what? Just skip that pesky middle step of considering the thoughts of others.

I consider myself agnostic (I acknowledge that God may exist, but I don't believe it because I have never seen any evidence of it or Him or Her). You're obviously just coming back to be inflammatory, but my belief in natural rights has nothing to do with theology. Actually it has more to do with game theory. Rational agents with memory will choose to respect each others' rights because the social pressure that results from violating the rights of others may cause the violator's rights to be denied. Likewise, agents band together in agreement to ensure that violators meet such a fate. As a result, each agent is safer and the whole group is more productive. Rights are not given to us, they arise from an optimal survival strategy that is inherent in our cooperation. We may not know the "golden list" of what the rights are, but Rawls gave us a good start with the original position and his principles of justice. Equality, freedom and lastly (because it is less important than the first two) fairness. These three principles are where our rights come from. Don't we all agree that people have a right to be treated equally, to be free and to be treated fairly (fairness refers to things like fair trade and habeas corpus)? We may not be able to agree on the precise meaning of these words, but I think we can agree that, regardless of what our government says, these are our rights. JPuke, I know you've stopped reading already and you're already working on your pugnacious reply, but if you don't believe that you are born free and equal with your fellow humans, then you're sharing the lunatic fringe with some pretty unsavory characters (monarchs, dictators, racists). Say it ain't so. Gadhafi, is that you?

 

[Diuretic]

Equilibrium? A lack of protest or some other form of social pressure I would think.

A natural process within the context of human activity. I think it's a manifestation of every maturely developed human's desire for self-actualisation in their social context.

OK, so there is social pressure if the rights that one desires are violated. I have to say, this is starting to seem like a bit of a chicken or egg argument. Is it possible to remove that cooperation and support structure called society without removing peoples' desire for self-actualization? I think so. Would a group of maturely developed humans find themselves surrounded by people all in complete competition in their individual actions? Probably not, because it goes against our nature. But if all people were in complete competition on an individual basis (parents competing with children, brothers with sisters), there would surely be pressure between individuals similar to that which a group in a society exerts on a government or policy that violates the peoples' rights. This pressure would not be moderated by a legal system, but it would be pressure all the same.

The solitary individual has no need of rights, he or she exercises his or her will as they can. When individuals gather together they need to work out the rules of cooperation. This is how rights are created, out of social action and social need.

 

[rubberhead]

Equilibrium? A lack of protest or some other form of social pressure I would think.

A natural process within the context of human activity. I think it's a manifestation of every maturely developed human's desire for self-actualisation in their social context.

OK, so there is social pressure if the rights that one desires are violated. I have to say, this is starting to seem like a bit of a chicken or egg argument. Is it possible to remove that cooperation and support structure called society without removing peoples' desire for self-actualization? I think so. Would a group of maturely developed humans find themselves surrounded by people all in complete competition in their individual actions? Probably not, because it goes against our nature. But if all people were in complete competition on an individual basis (parents competing with children, brothers with sisters), there would surely be pressure between individuals similar to that which a group in a society exerts on a government or policy that violates the peoples' rights. This pressure would not be moderated by a legal system, but it would be pressure all the same.

The solitary individual has no need of rights, he or she exercises his or her will as they can. When individuals gather together they need to work out the rules of cooperation. This is how rights are created, out of social action and social need.

I would make the concession that the principles of justice and society arise together. I personally don't think that a society, no matter how primitive, can exist without some set of principles of justice, however offensive to my own taste. The situation that I've proposed where no one cooperates with any other but all are in competition with each other could hardly be called a society. Each person in this situation is solitary, but they are not alone. They must each protect their own rights (they cannot cooperate to protect one another's rights). The optimal strategy for them seems to be to spread out and for each person to have minimal contact with everyone else. Of course in areas where resources are concentrated, people have little choice but to gather, so let's just assume that people have an infinite amount of room to spread out and resource distribution is homogeneous. Let's also assume that each person is similarly physically and mentally capable, so that if we do have someone traveling around pillaging, they will not have a better chance for survival than anyone else. At this point each person from our 'antisociety' would be both solitary and alone for the most part. They would also maximize their freedom because once they were truly alone, they are truly absolutely free. I also argue that they are equal because each of them is absolutely free. Fairness is not an issue here because fairness implies cooperation, which was banned in the first place.


I guess this thought experiment hardly seems natural, but I hope my intention is clear. I'm trying to extricate society from the situation and show that optimal strategy still involves a method of asserting one's rights. Perhaps the extrication of society makes the situation unnatural because the two are equally integral, and not subordinate as we are trying to argue. I mean, imagine a society where no principles of justice and thus no rights existed (at least the right to life, otherwise it's just not worth it for someone who wants to stay alive)? Wouldn't that be just as unnatural as having rights with no society? Who could be expected to choose to participate without exerting social pressure? I argue that the amount of social pressure is roughly proportional to the degree of deviation of the established principles of justice from what I would call the natural principles of justice and natural rights. We cannot expect such a rigid and simple result in reality since we're talking about a very complex system in the abstract. Especially since we have no units to measure the deviation. I only argue that, in general, the further the established principles get from freedom and equality the more social unrest there will be.

 

[JBeukema]

I'm not about to read 30+ pages.

The concept of 'rights' is flawed, an inheritance from theistic ideology and Descartes.


There are 'no rights'; there is only liberty(the freedom and ability to do any given thing) and the limits put upon liberty by the self and others.


No system of prescriptive ethics has ever withstood an honest examination

Incorrect, I am an atheist yet I believe in natural rights.


.

You're also a fool, as we've seen before.

To say that you are an atheist and you belief in 'natural rights', therfore natural rights exist and the arguments are valid is logically fallacious.

 

[JBeukema]

I'm not about to read 30+ pages.

The concept of 'rights' is flawed, an inheritance from theistic ideology and Descartes.


There are 'no rights'; there is only liberty(the freedom and ability to do any given thing) and the limits put upon liberty by the self and others.


No system of prescriptive ethics has ever withstood an honest examination

Thanks for your worthless two cents. Why bother wasting all that time reading when you were just going to think you're right no matter what? Just skip that pesky middle step of considering the thoughts of others.

30 pages in, noone had any real arguments.

I'm not in the mood to sit down and read another 30 pages.


If ya got an argument, then sum it up now

else, stfu

I consider myself agnostic (I acknowledge that God may exist, but I don't believe it because I have never seen any evidence of it or Him or Her).

that's called agnostic atheism

You're obviously just coming back to be inflammatory,

Really? By stating the reality, I'm being 'inflammatoryu'? No, you stupid ****, I'm pointing out the obvious reality behind the concept of 'natural rights'- it is nothing more than a comforting idea. Noone has ever been able enumerate and demonstrate any such 'natural rights'. There very concept of 'rights' is inherently flawed.

but my belief in natural rights has nothing to do with theology.

'Natural rights' and the arguments you and others used were inherited from theistic traditions.

Actually it has more to do with game theory. Rational agents with memory will choose to respect each others' rights because the social pressure that results from violating the rights of others may cause the violator's rights to be denied.

That's not 'natural rights', retard. That's Social Contract. It does nothing to demonstrate the existence of any 'natural rights', but merely mutual agreements regarding liberties and the desires of all involved. Those 'rights' which are recognized are positive rights.

Likewise, agents band together in agreement to ensure that violators meet such a fate. As a result, each agent is safer and the whole group is more productive.

Again, social contract and positive rights

which benefit only the ingroups and can and oft do oppress those in the vicinity with no desire to participate

Rights are not given to us, they arise from an optimal survival strategy that is inherent in our cooperation.

that cooperation is an act

again, social contract and positive rights

We may not know the "golden list" of what the rights are, but Rawls gave us a good start with the original position and his principles of justice. Equality, freedom and lastly (because it is less important than the first two) fairness.

'moral instinct' =/= 'natural rights'

'moral instinct' = instinctive behaviors which have developed as a part of human evolution

These three principles are where our rights come from.

Wrong, dumbass. You've done nothing to demonstrate 'natural rights'.

You've demonstrated evolution and social contract

Don't we all agree that people have a right to be treated equally, to be free and to be treated fairly (fairness refers to things like fair trade and habeas corpus)?

Thank you for proving my point


If we have top agree on it, then it's not the natural rights you so wish for


that's social contract

those are positive rights

if you don't believe that you are born free and equal with your fellow humans,

liberty =/= 'natural rights'

liberty = liberty ~ ability and opportunity

then you're sharing the lunatic fringe with some pretty unsavory characters (monarchs, dictators, racists). Say it ain't so. Gadhafi, is that you?

Ad hominem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[editec]

Political RIGHTS exist only in a POLITICAL situation.

RIGHTS do not come from GOD.

Not on this earth, at least.

Doubt me, fellow christians?

Read your New Testament and this time, pay attention to the red script, folks.

Jesus tells us that this is not his father's kingdom, and that his father's kingdom is in heaven.

So God CANNOT give you RIGHTS as most of you seem to think of them...as something ALIENABLE .

In order for a RIGHT to be inalienable, it would have to be something that NOBODY could take away from you.

If you can be KILLED, then you do NOT have any INALIENABLE RIGHT to life.

Anybody here think they cannot be killed?

No?

Then seriously, you do not have any inalienable rights.

When the Floundering Fathers coined the term, they meant that in a THEORETICAL sense, not in any meaningful way related to the real world we live in.

They meant that's what they were shooting for, that that was their justification for taking control over their nation.

 

[JBeukema]

That which is given is not 'from nature'


that which rests on the social contract is not 'from nature'


You must enumerate them and demonstrate that 'rights' exist prior to any social contract recognition of 'rights'

 

[JBeukema]

We sorted this out in two pages over at LoR

League of Reason Forums • View topic - Natural Rights?

 

[JW Frogen]

If you can be KILLED, then you do NOT have any INALIENABLE RIGHT to life.

Anybody here think they cannot be killed?.

A lot of people have tried and I am still here.

Hell, I can't even kill myself with booze.

I am pretty ******* inalienable.

 

[JBeukema]

If you can be KILLED, then you do NOT have any INALIENABLE RIGHT to life.

Anybody here think they cannot be killed?.

A lot of people have tried and I am still here.

Hell, I can't even kill myself with booze.

I am pretty ******* inalienable.

You're pretty fuckin' alien, I'll give ya that

 

[JW Frogen]

You're pretty fuckin' alien, I'll give ya that

I think the Mother Ship left me here on purpose. I knew something was up when they opened the door and said "Fetch boy".

 

[JBeukema]

JW must be great to have around at the bar

 

[JW Frogen]

JW must be great to have around at the bar

Did someone say bar?

My home planet.