What Constitutes a "Right?"
- Thread starter Kevin_Kennedy
- Start date
I do in fact think for Myself Setarcos, The matter of the Thread is "What Constitutes a Right". There are different kinds of Rights.
Theoretical distinctions
There are numerous different theoretical distinctions in accordance with which rights may be classified. Not all sources support both sides of every distinction listed here, e.g. Jeremy Bentham denied the existence of natural rights, holding all rights to be of a legal character, and Ayn Rand denied the existence of group rights, holding all rights to be of an individual character.[1]
Natural rights and legal rights - Legal rights (sometimes also called civil rights or statutory rights) are rights conveyed by a particular polity, codified into legal statutes by some form of legislature (or unenumerated but implied from enumerated rights), and as such are contingent upon local laws, customs, or beliefs. In contrast, natural rights (also called moral rights or inalienable rights) are rights which are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of a particular society or polity. Natural rights are thus necessarily universal, whereas legal rights are culturally and politically relative.
Claim rights and liberty rights - A claim right is a right which entails responsibilities, duties, or obligations on other parties regarding the right-holder. In contrast, a liberty right is a right which does not entail obligations on other parties, but rather only freedom or permission for the right-holder. Liberty rights and claim rights are the inverse of one another: a person has a liberty right permitting him to do something only if there is no other person who has a claim right forbidding him from doing so; and likewise, if a person has a claim right against someone else, that other person's liberty is thus limited. This is because the deontic concepts of obligation and permission are De Morgan dual; a person is permitted to do all and only the things he is not obliged to refrain from, and obliged to do all and only the things he is not permitted to refrain from.
Negative rights and positive rights - Negative rights require inaction from others (in the sense of rights as claims or entitlements), or permit inaction from the right bearer (in the sense of rights as liberties or permissions). Conversely, positive rights require action from others (in the sense of rights as claims or entitlements) or permit action from the right bearer (in the sense of rights as liberties or permissions).
Individual rights and group rights - Individual rights are rights pertaining to individuals, regardless of their membership within a group. Group rights, in contrast are held by an ensemble of people collectively, or by the members of a group of people who have a certain characteristic in common. In some cases there can be tension between individual and group rights. A classic instance in which group and individual rights clash is conflicts between unions and their members. For example, members of a union may wish to contract with the employer for a wage other than that negotiated by the union, but are unable to due to the union's control of the work sphere, sometimes referred to as a "closed shop."
Other distinctions between rights draw more on historical association or family resemblance than on precise philosophical distinctions. These include the distinction between civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights, between which the articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are often divided. Another conception of rights groups them into three generations. These distinctions have much overlap with that between negative and positive rights, as well as between individual rights and group rights, but these groupings are not entirely coextensive.
Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
1. Categories of Rights
A right to life, a right to choose; a right to vote, to work, to strike; a right to one phone call, to dissolve parliament, to operate a forklift, to asylum, to equal treatment before the law, to feel proud of what one has done; a right to exist, to sentence an offender to death, to launch a nuclear first strike, to carry a concealed weapon, to a distinct genetic identity; a right to believe one's own eyes, to pronounce the couple husband and wife, to be left alone, to go to hell in one's own way.
We encounter assertions of rights as we encounter sounds: persistently and in great variety. Making sense of this profusion of assertions requires that we class rights together by common attributes. Rights-assertions can be categorized, for example, according to:
Who is alleged to have the right: Children's rights, animal rights, workers' rights, states' rights, the rights of peoples.
What actions or states or objects the asserted right pertains to: Rights of free expression, to pass judgment; rights of privacy, to remain silent; property rights, bodily rights.
Why the rightholder (allegedly) has the right: Moral rights spring from moral reasons, legal rights derive from the laws of the society, customary rights are aspects of local customs.
How the asserted right can be affected by the rightholder's actions: The inalienable right to life, the forfeitable right to liberty, and the waivable right that a promise be kept.
Many of these categories have sub-categories. For instance, natural rights are the sub-class of moral rights that humans have because of their nature. Or again, the rights of political speech are a subclass of the rights of free expression.
The study of particular rights is primarily an investigation into how such categories and sub-categories overlap. There has been much discussion, for example, of whether human rights are natural rights, whether the right to privacy is a legal right, and whether the legal right to life is a forfeitable right.
2. The Analysis of Rights
Categorization sorts the profusion of rights assertions. To understand what the assertion of a particular right means, we need to understand more precisely how rights are constructed and what they do.
An analysis of rights has two parts: a description of the internal structure of rights (their form), and a description of what rights do for those who hold them (their function). The analytical system for describing the form of rights is widely accepted, although there are scholarly quarrels about its details. Which theory gives the best account of the function of rights has been much more contentious; we turn to that debate in section 3.
2.1 The Form of Rights: The Hohfeldian Analytical System
Most common rights, such as the right to free expression or the right of private property, have a complex internal structure. Such rights are ordered arrangements of several basic components—much in the same way that most molecules are ordered arrangements of several chemical elements. The four basic components of rights are known as "the Hohfeldian incidents" after Wesley Hohfeld (1879-1918), the American legal theorist who discovered them. These four basic "elements" are the privilege, the claim, the power, and the immunity. Each of these Hohfeldian incidents has a distinctive logical form; and each incident can be a right by itself, even when it is not a part of a complex "molecule."
Rights (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
A right to life, a right to choose; a right to vote, to work, to strike; a right to one phone call, to dissolve parliament, to operate a forklift, to asylum, to equal treatment before the law, to feel proud of what one has done; a right to exist, to sentence an offender to death, to launch a nuclear first strike, to carry a concealed weapon, to a distinct genetic identity; a right to believe one's own eyes, to pronounce the couple husband and wife, to be left alone, to go to hell in one's own way.
We encounter assertions of rights as we encounter sounds: persistently and in great variety. Making sense of this profusion of assertions requires that we class rights together by common attributes. Rights-assertions can be categorized, for example, according to:
Who is alleged to have the right: Children's rights, animal rights, workers' rights, states' rights, the rights of peoples.
What actions or states or objects the asserted right pertains to: Rights of free expression, to pass judgment; rights of privacy, to remain silent; property rights, bodily rights.
Why the rightholder (allegedly) has the right: Moral rights spring from moral reasons, legal rights derive from the laws of the society, customary rights are aspects of local customs.
How the asserted right can be affected by the rightholder's actions: The inalienable right to life, the forfeitable right to liberty, and the waivable right that a promise be kept.
Many of these categories have sub-categories. For instance, natural rights are the sub-class of moral rights that humans have because of their nature. Or again, the rights of political speech are a subclass of the rights of free expression.
The study of particular rights is primarily an investigation into how such categories and sub-categories overlap. There has been much discussion, for example, of whether human rights are natural rights, whether the right to privacy is a legal right, and whether the legal right to life is a forfeitable right.
2. The Analysis of Rights
Categorization sorts the profusion of rights assertions. To understand what the assertion of a particular right means, we need to understand more precisely how rights are constructed and what they do.
An analysis of rights has two parts: a description of the internal structure of rights (their form), and a description of what rights do for those who hold them (their function). The analytical system for describing the form of rights is widely accepted, although there are scholarly quarrels about its details. Which theory gives the best account of the function of rights has been much more contentious; we turn to that debate in section 3.
2.1 The Form of Rights: The Hohfeldian Analytical System
Most common rights, such as the right to free expression or the right of private property, have a complex internal structure. Such rights are ordered arrangements of several basic components—much in the same way that most molecules are ordered arrangements of several chemical elements. The four basic components of rights are known as "the Hohfeldian incidents" after Wesley Hohfeld (1879-1918), the American legal theorist who discovered them. These four basic "elements" are the privilege, the claim, the power, and the immunity. Each of these Hohfeldian incidents has a distinctive logical form; and each incident can be a right by itself, even when it is not a part of a complex "molecule."
Rights (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
John Locke, God Through Conscience, cannot be disproved. "Separation Of Church and State", "Life, Liberty, Property" Natural Rights, Non-Violent Civil Disobedience, Quoted in The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution, Henry David Thoreau influenced by Him, Martin Luther King, Gandhi, Countless Numbers of Peoples lives affected by John Locks Influence, history changed because of His being, and Setarcos thinks He is a Joke, because Yates and His Like said so. What an Ass Clown. Nice Link Jerk-off.
Matters of Faith are Just That. The fact that some Must drag through the Mud to discredit speaks volumes. They are here to destroy. Unless the Masses bow to Their Will? Is that it? Totalitarian Control, they even lay claim to personal Thought. The Only thing I have to say to the Predators is **** You and The horse You rode in on.
Matters of Faith are Just That. The fact that some Must drag through the Mud to discredit speaks volumes. They are here to destroy. Unless the Masses bow to Their Will? Is that it? Totalitarian Control, they even lay claim to personal Thought. The Only thing I have to say to the Predators is **** You and The horse You rode in on.
rubberhead
Member
- Sep 8, 2009
- 498
- 31
- 16
Agreed. Moral relativism only serves to justify all of the horrible acts that Moral absolutists have committed over the years. Sorry, let me rephrase, acts that seemed horrible from my particular cultural perspective. I think that a certain level of moral relativity exists, however, in order for a moral code to be effective it must:
1) be grounded in serving the common good
2) be easy to remember and follow
3) be followed absolutely and uniformly
In my opinion, of course.
I hear You, I really do. What I'm suggesting instead is finding a solution that addresses the complete issue, point by point, that reaches fair resolution without compromising Principle. How about we work with an example. Pick one to three things and what are the concerns or factors.
Diuretic
Permanently confused
I'm a bit uncomfortable with the idea of flogging influential thinkers of the past. We wouldn't know what we know now without them (yes I know, Newton said it much more elegantly).
But we must move forwards. Good old Hegel gave us the clue. It's when we get stuck in the past that we make the error. Locke and Hume were important thinkers and in many ways Locke gave the American Founding Fathers the intellectual ammo they needed. So in a way Locke is the intellectual father of modern liberal democracy and we owe him a huge debt.
But we have to let them go to move forwards.
But we must move forwards. Good old Hegel gave us the clue. It's when we get stuck in the past that we make the error. Locke and Hume were important thinkers and in many ways Locke gave the American Founding Fathers the intellectual ammo they needed. So in a way Locke is the intellectual father of modern liberal democracy and we owe him a huge debt.
But we have to let them go to move forwards.
rubberhead
Member
- Sep 8, 2009
- 498
- 31
- 16
I don't think insisting that natural rights don't exist is 'moving forward' exactly. Actually I think it harks back to the days where rights were what lords told us they were and the few were elevated above the many by force. Should we 'move forward' from Rawls as well? Besides, Locke's state of nature allowed men to cooperate, so essentially it qualified as a society as you would define it, so you could probably find much you agree with about Locke.
I think of it in terms of the original position (Rawls, "A Theory of Justice" for anyone who hasn't read it) with a slight difference. Let's say there is a group of rational agents in close proximity, ignoring concepts like society and cooperation. They are forced to compete with each other for moderately scarce resources. Now take them out of the world and strip them of all knowledge of their world except that there is this world with a bunch of rational agents puttering around competing with each other. Tell them: You have been called here to devise the principles of justice in that world, and once they have completed this task they will return to an undetermined station in it. Ask them: what are these agents rightfully entitled to?
What do they say? Assume that they are acting completely in their own self interest.
1) They will want to maximize their ability to attain the resources they need. However, they do not want to stack the deck because they don't know where they will land when they go back. This assumes severe risk aversion on their part, but I think that it is justified. What maximizes that ability? Equal freedom. Each agent is free, but no agent is free to deprive another of their freedom.
2) They will want to keep what they create or harvest. If they are free to gather resources but not free to keep what they gather, then what's the point of gathering anything? This is my version of the difference principle. It's a little different than Rawls's, but I think his version opens the door for economic justice which I think is shaky at best.
These desires are uniform and they are independent of society. They are consequences of the rationality of the agents in the original position. The fact that I call the objects of these desires 'natural' does not imply that people will always get them. I am merely saying that people ought to be entitled these things. Why? Because every person wants them and thus no person could rightfully take them away from another. This is what is meant by equality. The same goes for legal rights. Just because something is illegal doesn't mean that people will stop doing it.
The T
George S. Patton Party
A right is something that is GOD GIVEN by birthright...and not for ANY man/Government to take away.
This is True Liberty.
True Liberty is a Right in itself...Expoused within the Declaration of Independence...
LIFE, LIBERTY, The Persuit Of Happiness...
It IS a RIGHT.
So in short? LIFE LIBERTY PROPERTY are RIGHTS, that are God-Given, and for No Man or Government to aquiese/impede.
This is True Liberty.
True Liberty is a Right in itself...Expoused within the Declaration of Independence...
LIFE, LIBERTY, The Persuit Of Happiness...
It IS a RIGHT.
So in short? LIFE LIBERTY PROPERTY are RIGHTS, that are God-Given, and for No Man or Government to aquiese/impede.
rubberhead
Member
- Sep 8, 2009
- 498
- 31
- 16
But then how come freedom costs a buck o' five?
rubberhead
Member
- Sep 8, 2009
- 498
- 31
- 16
You're making me look at that jack-ass's posts. I have to say now that I looked at that post and followed that link. It's total garbage. Why doesn't Setarcos actually engage? I'll tell you: he's afraid he might end up changing his mind. We'd never know of course, even if he did. There are so many layers of Napoleanic garbage between us and him that he wouldn't admit it out loud for years to come. Who knows? He may be convinced already and he's just trying to save face by marginalizing himself. I think JBeukema realized everyone put him on their ignore list and he went and started a new account.
rubberhead
Member
- Sep 8, 2009
- 498
- 31
- 16
1) Who decides what is the common good? Why is it moral to serve this "common good"?
2)So simplicity is "moral"? Do demonstrate.
3)So the morality of an act is determined by how common it is?
Do you need help with your reading? I said, "in order for a moral code to be effective" it must be simple and followed uniformly. I'm honored that you took two seconds to pick out a few words from what I wrote that might be logically weak, but you should learn about reading entire sentences and then try reconstructing the thought that they represent in your head. Then you can let them mingle with your own thoughts (if you have any of your own in there) and respond. I know this is a lot to absorb for an angry philosophy department dropout.
For the sake of contrast, here's the Setarcos method:
0) Look for new posts while you're wiping up the jizz from the last whack-fest
1) Scan each new post for words that generally denote something subjective (always easy to find)
2) Come up with a pugnacious way of pointing out that those things are subjective
3) Do a google search for someone else's ideas about the subject
4) Copy and paste the first link from the search results
4.5) Insert some inflammatory comments and ad hominem attacks to make sure that no one will follow the link to whatever garbage you happened to copy and paste
5) masturbate in front of the mirror and go back to step 0
Why don't you go back to dreaming about how great it would be if everyone were as enlightened as you and let the grown ups talk?
PubliusInfinitum
Rookie
- Aug 18, 2008
- 6,805
- 729
- 0
- Banned
- #1,377
Yeah... Moral; as in founded in valid and sustainable morality... that perfection in reasoning which rests upon the immutable principles of nature.
Is it? How so? And be specific...
Now what we're going to find here friends, is that yet another Humanist... which is to say Leftist, is confusing the rightful entitlement to something, with the means to exercise that entitlement. Thus, they feel; where a sufficient power prevents an individual from exercising their Right; this for them; IN A VERY LIMITED SCOPE OF CIRCUMSTANCES... usually wherein ANOTHER'S RIGHT is at issue... when THEY are in power, whatever THEY feel is a Right is what a Right is.
As has been demonstrated countless times in dozens of boards... where a scenario is considered that strips the anti-thiest of their right to their life; through a legitimate legislative process... one in which the Judicial authority affirms... it's a very rare and wholly disengenuous Anti-thiest which comes to profess that they would simply fold their life's potential and turn themselves in and surrender to that authority; so such could strip them of their life.
Typically, the response is that they would fight such an authority and those who represent such; destroying the individuals vested with legitimate police powers... they would defend themselves from their neighbors who pursue them... and they rationalize that such is merely a biological response... as if such a biological reponse is not present and indisputable biological manifestation of the the Right itself.
It all falls to the hubris of these idiots... They understand, at least on a conceptual level the simple biological processes... and assume that because such exist and because they understand the process, that the mystery of the process is solved; that there's nothing about the process that is unknown; thus there is no purpose to, about or for that process than that which they can observe.
They're fools... And it's not much of a stretch to equate the hubris of the trait at issue and that which the President of the US demonstrated yesterday...
Now all that left is for this jackass to answer the question: She stated that the Right to life is alienable... I ask her here and now to state specifically how the Right to one's life can be separated from the being which bears it.
Failure to respond with an intellectually sound, logically valid, cogent, well reasoned answer... will of course concede the point, in finality, throughout the scope of time and space.
Last edited:
Well stated. Even Impartial Taxation, has a place with the Consent of The Governed. Government has a Right to fund what it is charged to Provide. The end does in no way Justify the means, rather the Means must be Justified on It's Own Merit. This is where I find fault with Hamilton. Religion, a belief in God, Cannot be disproved here. The fact that Our Founders subscribed to this Belief, is not disputed either. The fact that these beliefs influenced Our Laws, is also true. Rewriting History, does not dispute this, it just misrepresents it. Be they influenced by Judaism, Christianity, or even Deist's, a common set of Principles were, applied to Our Charters. The studies may have been expanded in hundreds of Years, yet the Purity remains.
Some of Us recognize Positive and Negative Behavior. What We build on as a Society from that Foundation, does not take away from the Foundation Itself, but compliments it. What we find Rotted, we repair, or substitute with better material.
JB is Suspended again. Funny both JB and Set, attack on the same wave legnth, I've seen it before, sort of reminds me of "The Paper Chase". Maybe it's a Church of Satan thing. I have them both on ignore now.
Diuretic
Permanently confused
Is this the "veil of ignorance" idea?
Last edited:
Similar threads
New Topics
-
James Carville Promises Political Prosecution of Trump Family- Started by DonGlock26
- Replies: 0
-
What is the world supposed to do with the Iranian regime, or what were they supposed to do with them?- Started by Votto
- Replies: 2
-
-
Plandemic side effect, over-use of anti bacterials
- Started by EMH
- Replies: 3
-
