13 May 08
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderRights are enshrined in laws. Laws are enacted and laws are repealed. If nobody recognizes one of your "rights" then it is meaningless. A right with no meaning does not exist. If it regains meaning, it exists again.
please explain the concept of a "right" which has to be given and can be taken away.
The prosaic example I used earlier was this: in some States in the USA to be able to enter into a legally recognized same-sex marriage is a right. In other States that right does not exist. Different locations, same country, different rights. Changes in the laws of various States could perhaps give this right to citizens or take them away. Maybe for a short time. Maybe for a long time.
In some countries the right to life is absolute. In other countries the right to life is conditional - it depends on whether or not you obey certain laws, the laws forbidding murder for example. In the USA, the right to life is purportedly paramount. And yet it is routinely suspended in order to execute people.
If you want to talk about "rights that existed before laws", that's fine. I don't. I left university 22 years ago. I am interested in reality. Rights are basically the substance of the 'contracts' that make it possible for human beings to live with one another in the real world. They vary in number, strength, consistency, meaning, cultural interpretation. They are "given" and "taken away", regularly, in some places. In others, they are constant and seemingly unwavering.
Rights are a human social construct. They do not somehow 'come from within' humans. The idea that "rights existed before laws" is nonsense. Laws create rights. People create rights in order to make the human world work. Humans afford each other rights. They are only 'born with them' in as much as laws pertaining to our rights also apply to our babies.
Do other life forms on Earth apart from humans, - like plants and animals - have rights? No, they don't.
I asked this before, so forgive me for raising it again: What rights would a single remaining human being on an otherwise empty planet Earth have?
13 May 08
Originally posted by FMFYou don't have any conception of rights; it is nonsensical to say you have a "right" to something if it can be taken away at any time.
Rights are enshrined in laws. Laws are enacted and laws are repealed. If nobody recognizes one of your "rights" then it is meaningless. A right with no meaning does not exist. If it regains meaning, it exists again.
The prosaic example I used earlier was this: in some States in the USA to be able to enter into a legally recognized same-sex marriage is a right ...[text shortened]... would a single remaining human being on an otherwise empty planet Earth have?
There is no difference anywhere in what your rights are. There are differences among laws and in all nations many rights are not respected. To you, that means the right doesn't exist. To me, Locke and the Framers it just means that the government that refuses to recognize one's Natural Rights is a tyranny.
To make a simple analogy, you own a watch. A thief puts a gun to your head and say "I now own your watch" and takes it from you. But you retain ownership of the watch whether the thief recognizes it or not.
Similarly, a government cannot take a right away from you; you own it. The purpose of governments is to protect your exercise and possession of your rights; people agreed to form governments not to be worse off i.e. to be totally at the mercy of the government but to be better off i.e. to have their rights secured more effectively. If you left university without understanding the basis of Western rights philosophy that is unfortunate for you, but others need not repeat your error.
A single surviving human being would retain all his Natural Rights. But for someone who keeps talking about "reality" it's hypocritical to use such an unreal hypothetical.
13 May 08
3 edits
Originally posted by FMFOriginally posted by no1marauder
The idea that "rights existed before laws" is nonsense. Laws create rights. People create rights in order to make the human world work. Humans afford each other rights. [...] What rights would a single remaining human being on an otherwise empty planet Earth have?
A single surviving human being would retain all his Natural Rights. But for someone who keeps talking about "reality" it's hypocritical to use such an unreal hypothetical.
My "unreal hypothetical" simply illustrated how detached from reality your sentimental and esoteric view of rights is. As did your answer to it. And it seems you don't really know what the word 'hypocritical ' means. I suppose there had to be some attempted barb at the end of the post, just in case the rather childish taunt ("You don't have any conception of rights" ) at the beginning hadn't felled me. Or perhaps what you meant is that there is only one permissible conception of rights?
If you left university without understanding the basis of Western rights philosophy that is unfortunate for you, but others need not repeat your error.
Well a debate is a debate. And we disagree about this topic. If you simply required me to express/exhibit some sort of intellectual allegiance to something you happen to have memorized or internalized having attended a philosophy class, why didn't you say so at the beginning? It's almost as if you are saying that your "Western rights philosophy" precludes my right to reach my own conception and opinion. Surely not?
Please note that, while I strongly disagree with your conception of rights, I do not think that 'you don't have any conception of rights'. That would be a silly kind of thing for me to say.
Your entire demeanour is that of a person who cannot accept dissent Our philosophies divergence: this seems to make you all snide and angry. Why is that?
13 May 08
2 edits
Originally posted by FMFYou don't understand the American/Lockean concept of rights. Rights are not dependent on the law. They are not dependent on what a person is allowed to do, or what a person is prohibited from doing by force. Rights are what one uses to determine whether or not a law is morally ok. Laws do not determine which rights exist.
"To say that a person has a right is a moral statement about right and wrong. That's all." No. I disagree. I think you are mixing up separate things here. Rights and morality may overlap but they are not the same thing. In some States to enter into a legally recognized same-sex marriage is a right (in others that right does not exist). This right was establishe It feels like your desire to disagree with me is stronger than the case you have to make.
In some States to enter into a legally recognized same-sex marriage is a right (in others that right does not exist).
Either people have that right or they do not. It does not depend on what state they are in.
In some countries the right to life is absolute, in others the right to life is conditional - it depends on whether or not you obey certain laws (the laws forbidding murder for example).
No; the Right to Life is what it is, no matter where you are or what the law says. Now people might disagree about what rights people have, but that's not what you're saying.
I think I agree with you to some extent (and I think disagree with no1) in that I believe that the concept of "rights" is fairly arbritrary and not based on objective fact. If you accept that people have rights, then you accept a certain moral framework. Murder is wrong because people have a Right to Life. Capturing someone and locking him up is wrong because people have a Right to Liberty. Rape is wrong because people have a Right to Their Own Body. Etc.
It's not a perfect system; we imprison people here in the States despite the Right to Liberty, but does that mean any legal imprisonment in any country is moral no matter what law was invoked? I don't know. That leads to the idea that the Nazi concentration camps did not violate anyones' rights, and that's ludicrous. However it is a very good system for basing public policy on given the passionate and sometimes savage disagreements people within a country have with one another. It's not inconsistent with monotheistic religion or atheism for example.
13 May 08
2 edits
Originally posted by FMFNo. But you do seem to acknowledge rights; you claim to understand the Lockean/American concept of rights; yet your statements are inconsistent with that combination. The definition of "rights" you use is not the same as the one we're using. Where are you getting it from? Why confuse things by re-defining the word and then telling us the original definition is wrong?
I do.
I do understand it.
Are you saying that it is compulsory to subscribe to it?
Actually, subscription to rights theory is somewhat compulsive; if some dictator violates peoples' rights, the US might just step in and do something about it. In that sense it's compulsory.
13 May 08
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFThen why did you start your reply to me with "You don't understand the American/Lockean concept of rights."?
Are you saying that it is compulsory to subscribe to it?
Originally posted by AThousandYoung
No.
But you do seem to acknowledge rights; you claim to understand the Lockean/American concept of rights; yet your statements are inconsistent with that combination. The definition of "rights" you use is not the same as the one we're using. Where are you getting it from? Why confuse things by re-defining the word and then telling us the original definition is wrong?
It sounds like you simply require me to conform to your view. Is that really a debate? Your chosen definition of rights appears to preclude any discussion or dissent except on American/Lockean terms.
14 May 08
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThat is so. I make no secret of the fact that my view of rights is not "consistent with the American/Lockean definition of the word", as you put it. Does this mean I am not allowed to discuss rights with you?
Because you're talking about "rights" but are not being consistent with the American/Lockean definition of the word.
You seem to be under the impression that I subscribe to the American/Lockean concept of rights but that I don't understand it at the same time. Well, I do understand it and I don't subscribe to it. Hasn't that been absolutely clear since my first post and then consistent in every subsequent post of mine?
Do you really think I have been trying to lecture you on the American/Lockean concept of rights?
14 May 08
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFYour very first post in this thread was this:
That is so. I make no secret of the fact that my view of rights is not "consistent with the American/Lockean definition of the word", as you put it. Does this mean I am not allowed to discuss rights with you?
You seem to be under the impression that I subscribe to the American/Lockean concept of rights but that I don't understand it at the same time. Well, I u really think I have been trying to lecture you on the American/Lockean concept of rights?
Plants are incapable of assuming responsibilities; therefore they are cannot be afforded rights.
This is a definition of "rights" I've never seen before. As far as I know you made it up. Why did you make up this new definition of the word "rights" if you so clearly understand what the word means in standard English? Why did you assume we'd all accept your non-standard definition?
I can just decide that "rights" means that all rights are dependent on making me happy. It would be ridiculous if I just wandered into a thread about rights and began discussing the issue with that definition in mind and not even bothering to explain.
14 May 08
Originally posted by AThousandYoungSo the American/Lockean definition and concept of rights, and the standard English definition of rights, are one in the same thing? No other concept or view or argument has had any bearing on the concept of rights? And people are not permitted to offer and argue "non-standard definitions" in a debate?
Why did you make up this new definition of the word "rights" if you so clearly understand what the word means in standard English? Why did you assume we'd all accept your non-standard definition?