14 May 08
2 edits
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThat quite obviously is not a 'definition of rights'. Read it again. It's not. Why are you saying it is? The sentence contains the word "rights" so how could it be a definition of the word? My (clumsy, and later clarified) words were an over-concise attempt to argue why, according to me, only humans have rights. The only life form capable of conceiving of and exercising rights and understanding the counterbalancing concept of responsibilities are human beings. So, human beings have rights. Other life forms don't. There. That is not, in any way, an attempt to offer a a 'definition of rights', so please stop saying that it was.
Your very first post in this thread was this:
[b]Plants are incapable of assuming responsibilities; therefore they are cannot be afforded rights.
This is a definition of "rights" I've never seen before. [/b]
My view is that rights are a human social construct. They do not somehow 'come from within' humans. The concept of 'Natural Rights' is utterly fascinating but I don't subscribe to it because it strikes me as being a quasi-religious, metaphysical idea that bears little relation to the reality of the human condition. The idea that "rights existed before laws" is, to me, 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.
If I am not mistaken, what you are saying is that, because this concept of rights is not the American/Lockean concept of rights, then my view is invalid.
14 May 08
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI did explain. Over and over again. But presumably because my view is not the American/Lockean view, you feel it is invalid: not only do you reject my explanation, you assert that my explanation doesn't even exist! It's quite funny really.
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.
The reason I don't subscribe to the American/Lockean view is because I reckon it dashes itself on the rocks as soon as it tries to set sail into the choppy waters of reality. Take a look at your evasive, equivocal, vague answers to my two rather simple, concrete little examples:
I said: In some States to enter into a legally recognized same-sex marriage is a right - in others that right does not exist.
You answered: Either people have that right or they do not. It does not depend on what state they are in.
Which is it to be then? A right or not a right? And it obviously does depend on what state you are in.
I said: 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).
You answered: 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.
Well, it was what I was saying actually. It is, indeed, the crux of the matter. But whatever.
So much for your American/Lockean view! You and your concept of "rights" flounder immediately on coming into contact with 'same-sex marriages' and the 'right to life'.
14 May 08
Originally posted by FMFI think the issue that AThousandYoung and No1Marauder have with your view is that without having
I did explain. Over and over again. But presumably because my view is not the American/Lockean view, you feel it is invalid: not only do you reject my explanation, you assert that my explanation doesn't even exist! It's quite funny really.
The reason I don't subscribe to the American/Lockean view is because I reckon it dashes itself on the rocks as soon as i ...[text shortened]... immediately on coming into contact with 'same-sex marriages' and the 'right to life'.
an absolute standard of what is and is not a right (irrespective of whether the government bothers
to recognize it) is because without that absolute standard, one has nothing to appeal to when
wronged. That is, a person in Alabama has no grounds to appeal his right to marry another man
because it isn't merely that the right isn't recognized but that the right doesn't exist at all. The
ephemeral quality that your system has means that rights are merely a matter of opinion. I,
like they, disagree. Women have always had the right to vote, but only in recent history has
that right been recognized. Had the right to vote not existed, it never could have been recognized.
Does what I said make sense?
Nemesio
14 May 08
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioIt does. And thank you for not twisting what I have said just so as to argue with me. It's not that I don't understand what they believe or what they mean. I just don't subscribe to it.
Does what I said make sense?
That is, a person in Alabama has no grounds to appeal his right to marry another man because it isn't merely that the right isn't recognized but that the right doesn't exist at all.
I think they should have the right. They don't have the right. If the law were to change and allow it, then they would have the right. If such a law were passed, then other Alabamans would not have the right to discriminate against same-sex couples. I presume that, as things currently stand, they do currently have the right to discriminate in certain ways. I am not inclined to be too philosophical about it. I appreciate that "rights" are a topic of philosophical deliberation (and apparently AThousandYoung believes that anything other than the American/Locke concept is "ridiculous" ) but rights are also a real thing in the real world. I argue that in practical terms there is no absolute standard of what is and is not a right. It shifts. It evolves. It comes and it goes. Humans each carry their own concept of standards, and throughout history, in the political and cultural domains, these perceptions and beliefs have locked horns with each other, compromises have been made, norms have been established, rights and responsibilities have been defined.
The ephemeral quality that your system has means that rights are merely a matter of opinion.
Well they are a matter of opinion. That is my position on this. I would say this is not 'ephemeral'. I would say it is realistic. Indeed, to me, "an absolute standard of what is and is not a right is necessary because without that absolute standard, one has nothing to appeal to when wronged" sounds ephemeral. For example, I can't see how it could work across contrasting cultures without being diluted to the point of lofty generalisations. What's more I catch of whiff - not deliberate coming from you, for sure - of the makings of a rationale for dominant cultures to impose their "norms" on other cultures. AThousandYoung incedulity that someone could believe in some conception that is different from the American/Locke concept is a small sign that we are talking here - ultimately - about a flat refusal to tolerate diversity. But that's another debate, perhaps.
Women have always had the right to vote, but only in recent history has that right been recognized. Had the right to vote not existed, it never could have been recognized.
I see it differently. Woman now have the right to vote. There was a time when they didn't. "Had the right to vote not existed, it never could have been recognized" is a kind of wordplay: the right didn't exist, now it does, and everybody recognizes it because it is enshrined in law. You seem to be saying that after tens of thousands of years of human history it was finally "recognized" relatively recently. This formulation appeals to my personal sense of justice and gender equality. But as a prism through which to view history, I think it's irrelevant to the actual status of women throughout those tens of thousands of years. Their right to vote was not recognized, it was created. And because of that, now it is recognized. This is my view. It is not your view. It is not AThousandYoung's view. It is not No1Marauder's view - although with him it's not so clear - his ability to express himself was rather hamstrung by his baffling personal hostility. It is not that I don't understand the American/Locke concept of rights. It's just that I don't subscribe to it. And some people, it seems, cannot bring themselves to believe that such 'unorthodoxy' is possible.
14 May 08
3 edits
Originally posted by FMFYou have no coherent view of rights. A right can't be a right if it is reliant on the whims of temporary occupants of political power. You should cease talking about "rights" since it is utterly clear you are confusing "law" with "rights". If what your rights are are a mere "matter of opinion", than they do not exist at all.
[/b]It does. And thank you for not twisting what I have said just so as to argue with me. It's not that I don't understand what they believe or what they mean. I just don't subscribe to it.
That is, a person in Alabama has no grounds to appeal his right to marry another man because it isn't merely that the right isn't recognized but that the right doesn't exi ng themselves to believe that such 'unorthodoxy' is possible.
Your posts have been filled with personal attacks and irrelevancies and then you have the gall to talk about someone else's "hostility"? Is there a mirror in your house?
Anyway please answer this question which was posed three pages ago:
What does it mean to have a "right" that can be taken away at any time for any reason?
14 May 08
Originally posted by AThousandYoungSo I don't really have have any right to live if mother nature want me to die. My only right is that no human being can kill me?
The right to life means killing a person is immoral. It has nothing to do with natural death.
But if I live in one of those countries that kill people from court, a judge that decide I would live or not, than I don't have any right to live either?
So if I am killed, wrongfully, by some person, can I claim some kind of pecuniary compensation? No? Then I don't have any right after all...
14 May 08
Originally posted by whodeyI've got a better ethical dilemma for the Swiss to solve: Why does it cost so much to take the train from Interlaken?
At the request of the Swiss government, an ethical panel has weighed in on the "dignity" of plants and opined that the arbitrary killing of flora is morally wrong. What is now being considered by the Swiss government is a plant bill of rights of sorts.
htpp://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/065njdoe.asp
14 May 08
Originally posted by FMFSo the American/Lockean definition and concept of rights, and the standard English definition of rights, are one in the same thing?
So 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?
As far as I know. Do you have reason to believe otherwise?
No other concept or view or argument has had any bearing on the concept of rights?
Which concept of rights? Yours, or the standard one?
14 May 08
Originally posted by FMFgeez
Serious question: are you pretending not to understand? Is that your 'Forum persona'? This is not a dig. I'm trying to make sense of your last few posts. I mean, I seriously do not know what to make of this: "but animals don't [have rights] BECAUSE we restrict our rights to protect them" (my emphasis, your words). You are mis-stating what I am saying. Is it beca ...[text shortened]... ay, you are 'playing the pugnacious dunce' to a tee - and I just can't figure out why.
15 May 08
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI have already conceded that my conception of rights differs from the standard one. I find your insistence that only the standard one can be discussed rather odd. To my way of thinking, you and your orthodoxy ran aground 30 seconds out of harbour, on 'same-sex marriages' and the 'right to life'. And now I realize that all you seem to want me to do is to admit that my views are unorthodox. Well I do. And I never pretended otherwise. Maybe you thought I did. Well, then, if that is so, this is your "gotcha!" moment. Good for you. I have re-read my own posts on this page and the previous one. I am happy with them and stand by them. I have stated my view. You don't agree with it. There we have it.
Which concept of rights? Yours, or the standard one?
15 May 08
Originally posted by FMFOk, you're talking about something other than what the rest of us are. Enjoy.
I have already conceded that my conception of rights differs from the standard one. I find your insistence that only the standard one can be discussed rather odd. To my way of thinking, you and your orthodoxy ran aground 30 seconds out of harbour, on 'same-sex marriages' and the 'right to life'. And now I realize that all you seem to want me to do is to admit t ...[text shortened]... them and stand by them. I have stated my view. You don't agree with it. There we have it.