The nature of Rights.

by **Samatolian City-States** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 6:57 pm

Having noted that there have been no great liberty-authority clashes here as of late, I have decided to produce a thread about the nature of rights themselves. Some would hold that rights are not given to the individual by authority, but rather freedoms that naturally exist no matter what government or authority they are governed by, if any. Others believe that rights are granted to the individual by contract with the government, therefore they are able to be modified and removed without consent or input from the people. Personally, I agree with the former idea. I'd like to know your opinions, though, and I'd also like you to disagree with me and possibly become angry. That's always good fun.

by **Tunizcha** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 6:59 pm

I also agree that an individual is inherently "free"..

by **Czardas** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 7:00 pm

Rights are granted to the individual based on the consensus of society (a unit distinct from the state, being governed by it). Basically, if 95% of the population (or thereabouts) agrees that individuals have certain rights in certain circumstances, those rights become law. Often rights are codified in a document, like the US Constitution, in which cases the rights can be said to derive from the document in question.

by **You-Gi-Owe** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 7:07 pm

From a religious point of view, rights are given by Divine Authority and recognized or trampled upon by humans.

by **Dempublicents1** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 7:14 pm

I see this in much the same way that I see the objective vs. subjective morality debate. There may be natural rights that every human being has, and I would like to think that there are. However, in practice, rights are granted (and possibly protected) by the society - usually through the government.

by **Samatolian City-States** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 7:20 pm

Czardas wrote:Rights are granted to the individual based on the consensus of society (a unit distinct from the state, being governed by it). Basically, if 95% of the population (or thereabouts) agrees that individuals have certain rights in certain circumstances, those rights become law. Often rights are codified in a document, like the US Constitution, in which cases the rights can be said to derive from the document in question.

Sadly enough, yes. I plan to write a new Bill of Rights sometime in the near future, just for the giggles. It will be large.

by **Alancar** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 7:28 pm

"Rights" and "duties" are social conventions. They cannot exist outside society and they are absolutely necessary for society to exist. It's part of the way of how we interact with each other...in that way they are, as it has been pointed out, a lot like morals.

by **UnhealthyTruthseeker** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 7:33 pm

Outside of society, you can do whatever you want, provided that your actions don't break the laws of physics. Inside society, for your own benefit and for the benefit of those around you, you are restricted in what you are allowed to do.

by **Pevisopolis** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 7:37 pm

Samatolian City-States wrote:Having noted that there have been no great liberty-authority clashes here as of late, I have decided to produce a thread about the nature of rights themselves. Some would hold that rights are not given to the individual by authority, but rather freedoms that naturally exist no matter what government or authority they are governed by, if any. Others believe that rights are granted to the individual by contract with the government, therefore they are able to be modified and removed without consent or input from the people. Personally, I agree with the former idea. I'd like to know your opinions, though, and I'd also like you to disagree with me and possibly become angry. That's always good fun.

I'm not a fan of "God-Given Principles" affecting Humanity, but I'd say we are more naturally free.

by **Cameroi** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 7:39 pm

converse of lefts

"Skallvia" · by **Maurepas** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 7:39 pm

Im of the opinion that it is Self Evident,

by **Big Jim P** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 7:46 pm

I believe that there are no inherent rights, only the rights you will fight for personally or through a proxie, the latter accounting for those granted by society.

"Skallvia" · by **Maurepas** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 7:50 pm

Big Jim P wrote:I believe that there are no inherent rights, only the rights you will fight for personally or through a proxie, the latter accounting for those granted by society.

I believe that there are inherent rights, specifically the whole "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness", but, if you want to exercise those rights you have to be willing to fight for them, etc...

just my opinion on the subject...

by **Alancar** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 7:53 pm

My issue with "inherent rights" is that they require some type of belief in the supernatural. Otherwise how are those rights granted?

by **UnhealthyTruthseeker** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 7:59 pm

Alancar wrote:My issue with "inherent rights" is that they require some type of belief in the supernatural. Otherwise how are those rights granted?

Because A=A.

by **Alancar** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 8:01 pm

UnhealthyTruthseeker wrote:
Alancar wrote:My issue with "inherent rights" is that they require some type of belief in the supernatural. Otherwise how are those rights granted?

Because A=A.

...I'm sorry, what?

by **New Kereptica** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 8:02 pm

Rights are a product of society, nothing more.

by **Unchecked Expansion** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 8:05 pm

Alancar wrote:
UnhealthyTruthseeker wrote:
Alancar wrote:My issue with "inherent rights" is that they require some type of belief in the supernatural. Otherwise how are those rights granted?

Because A=A.

...I'm sorry, what?

Wait til Bluth starts another 'Infallible Objective Truths' thread. He always leaves out the reasoning between A=A, supreme universal rights, and how there is no such thing as society and every man must be an island

by **Big Jim P** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 8:06 pm

Maurepas wrote:
Big Jim P wrote:I believe that there are no inherent rights, only the rights you will fight for personally or through a proxie, the latter accounting for those granted by society.

I believe that there are inherent rights, specifically the whole "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness", but, if you want to exercise those rights you have to be willing to fight for them, etc...

just my opinion on the subject...

So, to exercise two of those rights you potentially have to give up (or take from another) one of them (life)?

by **Czardas** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 8:07 pm

Terry Pratchett wrote: "All right," said Susan, "I'm not stupid. You're saying humans need ... fantasies to make life bearable."
NO. HUMANS NEED FANTASY TO BE HUMAN. TO BE THE PLACE WHERE THE FALLING ANGEL MEET THE RISING APE.
"Tooth fairies? Hogfathers?"
YES. AS PRACTICE. YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE THE LITTLE LIES.
"So we can believe the big ones?"
YES. JUSTICE. DUTY. MERCY. THAT SORT OF THING.
"They're not the same at all!"
REALLY? THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY. AND YET YOU ACT, LIKE THERE WAS SOME SORT OF RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED:
"Yes. But people have got to believe that or what's the point?"
MY POINT EXACTLY.

by **Vedun** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 8:08 pm

Rights are defined by society. Or more so, identified and limited by society. The only right that humans have from birth is to attempt to survive, by any means possible. That includes infringement on the rights of others.

by **Big Jim P** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 8:10 pm

Vedun wrote:Rights are defined by society. Or more so, identified and limited by society. The only right that humans have from birth is to attempt to survive, by any means possible. That includes infringement on the rights of others.

Essentially what I think, just expressed a little better than I did.

by **Jordaxia** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 8:14 pm

I've never seen any evidence that rights exist in a more meaningful way than numbers exist. They're abstract concepts to serve a useful purpose to humans, so rights, therefore, are defined both by the individual and the society. the individual defines what they believe to be basic human rights to themselves, and societal consensus comes together to form a rough generalisation of 'rights' as defined by the loudest, most persistent, and sometimes most numerous majority of humans. this is why rights differ across borders, and cultures, because they exist only in the form that we give them. Question answered, I hope?

"Skallvia" · by **Maurepas** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 8:38 pm

Alancar wrote:My issue with "inherent rights" is that they require some type of belief in the supernatural. Otherwise how are those rights granted?

By virtue of being born,

No real need for them to be "endowed by their creator" if you dont want them to be, which I dont...

"Skallvia" · by **Maurepas** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 8:39 pm

Big Jim P wrote:
Maurepas wrote:
Big Jim P wrote:I believe that there are no inherent rights, only the rights you will fight for personally or through a proxie, the latter accounting for those granted by society.

I believe that there are inherent rights, specifically the whole "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness", but, if you want to exercise those rights you have to be willing to fight for them, etc...

just my opinion on the subject...

So, to exercise two of those rights you potentially have to give up (or take from another) one of them (life)?

No, unless someone attempts to take your own life, then you are defending that right, not taking it away...

The nature of Rights.

The nature of Rights.

Who is online