What are our "Human Rights"?

reply to post by doctornamtab

People who contribute their time and energy, commonly called work.

Another bone of contention in my book. What constitutes WORK??? Time spent on bringing in taxable income??? Or time spent maintaining/improving the world (environment) around you??? Chores. Like when your wife cooks, cleans and does the laundry... without receiving a typical paycheck resulting in more taxable income.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Your definition of rights does not include any positive rights. Also it does not allow any breaching of negative rights to ensure positive rights. There is also a huge omission bias. Its not valid IMO.

Originally posted by doctornamtab
reply to post by shushu

 

People who contribute their time and energy, commonly called work. But work doesn't guarantee food and shelter anymore, even if we work more than one job. So something new is required to guarantee people aren't starving AND working, which is pretty widespread nowadays.

The promise of society, the reason people began to group themselves into societies was to guarantee food and shelter for each other since its easier to provide these in large groups than small groups. Rights are here to remind us of this purpose, that we're more than just ourselves, that we've joined a group with guaranteed rules and statutes against being harmed.

And yes, rights are a product of society. But its pretty hard to escape society nowadays. Rights are things that the government and economic powers cannot take away from us. The right to love, the right to hobbies, the right to free speech, the right to suicide. These are things that, when written in some special place like a constitution or holy book, cannot be taken away from people. Some are simply facts of life. Sure they can take away a right to suicide but who are they going to punish? The dead?

All rights are embodied in individualism, freedom and self expression. Take away rights and you take away these three things. Increase the scope of our rights and we increase our individualism, freedom and ability to express ourselves.

But all in all, free food is the first and foremost human right. Its also the most important right to fight for because, like all human rights, once we have it they can never take it away from us.

Free food? There is nothing free, it might be free to you but somewhere somehow some other person worked to produce that food. If its free to you it has been stolen from that other person
Rights can not, must not infringe on the rights of another. If you infringe on the rights of another person then for sure someone will come along and infringe on yours.

1. You have a right for protection of life and health.
2. You have a right for property, except in cases when its needed for the protection of the rights 1. and 3.
3. You have a right to liberty, except in cases when it must be restricted for the protection of the rights 2. and 3.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Rights are a natural phenomenon that exist as law, and as such are self evident.

So what are these self-evident natural rights according to you? What is the universal objective morality (from which rights are derived) according to you? I am not disputing that universal morality, and therefore universal human rights exist, I am just disputing your vague definition of it.

Originally posted by Chett

Originally posted by doctornamtab
reply to post by shushu

 

But all in all, free food is the first and foremost human right. Its also the most important right to fight for because, like all human rights, once we have it they can never take it away from us.

Free food? There is nothing free, it might be free to you but somewhere somehow some other person worked to produce that food. If its free to you it has been stolen from that other person
Rights can not, must not infringe on the rights of another. If you infringe on the rights of another person then for sure someone will come along and infringe on yours.

That’s not entirely true. Prior to the agricultural revolution, food was free. You could hunt or fish or gather foods at will. It all belonged to the Earth just as we do. Now, times are certainly different, but you are still free to hunt and fish, freely if you choose, barring any legal consequences for breaking Wildlife and Fisheries Regulations. Even still, those regulations on your hunting and fishing activities were set in place to keep you dependant on Mass Production Food Industry. But in the end nothing can stop you from growing your own food in your yard, assuming you have a yard.

I agree though, that the individual rights cannot not infringe upon others.

reply to post by Maslo

So what are these self-evident natural rights according to you? What is the universal objective morality (from which rights are derived) according to you? I am not disputing that universal morality, and therefore universal human rights exist, I am just disputing your vague definition of it.

Morality is your wording, and I in no way equated rights with morality. It is self evident that all creatures great and small have the right to life. It follows then, and remains self evident that all creatures great and small have the right to self defense. All creatures great and small have the right to property. All creatures great and small have the self evident right to defend others who need defense. All creatures great and small have the right to defend their rights. These self evident rights I have just pointed to are the only rights that could justify force.

Outside of those self evident rights, anything a creature does, great and small, that causes no harm, they do by right.

I have actually gone into much more detail in this thread and your claim that I have been vague is disingenuous. In fact, I purposely replied to this post first, and will no reply to your earlier post which actually shows you know full well I am not offering up any vague definition.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Your definition of rights does not include any positive rights. Also it does not allow any breaching of negative rights to ensure positive rights. There is also a huge omission bias. Its not valid IMO.

edit on 22/6/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

Natural rights are not positive "rights". Natural law does not work in the positive and always works in the negative. Gravity does not prevent a thing, nor is the law of gravity codified into law. One or the other would be considered positive law.

Further, your disturbing assertion that rights as I have explained them do not "allow any breaching of negative rights to ensure positive rights" speaks volumes to your agenda.

No rights can trump other rights. "Positive rights" are not rights at all, they are privileges granted by artificial governments. No act of legislation can "breach" the law of gravity, the law of planetary motion, or the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Indeed, it is more than evident that the 2nd law of thermodynamics applies to more than just heat systems, and all closed systems tend towards entropy. The entropy the American economy is going through today is a direct result of positive acts of legislation acting under color of law.

You are the one who is being vague, and in my estimation intentionally vague, because you do not want to come out and admit that you dislike the fact that everyone, everywhere has unalienable rights.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Morality is your wording, and I in no way equated rights with morality.

Rights and morality are essentially the same thing. They both deal with what behaviour or actions are acceptable or good, and what are frowned upon or bad. Rights you consider right stem from moral system you adhere to.

It is self evident that all creatures great and small have the right to life.

Until someone bigger who disagrees comes around...
There are no natural rights comparable to a physical law of gravity. Otherwise they would not need to be enforced by humans, or protected, they would be enforced by physics or something, and would never be broken, as physical laws never are.
So called "natural rights" is just a moral system a group of humans made up, and they are not any more natural than other theorised or traded moral systems, and we do have better systems, in my opinion. The only truly natural moral system is maybe the infamous law of the jungle, when the more powerful does what he want, altough this is further debatable.
Also, something being natural or not has very little connection with it being good or bad.

reply to post by Maslo

Rights and morality are essentially the same thing. They both deal with what behaviour or actions are acceptable or good, and what are frowned upon or bad. Rights you consider right stem from moral system you adhere to.

If it is your intention to equate morality with law - an equation I can agree with - then I have no problem in you using the word morality in regards to law. Obviously this is not what you are doing by disingenuously using the word morality. It appears as if you have stepped into a thread that has, for the most part, remained clear headed and thoughtful, and looks much like a pond with pristine water. Unhappy with this, you take up a stick (the word morality) and stir up the pond, pat yourself on the back, and declare; "Look, this water is muddy not clear!"

However, at some point you will bore with this pointless game of muddying pristine waters, and shortly thereafter, the water will clear up again, and what is self evident will be clearly seen once again.

Rights are law. Not legislative acts, but law. Legislation is not law, merely evidence of law. The law does not care about my ideology, nor yours. The law is the law, and all law is simple, true, universal, and absolute. It is not a matter of agreement. The law does not need your agreement in order to be the law. I do not need your agreement in order to have rights. I have them whether you like it or not. If it is any consolation to you, you have these rights as well.

Until someone bigger who disagrees comes around...

And here, in a nutshell, is your agenda. You advocate "positive rights" that can "breach" negative rights, because you love bullies. You love the idea that bullies exist, and you really love the idea that bullies with enough force and leverage can trample all over the rights of people. Let's not make any mistakes about this, once people recognize the pristine pond, your hopeless attempt to muddy the waters only annoys those who enjoy pristine waters. It does not erase pristine waters, nor does it destroy pristine waters. It is a temporary inconvenience.

Further, bullies are generally not very bright and seem to think that brute force is better than critical thought. A bully will always react with genuine surprise when they discover someone who appears to be weaker than them has wisely used leverage - often times using the bullies own weight and force against them - to defeat the bully.

There are no natural rights comparable to a physical law of gravity.

There are no laws what-so-ever comparable to the law of gravity. The 2nd law of thermodynamics is not comparable to the law of gravity. Does this in-comparability negate the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

Otherwise they would not need to be enforced by humans, or protected, they would be enforced by physics or something, and would never be broken, as physical laws never are.

Physical laws are broken all the time. The clown that thinks he can fly by jumping off a cliff and flapping his arms really, really, really, hard - kind of like what you're doing now in a metaphorical sense - is breaking the law of gravity, and nature does indeed enforce this law, and the consequences for this clown can be pretty harsh.

The laws of motion are broken all the time. This is why people develop a hook or a slice in their golf swing, because they are breaking the laws of motion. Shaq has a difficult time with free throws because of his wrists that don't physically allow him to follow through with this shots, and because of this physicality Shaq is breaking the laws of motion. You will not pass a pretty spiral pass with a football if you do not follow through, which is obeying the laws of motion.

So called "natural rights" is just a moral system a group of humans made up, and they are not any more natural than other theorised or traded moral systems, and we do have better systems, in my opinion. The only truly natural moral system is maybe the infamous law of the jungle, when the more powerful does what he want, altough this is further debatable.

You can hide in a cave all day long, and only crawl out once the sun sets, then point to the nighttime sky and declare; "Look! There is no sun, ergo the sun does not exist!", all you want, it doesn't make your assertion any wiser.

Also, something being natural or not has very little connection with it being good or bad.

You brought good or bad into this equation, not I. You did so in a desperate attempt to confound and confuse. It will not work. The muddied waters will clear up soon enough, and for those who all ready know that the water is naturally pristine, they need not see pristine waters now in order to know who it is that muddied up the waters.

The real question is, why are you so desperate to convince people that they do not have unalienable natural rights in their possession? Just what the hell is your agenda?

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Further, your disturbing assertion that rights as I have explained them do not "allow any breaching of negative rights to ensure positive rights" speaks volumes to your agenda.

Lets not resort to theoretical masturbation, the systems and theories of morality and rights are intended to be used in practice afterall, otherwise they have no meaning at all.

"A poor mans child is ill, and will soon die without a cure, but he cant afford to buy one. Somehow, no charity wants / is able to help him. Then he founds out that a very rich man living nearby has enough money that he wont even notice the amount he needs is missing. He asks him for donation, but he refuses."

Should this man steal the needed money, or let the child die? Which will be a good, or more moral choice in this circumstances?
And what about "natural rights" moral system? Is he allowed to steal the money for the cure under it? No, because its breaching other persons right to property, which is unlimited and unconditional under natural rights.

If you answer yes, then it is clear that the "natural rights" system prevents the moral course of action and favors of immoral course of action at least in this single instance. This itself is enough to prove its not universally true or universally good.

If you answer no, then you are a very immoral and cold-hearted person IMHO. And it still wont prove that natural rights is true, it will only prove you must resort to psychopathic thinking to believe so.

reply to post by Maslo

Lets not resort to theoretical masturbation, the systems and theories of morality and rights are intended to be used in practice afterall, otherwise they have no meaning at all.

All law is practical, and it is you who is not only resorting to theoretical masturbation, you are relying upon it, and foolishly so. Masturbation will not breed anything other than self gratification. Thieves always lock their doors, liars always suspect others of lying to them, and mental masturbater's always assume everyone does this.

"A poor mans child is ill, and will soon die without a cure, but he cant afford to buy one. Somehow, no charity wants / is able to help him. Then he founds out that a very rich man living nearby has enough money that he wont even notice the amount he needs is missing. He asks him for donation, but he refuses."

Should this man steal the needed money, or let the child die? Which will be a good, or more moral choice in this circumstances?

Hypothetical situations are the refuge of the weak minded. Further, your attempt to drag in good or bad has all ready been rejected. I will not take up any arguments of good or bad. The law is the law, and that is all. Gravity is neither good, nor bad, it is simply gravity. Rights are neither good nor bad, they are simply rights.

If you answer no, then you are a very immoral and cold-hearted person IMHO. And it still wont prove that natural rights is true, it will only prove you must resort to psychopathic thinking to believe so.

People advocating the supremacy of bullies over natural rights invariably begin calling others psychopaths. Of course, I did not answer your silly question, so where does this leave you?

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

If it is your intention to equate morality with law - an equation I can agree with - then I have no problem in you using the word morality in regards to law. Obviously this is not what you are doing by disingenuously using the word morality. It appears as if you have stepped into a thread that has, for the most part, remained clear headed and thoughtful, and looks much like a pond with pristine water. Unhappy with this, you take up a stick (the word morality) and stir up the pond, pat yourself on the back, and declare; "Look, this water is muddy not clear!" However, at some point you will bore with this pointless game of muddying pristine waters, and shortly thereafter, the water will clear up again, and what is self evident will be clearly seen once again.

Yes, I stirred the ongoing little illusion in this thread that there is such thing as the only one valid universal natural law. And when I leave, the illusion may again materialise. Nice analogy lol

And here, in a nutshell, is your agenda. You advocate "positive rights" that can "breach" negative rights, because you love bullies. You love the idea that bullies exist, and you really love the idea that bullies with enough force and leverage can trample all over the rights of people.

Strawman. I have no agenda, certainly not one you imagine. I merely provided an example when your law is broken. Thus it cannot be an universal law such as the laws of physics.

There are no laws what-so-ever comparable to the law of gravity. The 2nd law of thermodynamics is not comparable to the law of gravity. Does this in-comparability negate the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

The 2nd law of thermodynamics is perfectly comparable to the law of gravity. It is a physical law, it is never broken, cannot be broken, and does not need any human enforcement for it to be so (contrary to "natural law").

Physical laws are broken all the time.

This is simply not true. What do you know about physics? A law which can be broken, even in one instance, is no longer a law.

en.wikipedia.org...

The clown that thinks he can fly by jumping off a cliff and flapping his arms really, really, really, hard - kind of like what you're doing now in a metaphorical sense - is breaking the law of gravity, and nature does indeed enforce this law, and the consequences for this clown can be pretty harsh.

You are contradicting yourself. You say physical laws can be broken, then give an example where there is merely an attempt by someone to broke the law, but it utterly fails, and the law is never broken, not even for an instant. The same with laws of motion.

On the contrary, natural rights or laws are not only attempted to break, they actually are broken many times. History is full of the examples.

You can hide in a cave all day long, and only crawl out once the sun sets, then point to the nighttime sky and declare; "Look! There is no sun, ergo the sun does not exist!", all you want, it doesn't make your assertion any wiser.

And you can claim that the sun is the only natural and universal light source all day, but once it sets, we can see that there are also other stars in the sky. They were there all along, just temporarily outshined by the suns rays.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Of course, I did not answer your silly question, so where does this leave you?

Oh yes I know you would not. You Lockian natural law abhorrents always do so. Like here. Because it would show the immorality, or at best incompleteness of the natural law philosophy.

Well, meet Natural rights 2.0 :

1. You have a right for protection of life and health.
2. You have a right for property, except in cases when its needed for the protection of the rights 1. and 3.
3. You have a right to liberty, except in cases when it must be restricted for the protection of the rights 2. and 3.

Oh look at them! Arent they better now?
They even give correct moral answer to the above problem I mentioned, the one where Natural rights 1.0 have a singularity (at best, at worst they give the immoral answer).

reply to post by Maslo

Yes, I stirred the ongoing little illusion in this thread that there is such thing as the only one valid universal natural law. And when I leave, the illusion may again materialise. Nice analogy lol

Pristine waters are not an illusion, nor is anything else that is self evident. It makes perfect sense that the guy relying on morality and good and bad now hopes to frame what is self evident as an illusion. Mystics love their parlor tricks so much so they tend to believe everything is nothing more than a parlor trick.

Strawman. I have no agenda, certainly not one you imagine. I merely provided an example when your law is broken. Thus it cannot be an universal law such as the laws of physics.

Of course you have an agenda. You steadfastly ignore that I have disassembled your arguments handily, and pretend that your arguments are valid. The universal law of physics are broken all the time, this you pretend isn't so, but it is as pretentious as your "morality".

The 2nd law of thermodynamics is perfectly comparable to the law of gravity. It is a physical law, it is never broken, cannot be broken, and does not need any human enforcement for it to be so (contrary to "natural law").

Sigh.

One of the most fundamental rules of physics, the second law of thermodynamics, has for the first time been shown not to hold for microscopic systems.

....

But the new experiment probed the uncertain middle ground between extremely small-scale systems and macroscopic systems and showed that the second law can also be consistently broken at micron scale, over time periods of up to two seconds.

www.newscientist.com...

Your blind faith in physics ignores that there is quantum mechanics. Why do we need quantum theory?:

Classical (Newtonian) mechanics works perfectly in explaining the world around us, and is accurate enough for even charting the trajectory of probes sent to Jupiter and beyond. So why are we not content with classical physics? Where does the need for quantum theory arise? Quantum theory unveils a new level of reality, the world of intrinsic uncertainty, a world of possibilities, which is totally absent in classical physics. And this bizarre world of quantum physics not only offers us the most compelling explanation of physical phenomena presently known, but is also one of the most prolific source of modern technologies, providing society with a cornucopia of devices and instruments.

This does not diminish physics in any way, but illustrates the problem with dogma. Your religious dogma is your right to worship. That right ceases to be a right the moment you attempt to bully others to the point of denying or disparaging their rights. You have the right to believe as many silly things as you want. You do not have the right to use these silly beliefs to trample all over peoples rights. This is not a moral issue, nor does it have anything to do with "good" or "bad", it is a simple, true, universal, and absolute law.

This is simply not true. What do you know about physics? A law which can be broken, even in one instance, is no longer a law.

What do you know about physics? Your pedantry is not knowledge and reflects indoctrination.

You are contradicting yourself. You say physical laws can be broken, then give an example where there is merely an attempt by someone to broke the law, but it utterly fails, and the law is never broken, not even for an instant. The same with laws of motion.

I am not contradicting myself, you are deflecting. In the same way you use the existence of murder to "prove" that people do not have the right to life, I have used this same logic to show that the act of murder is breaking the law in the same way that people who jump off cliffs believing they can fly is breaking the law, or that failing to follow through in an action is breaking the law in the same way that murder is. Ironically, by declaring that I have contradicted myself, it is you contradicting yourself, which seems to be your modus operandi.

And you can claim that the sun is the only natural and universal light source all day, but once it sets, we can see that there are also other stars in the sky. They were there all along, just temporarily outshined by the suns rays.

Of course, I have made no such claim at all, and it is not I pretending that what is self evident is not evident at all, this is you.

reply to post by Maslo

Oh yes I know you would not. You Lockian natural law abhorrents always do so. Like here. Because it would show the immorality, or at best incompleteness of the natural law philosophy.

Pointing to a debate you had with some other member in another thread does not help your case at all, and certainly does not make you seem wise or erudite. I get that what I am saying is causing much cognitive dissonance for you. Indoctrination is a powerful drug, and the come down can be quite painful.

Participants,

I am recalling the days of old when people would gather in the forum and two would enter to debate the value of their message.

In such times, the exercise would be pointless and vain if it was all about waiting to see them come to blows. Neither that, nor this, is such a base display.

As your passions ignite, recall that this is a dialog, and no one here seems to need special adjudication to resolve their differences.

Evidently, (and I sincerely hope it's not a matter of pride), a compromise in your differences is unlikely to materialize. So be it. You each have a "right" to your opinion. But I must add my thoughts here as well, so if you will indulge the interruption allow me to expand.

I do tend to agree that there is a distinct difference between a right, and a law. But the framework you discuss seems a mere 'rendering' of the ultimate debate. I can, by the way, name a right with which no one can take away; the only predicate of the right is that you are animate and aware.

The right is "to think." If you can insert thoughts into my mind, or strip thought from it, I suspect all would agree doing so would be a violation of my right.

Rights, unlike laws, cannot be immoral. How you choose to exercise the right is subject to morality. The right is never-the-less there. Have you ever heard of the phrase, "What if Angels sat on pin-heads?".... which was an answer once given to another 'what if' question raised in ealier tiimes. Shall we compose "what if" scenarios for eachother to fumble over; or shall we admit, that we are discussin two separate things?

A man on an island, all alone, has no one to speak to. How then can anything he says be considered immoral? Has he thus become a supremely moral man? Or is his inability to exercise his right become the center of the question?

Be kind.

Because our planet is being mismanaged and the majority of the inhabitants either don't care, are too stupid or to scared to do anything about it.

Most people simply go about their little daily routine like good little worker drones and don't put up a fight, don't demand our "leaders" be held accountable and allow the few to rule the many.

Until people wake up, unite and rebel this will continue and get even worse.

There are a few being allowed to sit down to the table and cut 3/4 of the pie and leaving 1/4 left for the rest of us to fight over.

What's ironical is the people doing the real work make frap wages and the ones that 'manage' or oversee (the whip crackers) make a fortune.............but hey the majority of you don't care so be it.

That's a very warming list of platitudes you have posted there, it's just a shame that it is absolutely wrong in every conceivable way.

You have the RIGHT to not be deprived of your life, because you were born.

You have the RIGHT to think your own thoughts, because you have a brain.

You have the RIGHT to express your opinions, because you have a mouth.

You have the RIGHT to be free from unlawful incarceration, detention, etcetera.

You have the RIGHT to labor for yourself, and to keep the fruits of your labors, because you have arms.

You do not have the right to Food... you actually have to work for it.

You do not have the RIGHT to clean water, you have to clean it, or find it.

You do not have the RIGHT to shelter, you actually have to build it, or buy it.

You do not have the RIGHT to health-care, you actually have to compensate the doctors.

You *DO* have the right to education... but not FORMAL education... Life provides the *ONLY* education that you can even remotely claim to have a RIGHT to.


The things that you claim are RIGHTS, are actually services, or products that people have to work HARD to make, or provide.

What you are arguing for, is slavery.



You want the Doctor to be your slave.

You want the teacher to be your slave.

You want the farmer to be your slave.

You want the lumberjack, and construction worker to be your slave.

And that violates THEIR rights, of working for themselves, and keeping the fruits of their labor.

As I said before... your platitudes SOUND pretty good, until you start thinking about it....

And then it all just falls apart.

Nothing in the OP is a Right.

Unless you think that Enslaving Doctors, Teachers, and Farmers... Or taking my money in taxes to provide for YOU is a right.

reply to post by Maxmars

I do tend to agree that there is a distinct difference between a right, and a law. But the framework you discuss seems a mere 'rendering' of the ultimate debate. I can, by the way, name a right with which no one can take away; the only predicate of the right is that you are animate and aware.

If a law is to be defined simply as something that cannot be "taken away" then the existence of vacuums would suggest that gravity is not a law at all and is merely some moral issue and only a belief system. I just pointed out in a post above that 2nd Law of Thermodynamics can be "taken away" in macroscopic systems, so apparently the law of entropy is not a law at all, and just another moral belief system.

As long as people keep insisting that the "laws of science" are different from the "laws of men", and as long as people keep insisting that rights are not unalienable natural phenomena but are instead some artificial idea that can be "taken away", and worse that some people get rights that are more special than others, there will never be peace.

Only when people begin treating other peoples rights as sacrosanct as their own will we move towards peace. In order for one to accept that others rights are sacrosanct, they have to be willing to accept that their own rights are sacrosanct. I use the term sacrosanct in regards to how people view rights, not to describe the rights themselves. The view that rights are malleable and pliable and subject to whimsical social agendas can only serve tyranny, and has no place in the state of freedom. Conversely, the assertion that rights are law, which is to say they are simple, true, universal, and absolute, means that all people everywhere have the exact same rights and that no right can negate another right. Some may call this tyranny, but when we have come to a point in humanity where people would willingly argue that respect for all other peoples rights is tyranny, surely the cause for freedom is lost, and any hopes of peace lost with it.