|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted January 28, 2010 03:06 PM |
|
|
anyway, who cares about the exact meaning of "rights"? it seems it's not exactly the subject here.
Quote:
Kant and later Gorgo Del Vikeo give us the moral duty. For them the justice is above the law, and the positive law must be only its form. In this case, if the law is against the moral duty (few norms: "Do only good" or the negative "Never do evil!", the moral: "Do only good to yourself!", "Never do evil to yourself!", the etic duty: "Do only good to the others!", "Never do evil to the othes!") it has to be removed.
Interesting. The problem today is we are losing our liberty for an illusion of security (that's more or less what a lots of laws do, or claim to do).
without counting that we are also, ourselves, limiting our freedom because of mind manipulation, from mass-media or other people for example. it's much more conforting to follow the example of other people, than going against them.
Anyway, instead of limiting the liberty in order to protect humans from each other, maybe we should just change the education. The school currently gives you a lots of knowledge, but doesn't really make you think (I mean thinking for yourself, not thinking about how to solve a futile math problem)
If we can teach humans to act in the best possible way (if there is such a way), we don't need laws anymore. there will probably still be problems, but people would be clever enough to find the right solutions.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 28, 2010 04:58 PM |
|
|
JJ:
You're correct in that the right to live doesn't come from the fact of being alive. However, that doesn't mean that the right to live comes from the State.
Fauch:
People who think for themselves are far too dangerous.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 28, 2010 05:27 PM |
|
|
|
Mvass, I'm curious - what is the right to live and who or what grants it.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted January 28, 2010 05:36 PM |
|
|
Quote:
del_diablo:
Quote:
Snow your incompetent incapable goverment which has failed yet again. That is all I got to say.
My government? Show me one government for which what I said isn't true.
You should come over here, we got socialism and salted herring. And we got a variable government we complain over, but its still behaving properly and not going downhill.
The same applies to the Swedes and Danes, dunno about Finland.
So we are not shabby of, got a strong government, a decently regulated marked, and are not a part of EU.
Your government keeps on failing, fighting, and its paranoid along with a media that makes bad worse. The centralization of Washington is also making stuff worse partially. Your going downhill, and you know it.
And the school can't teach how to stand out from a crowd, on the other hand it can do inbreed and make people scared and unable to become individuals. The same applies to many other things, such as religious fanatic groups.
We are humans because we adapt and can never agree, each of us is chasing a different mirage of a dream. The law just makes it possible to have a civilisation on the top of that.
____________
|
|
VokialBG
Honorable
Legendary Hero
First in line
|
|
posted January 28, 2010 07:10 PM |
|
Edited by VokialBG at 19:29, 28 Jan 2010.
|
Quote:
who or what grants it.
The nature. The state has only to protect it in order to legitimate its law, it can not grand it to you. Death penalty can not be given for example, state remove an individual in order to protect live or peronality of others.
So all the human rights exist by your nature, the state CAN NOT give them to you, and it don't has to, but the state HAS TO protect your right to live and etc with its law...
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted January 28, 2010 07:22 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Now, note that society rules, that under certain conditions humans FORFEIT the right to live (death penalty, for example). So how can HUMANS take a right when it's god or nature or whatever who gave it?
So what? Even if God or nature gave the rights, what's up with your conclusion of "natural immunity"? People can kill others all the time, regardless if said rights come from the State, society, nature, God, or whatever else.
Let's say this in another way. Suppose you can complain about your rights being violated, which means that other people agree with the concept (of you having rights) to enforce it. Now, that's fine and dandy, right? After all rights are a society/human concept.
However, what if you're alone in a nowhere-land of some country, and someone violates your rights (from that country)? You can't enforce or do anything about it, and no one cares: have you just lost your rights?
So basically do rights only exist as long as someone/something exists to enforce them? Is that it? It's only about power and force?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
VokialBG
Honorable
Legendary Hero
First in line
|
|
posted January 28, 2010 07:25 PM |
|
Edited by VokialBG at 19:28, 28 Jan 2010.
|
Death, positive law come from the state. Only the human rights are by nature.
Quote:
So basically do rights only exist as long as someone/something exists to enforce them? Is that it? It's only about power and force?
Well if there is no risk to lose your rights... why you will even need a protection?
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted January 28, 2010 07:42 PM |
|
|
I'm asking JJ. Does "losing" your rights simply mean that people are not willing to enforce them/protect them? If you are a slave, what does the right to freedom mean exactly?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 28, 2010 08:00 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
who or what grants it.
The nature. The state has only to protect it in order to legitimate its law, it can not grand it to you. Death penalty can not be given for example, state remove an individual in order to protect live or peronality of others.
So all the human rights exist by your nature, the state CAN NOT give them to you, and it don't has to, but the state HAS TO protect your right to live and etc with its law...
There are no natural rights. That's a contradiction in itself.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 28, 2010 08:04 PM |
|
|
JJ and Vokial:
Interesting. My position on this is between the two of you. On one hand, I think natural law is, as Bentham described it, "nonsense upon stilts." On the other hand, I think a distinction must be made between the government and the conventions of human society.
Except for suicidal people, everybody wants to live. Also, sane people value their lives much more highly than they would value a universal permission to kill other people. Therefore, we have a social contract of sorts - you have the right to live as long as I have the right to live, and vice versa. This is purely a societal social contract - government can exist to make sure parts of it are enforced, but doesn't create it on its own.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted January 28, 2010 08:35 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Except for suicidal people, everybody wants to live.
Except for non-suicidal people, everybody wants to die.
You will always find 'exceptions', so are rights a question of majority now?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 28, 2010 08:45 PM |
|
|
Yes, but morality is supposed to help people live, not help them die. 
del_diablo:
Norway is even worse than the US.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted January 28, 2010 08:48 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Yes, but morality is supposed to help people live, not help them die.
I disagree. It's supposed to let people decide for themselves. Of course for that you need life + freedom 
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
VokialBG
Honorable
Legendary Hero
First in line
|
|
posted January 28, 2010 08:51 PM |
|
Edited by VokialBG at 20:53, 28 Jan 2010.
|
Quote:
I'm asking JJ. Does "losing" your rights simply mean that people are not willing to enforce them/protect them? If you are a slave, what does the right to freedom mean exactly?
Slaves were not humans in law, they were things, if there was slavery now it would be same way. Thats why they have no rights.
Quote:
There are no natural rights. That's a contradiction in itself.
Its not me who say it... ask Lock, Montesquieu, Rousseau... tones of great persons. Basicly, human rights are some sort of ungiveble, they are in your nature, thats why we can say if someone has to give them - its the nature. The law protect your narural rights.
There isn't any contradiction here.
You have the... call it possibility to live and also to take someones live in nature. Humen were always equal in their right/possibility to be alive, but not in their possibility to take live. The stronger can always kill the weaker in the wild natural prelaw society. Thats why the law remove and forbid the possibility/right to kill the weaker, and protect the right/possibility of everyone to live. This why we all become equal, by having equal rights.
Is it so hard to get it?
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 28, 2010 09:23 PM |
|
|
Yes, because it's nonsense. People at that time suffered from a necessity to explain their ideas.
There have been and are those who claimed all those rights (and laws)would come from GOD. People at that time had the problem to find another reasoning.
However, the reasoning doesn't work.
The contradiction is actually pretty easy to see: who SAYS or, um, DECLARES that there is a natural right to live? Nature? Are there any stone tablets?`Is nature demonstrating respect for life? No.
So it's not LIVING BEINGS who have a natural right to live, but only humans, it seems. But now we are back at the beginning: WHO or WHAT makes you think that? Or - why don't humans acknowledge the natural right to live for other beings?`Why is it a privilege for humans? And what makes them think so?
The truth is, it's humans who simply declare that - but there's actually nothing to support that.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted January 28, 2010 09:34 PM |
|
|
Quote:
So it's not LIVING BEINGS who have a natural right to live, but only humans, it seems. But now we are back at the beginning: WHO or WHAT makes you think that? Or - why don't humans acknowledge the natural right to live for other beings?`Why is it a privilege for humans? And what makes them think so?
I have to ask that question again then.
Are rights related to how well they are enforced?
Simple question really. Because you know, a human can say, he has the right to murder/kill everyone... the only thing that separates him from your scenario is that he's unlikely to have the power to do so.
"Bunch of humans rally and declare the right to live for humans" means "They agree to enforce protection of that right" as far as I can see from your arguments.
Which is the definition of law.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
VokialBG
Honorable
Legendary Hero
First in line
|
|
posted January 28, 2010 09:43 PM |
|
|
Quote:
So it's not LIVING BEINGS who have a natural right to live, but only humans, it seems.
Again. Animals are not subject of the law don't mess them. They have nothing to do here.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 28, 2010 09:43 PM |
|
|
Vokial:
Why don't you ask some better philosophers - Hobbes, Bentham, Mill...
JJ:
While I agree with you in general, the "natural law" response to your statement would be something like "just because people violate laws doesn't mean the laws don't exist".
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted January 28, 2010 09:52 PM |
|
|
Quote:
del_diablo:
Norway is even worse than the US.
Why?
We are a bloody bunch of fundamentalist over our electricity, but that is all I can spot.
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 28, 2010 09:56 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
So it's not LIVING BEINGS who have a natural right to live, but only humans, it seems.
Again. Animals are not subject of the law don't mess them. They have nothing to do here.
We aren't talking about the law, since there is no discussion about the fact that the law isn't natural but made by humans - we are talking about natural rights, I think.
|
|
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
