|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
posted January 28, 2010 09:59 PM |
|
|
Unprotected rights are not recognized. Doesn't mean they don't necessarily exist.
____________
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 09:59 PM |
|
|
del_diablo:
You have powerful labour unions and insanely high taxes. The only reason you're so rich is because of your natural resources.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 28, 2010 10:03 PM |
|
|
Quote:
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".
A LAW is not a right. A law is a regulation, made and written down by humans.
A NATURAL RIGHT would have to exist someplace outside of written laws or constitution. You'd have to be able to see it in action somehow like a law of nature or mathematics.
So where would we find an example for the right to live? Where do we see it in action?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 28, 2010 11:35 PM |
|
|
Quote:
A LAW is not a right.
But don't you believe that laws define what a right is?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted January 28, 2010 11:45 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You'd have to be able to see it in action
you mean being enforced?
That's the law.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted January 29, 2010 05:21 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 05:23, 29 Jan 2010.
|
Quote:
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.
Nah, the idea that rights come from God does work. Just as the US Founding Fathers said, certain rights are self-evident. The right to life, liberty, and thre persuit of happiness.
From those ideas that the founding fathers expressed has flowed freedom unsurpassed in the history of the world.
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?
The truth is, it's humans who simply declare that - but there's actually nothing to support that.
I am a vegetarian and don't think any creature should be abused. Of course my view of mankind is that of the Judeo Christin viewpoint. That man is more "valuable" than a "mere animal."
Now, if you don't think man has more worth than an rat for example, I can see how you could argue that a man has nor more right to live than a rat.
I think most people do acknowledge that animals have certain rights. Most people treat their pets well and don't kick stray dogs. Most people don't kill animals just to kill them.
Now, if man is of no more value than a rat, for example, it should not be illegal to be a canibal.
There are few people who would equate killing a rat to killing a human being because most people do recognize there is a distinction from man and "mere animals."
Governments don't grant rights. Governments are formed to protect rights that already exist.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 29, 2010 05:30 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I think most people do acknowledge that animals have certain rights. Most people treat their pets well and don't kick stray dogs. Most people don't kill animals just to kill them.
moreover, I thinl it's illegal in some countries
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 29, 2010 07:44 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
A LAW is not a right.
But don't you believe that laws define what a right is?
Yes, *I* do believe that. But the question is, simply phrased: what is a right based upon. If you claim the existance of NATURAL rights they can't be based on law or mutual consent - even without that it was still existing as a natural right.
So, IF someone says, there are natural rights, you can't argue with the law, because the law is defining a natural right as much as a law of nature "defines" the workings of nature. In this case the law is just the natural consequence.
The word "right" implies already an ordered state. Having rights makes sense only when having them against something else. If I was alone, I'd do what I want and it happens what happens, right or not right. Right is right only, if it's acknowledged as a right.
You see, if everyone except you says, you don't have any rights - you have none. You can say, but I HAVE rights, I LIVE, I have a RIGHT to. You haven't, though: who'd support you? But you may just not care, show everyone the finger and still live and defend your life. Would that be your right? WHO CARES. You'd just do it, right or not.
So NATURAL right doesn't need the mutual consent. Instead it just proclaims that there is something like that. In fact right needs that. Just look at the black US history.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 29, 2010 08:03 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Yes, *I* do believe that.
So, following from that - if the law says that Jews or left-handed people have no right to live, that means they don't, right? And if the law changes, rights automatically change too.
Quote:
Having rights makes sense only when having them against something else. If I was alone, I'd do what I want and it happens what happens, right or not right. Right is right only, if it's acknowledged as a right.
I agree, but the government is not the only entity that can acknowledge a right. Society in general can just as well.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
VokialBG
Honorable
Legendary Hero
First in line
|
|
posted January 29, 2010 08:13 AM |
|
Edited by VokialBG at 08:19, 29 Jan 2010.
|
Quote:
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.
You even think here? As I said, you have the human rights by nature, the law protect them, cuz you are one of its subjects. Since the animals are not sabjects of the law, nobody protect their natural rights, but also nobody can take their right to kill. Its not like this on every place on the world, but here is an examle: You kill a homeless cat, ok, the law don't care, at leaast not here, if you kill a human, the law protect his natural right to live, since he is not "thing" (unlike the cat), and you get a sanction. If an animal kill a human, do it go to the prison?
The same way was if you kill a slave in the ancient times, since he is a thig, the law don't protect him, it protects his owner, but if a slave do a crime, again its owner get a sanction.
Basicly in nature animals aslo have rights to live, but since the human law don't have them as subject it doessn't protect their natural rights. There is huge discussin if the law must finally start to protect them as well and give them something like Animal rights. There is a discussion for law that protect them from human agression in Bulgaria, as I know in Sweden they already did it. I even think write about it in my course work at the uni.
@Mvass: Hobbes think the same way, just the contract is between the individuals. Also he is called "Father of the totalitarianism", but thats another question. I like him as well. Actally Hobbes in the first one who tried to colect all the natural human rights, but he wasn't successful  So, yeah, he was really into that
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 29, 2010 08:31 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Yes, *I* do believe that.
So, following from that - if the law says that Jews or left-handed people have no right to live, that means they don't, right? And if the law changes, rights automatically change too.
You forget that there is no ABSOLUTE right (which a natural right would be). So if the law/society would withhold rights to people, those people indeeed had no rights - within the relative context of that society. Now, since Jews or left-handed people therefore would not be an equal part of society, they had every reason to piss on the law and go away, make a revolution, whatever - history has enough examples.
Quote:
Quote:
Having rights makes sense only when having them against something else. If I was alone, I'd do what I want and it happens what happens, right or not right. Right is right only, if it's acknowledged as a right.
I agree, but the government is not the only entity that can acknowledge a right. Society in general can just as well.
Of course. However: think about this. Does the government has the right to tax people? What does community think about this? Law and society are permanently influencing each other into changing laws/changing opinions, giving/taking/acknowledging rights and so on, since there is no absolute right (this time I mean right as in wrong). Laws, rules, rights, they all try to fix the line between individual freedom and consideration for the whole (in opposition to the individual).
What is called "natural rights", is insteasd something like "basic rights" of the individual AGAINST any kind of society or community. That is meant. However, those rights may be called so - but they aren't natural, they are human work. You don't have to acknowledge that, and there is, for example, friction between "natural rights" and the take religion has.
For example: if it's a natural right to LIVE, what about the natural right to DIE (if you want). I fail to see that right mentioned anywhere...
@Vokial
Quote:
As I said, you have the human rights by nature
And I said, you don't. You can't just claim something - you have to prove it. I miss that prove. Show me why you have the human rights by nature, please.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted January 29, 2010 01:21 PM |
|
|
Quote:
And I said, you don't. You can't just claim something - you have to prove it.
Oh goody, I want you to prove a couple of things you said at the top of your post.
Quote:
You forget that there is no ABSOLUTE right (which a natural right would be).
Please prove that there are no natural rights. Please prove that there are no absolute rights. Thanks.
***Grabs bag of popcorn and a beer and settles down in easy chair for a long wait.***
Quote:
Does the government has the right to tax people? What does community think about this?
The power of the government to tax people comes from the people. The government has no inherent rihts. The government is formed by the people to protect the rights of the people.
The people give the governemnt the right to tax the people becasue it takes money and resources to protect their rights.
Quote:
Law and society are permanently influencing each other into changing laws/changing opinions, giving/taking/acknowledging rights and so on, since there is no absolute right (this time I mean right as in wrong).
Laws and rights don't necessarily correlate.
A tyranical government can make unjust laws that violate the rights of the people. Example: a new Hitler-like ruler takes over Germany. He says Jews don't have a right to live and that anyone can kill them. Does that mean that Jews don't actually have a right to live or that the state no longer recognizes that Jews have a right to live? It means that the state no longer recognizes the right that that Jews have.
Again, the rights of a person don't come from the state. The powers of the state come from the people. The rights of the people come from God. The government is not formed to grant a person the right to live. The government is formed to protect a person's right to live.
The people have the right to disband the governemnt or change it whenever they feel like it. The governemnt does not have the right to kill whoever and whenever it feels like doing so. Governments should be of, by, and for the people. The people don't exist to serve the state. The state exists to serve the people.
Quote:
For example: if it's a natural right to LIVE, what about the natural right to DIE (if you want). I fail to see that right mentioned anywhere...
Actually, there is a right to die, and that is acknowledged in the US.
The US Constitution does not list all the rights a person has. It lists some but says the rights of a person are not limited to those that it has listed. It listed mainly rights that goverments have a tendency to take away in its hunger for power. The Constitution is a document designed to define the powers the people chose to give to the government when they formed it and is also designed to limit the ability of the government to grab more power.
People do hae a right to die in the US. I'm talking about the right of a person to say "Don't use extraordinary measures to keep my body alive." For example, a person can make a legal document tha says if he ever has a medical condition that requires him to be put on a respirator to let him die instead.
I don't think suicide should be illegal. But suicidal thoughts are an indication of a psychological disorder that needs treatment. So when a person tries to commit suicide and fails they will usually be placed in a mental institution to assist them with their disorder.
|
|
Keksimaton
Promising
Supreme Hero
Talk to the hand
|
|
posted January 29, 2010 03:26 PM |
|
|
I'd say that in the creation of society, man separates oneself from nature where the only apparent law is: "you eat and get eaten," and instead creates one's own separate world where the laws are set to fit the intents and purposes of the society, wether it be living a happy and productive life, shaping the world for the good of the community, maintaining piety or propagating the master race and bringing out a glorious empire for ceuntries to come.
When it comes to rights, the separation of society and nature is still there. In nature one has all the rights there are, even the right to violate other's rights. It's a free for all. In society, the rights are set to fit the intents and purposes of the society. Some parents have the right to kill their disobiedient children, while some other children have the right to live.
However, what I find interesting is if one can leave society and live in nature. Should society let people just leave and live in nature and not interfere with wildman business unless the wildmen interfere with society? Would there be hunting seasons for wildmen if they overpopulated?
____________
Noone shall pass, but no one besides him shall pass.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted January 29, 2010 03:31 PM |
|
|
There are certain basic rights which are the basis of a functioning free society. However, those rights, like society itself, are artificial constructs.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 29, 2010 03:48 PM |
|
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 29, 2010 06:27 PM |
|
|
JJ:
Quote:
Now, since Jews or left-handed people therefore would not be an equal part of society, they had every reason to piss on the law and go away, make a revolution, whatever - history has enough examples.
So you're saying that anyone who feels that they don't have enough rights should make a revolution? So, suppose I say I have the right to own slaves. Should I go and make a revolution about that?
Of course not.
Vokial:
Hobbes was right about a lot of things. I don't agree with his totalitarian conclusion, though.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 29, 2010 06:53 PM |
|
|
Quote:
JJ:
Quote:
Now, since Jews or left-handed people therefore would not be an equal part of society, they had every reason to piss on the law and go away, make a revolution, whatever - history has enough examples.
So you're saying that anyone who feels that they don't have enough rights should make a revolution? So, suppose I say I have the right to own slaves. Should I go and make a revolution about that?
Of course not.
Mvass, look at the bold print.
What *I* said was: if a specific group is beaten, it has every reason, to try and avoid being beaten, emigrating, revolutioning, whatever.
Then you come and say, like some politician, so you say, that everyone who feels mistreated in some way should make a revolution.
Please. That's just, well, let's say very bad style.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 29, 2010 07:06 PM |
|
|
Quote:
What *I* said was: if a specific group is beaten, it has every reason, to try and avoid being beaten, emigrating, revolutioning, whatever.
Slave owners are beaten, spat upon, have their slaves confiscated from them, etc. So should they emigrate or revolutionise?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 29, 2010 08:20 PM |
|
|
|
You don't think they had a lot of reason to?
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 29, 2010 08:39 PM |
|
|
Quote:
People who think for themselves are far too dangerous.
you mean, for tyrants and dictators?
who cares if the rights are granted by the nature or god?
there are several solutions to get what you want, and the "easiest and fastest" ones usually involve cheating, lying, killing or annihilating any obstacle. But it is quite fortunate that humans understood that working together can lead to greater results.
well, depend what you want, reigning in hell or serving in paradise?
in the 1st case, ok, you are above anyone else, but you have to be the strongest all the time, because all the others are only waiting for an opportunity to kill you and take your place (not very constuctive)
in the 2nd case, you are at the same level than other people, and the idea is basically you help people and they thank you by helping you.
so maybe human rights aren't absolute right, that we could just live like other animals, but maybe we can also live at a higher level than other animals. we often talk about the humans destroying the nature, leading other animals to extinction, polluting the earth, but in another hand, what have other animals species created compared to humans?
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
