|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
posted January 29, 2010 09:23 PM |
|
|
Quote:
@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.
Just for the record, you can't prove axioms. They are, *horrors*, supposed to be "self-evident".
Let's see the basics: a government, a collection of people, or whatever else, makes laws. To make a law, it needs two things: freedom, to make the laws themselves, and life, because an inanimate thing can't have freedom.
But you ignored most of Vokial's post as well, not surprisingly.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 29, 2010 10:31 PM |
|
|
JJ:
They do have a reason to, but that doesn't make it legitimate. From your point of view, if someone isn't happy and decides to make a revolution, it doesn't really matter the direction into which they're moving society.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 29, 2010 10:45 PM |
|
|
I can't follow you.
You mean, my point of view is, if the left-handed are publicly hanged and decide to make a revolution it doesn't matter in which direction they lead society?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 29, 2010 11:02 PM |
|
|
Suppose there is a society in which left-handed people aren't allowed to use their left hand, and would-be slavers aren't allowed to own slaves. From your relativist point of view, there would be little difference between a left-handed revolution and a slaver revolution, since both would be fighting for their "rights".
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 30, 2010 09:55 AM |
|
|
In theory, correct. From THEIR point of view it isn't.
Now, revolutions are not en vogue anymore - today the wouldbe-slaveowners would just raise a lot of money and buy themselves influence in the legislative arm of government. Not to mention that slavery with invisible fetters is a lot more effective than open slavery.
Anyway, if you think now somehow those slavers wanted to damage society morally - that's not THEIR point of view. Think abortion. Both (at least) two sides fighting for their view on things, each side claiming that the other would lead society into something morally worse.
|
|
VokialBG
Honorable
Legendary Hero
First in line
|
|
posted January 30, 2010 06:45 PM |
|
Edited by VokialBG at 20:00, 30 Jan 2010.
|
@JJ: Not only the death is right, but I'll tell you very briefly, what Hans Kelsen think, he said that every source of law, get his power (legitimation) from another source, that is on hihger level. So (not sure for the English terms here) the under law act, get his power from the law, and the law from the Constitution. And the question here is - where the Constitution's power come from? Kelsen said that there is a "basic norm" that gives its power. He never defined fully whats the basic norm, he said "it's a hypothetical "Sollen" ("must" in German). An axiom. For him the power of the Constitution must be given by some sort of international law, that count for all the states of the world with Constitution (or most), rules for every human on the Earth. This law is on the border between law and unlaw (thats why it doesn't need special legitimation, and why it called "basic", there is nothing after => and above it), and that's the "basic norm", the Grail of the law, the most powerful norm, thats above all other, and legitimate even the Constitution.
This "basic norm" are the Human rights. They legitimate the law, the are internatonal, they are not fully law, they are also na axiom. They are ungiveble and they can be only recognized by the society, not given by it, once recognized, they can't be unrecognized (international law is prime). They also legitimate the Constitution (you can see that indirectly in the preamble, where are the basic principles of the Constitution of most states).
If not the "basic norm" itself, the Human rights are the closest to it we already have. And the state law can't give them as we see, they are above it. The state law MUST protect them to get it's power (legitimation).
Hans Kelsen died in 1970. His studies are very important for the modern law, at least the Continental.
Quote:
you mean, for tyrants and dictators?
Well, actually tyrant is a ruler, who use his power to gain good for himself, not for the society. He think for himself. While not every dictator is a tyrant... this don't make him (the dictator) good. So ya, lets say Hitler was a dictotor, but not a tyrant and etc...
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 30, 2010 08:12 PM |
|
|
All nice and well, Vokial, but you are just making a lot of words round two basic facts:
1) The "axioms" are man-made (they don't come from a higher authority than man).
2) A society (ideally ALL societies) have to acknowldege them; in other words: a society may adopt them - or not
Which means:
3) A society may have different "axioms"
For the sake of this discussion: What are the criteria to decide for a society, then, which axioms to acknowledge. Which was what this actually is all about, because the discussion wasn't about the fact that laws are founded on ANY "axioms", but on SPECIFIC ones, called natural.
So what we have established - and was never out of the question - is that all laws are resting on a foundation, whether it's god's commandments, the directions of a dictator or a constitution.
What has NOT been established is why people would have a "right" to live and why this would be called a "natural" right. I'd like to add that I have a specific reason to put my finger on this, because the next question is what consequences an ascertained "natural" right to live has.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted January 30, 2010 08:25 PM |
|
|
Quote:
1) The "axioms" are man-made
All axioms are man-made.Quote:
2) A society (ideally ALL societies) have to acknowldege them;
No.Quote:
What has NOT been established is why people would have a "right" to live and why this would be called a "natural" right.
Just because it's a natural right doesn't mean it gives you natural protection or immunity or that all people recognize it naturally. Math is pretty natural, but I doubt cavemen or animals "recognize" it.
____________
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 30, 2010 08:34 PM |
|
Edited by VokialBG at 20:47, 30 Jan 2010.
|
Quote:
1) The "axioms" are man-made (they don't come from a higher authority than man).
The humans discover and acknowledge the axioms, they don't prove them, they also don't and can never create them. Thats why the Human rights are axiom, a man can not create them.
Quote:
2) A society (ideally ALL societies) have to acknowldege them; in other words: a society may adopt them - or not
Simply it doesn't matter for their naturality if they are unprotected, they exist, they are just "downtrodden" by the states law, unprotected. In this case the state and its law takes all the natural freedom of the individuals, not only their freedom to use force agaist each other. Its basicly what Hobbes say, and why he is called "Father of the totalitarism". Not like he is against the natural rights. The total power in this case is of totalitarian state. But the rights still exist in the human nature. You can just not use them in this case.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted January 30, 2010 08:36 PM |
|
|
I would say that axioms are 'observations', so yes not created, but indeed 'made' since man makes the observations... however that doesn't mean that man himself needs to exist for that. (if you can't observe something it doesn't mean it isn't there, even though the observation is not "made").
____________
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 30, 2010 08:42 PM |
|
Edited by VokialBG at 20:45, 30 Jan 2010.
|
I agree with your point, but the axiomes are basicly part of the nature (like in maths), they exist even if you don't know for them and the nature follow them => the man only discover them so they can help him somehow (like to understand something more complex). So it's pretty much the same with the human rights.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted January 30, 2010 08:43 PM |
|
|
I think we're talking about the same thing but don't understand each other because that's what I said 
____________
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 30, 2010 08:49 PM |
|
Edited by VokialBG at 20:49, 30 Jan 2010.
|
Ooookay  Anyway my post can help more someone to understand why it's pretty much the same with the human rights.
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 30, 2010 09:36 PM |
|
|
|
Sorry, Vokial, but I think your posts and points belong into the religion thread.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 30, 2010 10:03 PM |
|
|
JJ:
Quote:
Anyway, if you think now somehow those slavers wanted to damage society morally - that's not THEIR point of view. Think abortion. Both (at least) two sides fighting for their view on things, each side claiming that the other would lead society into something morally worse.
Yes, but regardless of what the slavers think, they are objectively wrong and would be damaging society. It's not a relative thing.
Death:
Quote:
however that doesn't mean that man himself needs to exist for that
No, man does need to exist in order for the "observations" about man to be made. Suppose I say "all elephants are grey". If there is no such thing as an elephant, my statement is nonsense.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted January 30, 2010 10:29 PM |
|
|
Quote:
No, man does need to exist in order for the "observations" about man to be made. Suppose I say "all elephants are grey". If there is no such thing as an elephant, my statement is nonsense.
That's not what I meant. With that statement, I meant that man doesn't have to make an observation for something to exist, nothing more. For example, just because we haven't made observations beyond "the observable Universe" doesn't mean there's nothing beyond.
Quote:
Sorry, Vokial, but I think your posts and points belong into the religion thread.
Fellows, time to ignore JJ I say.
____________
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 30, 2010 10:44 PM |
|
Edited by VokialBG at 22:54, 30 Jan 2010.
|
Quote:
Sorry, Vokial, but I think your posts and points belong into the religion thread.
I'm studing law, not theology, so yeah, I pretty much am sure how it works since I read about it, we learn this part at the very beginning, and they teach us like that. If you don't like it... well... no idea, the law is like this in the case.
Quote:
Fellows, time to ignore JJ I say.
I agree.
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 30, 2010 11:22 PM |
|
|
Quote:
JJ:
Quote:
Anyway, if you think now somehow those slavers wanted to damage society morally - that's not THEIR point of view. Think abortion. Both (at least) two sides fighting for their view on things, each side claiming that the other would lead society into something morally worse.
Yes, but regardless of what the slavers think, they are objectively wrong and would be damaging society. It's not a relative thing.
"Objectively"? Depends on whether the "slaves" are part of society. Even if they was - "objectovely"? I'm sure you can back that ckaim of yours with "objective" evidence.
@Vokial
For the record, I've studied mathematics, information science, history, economic history and philosophy. So what? Do you think someone is more qualified to tell you something about whether god exists or not when he or she is studying religion?
I don't think so.
If you want to bring your law study to a successful end you will have to learn to make a case. Best of luck, you'll need it. A court won't accept things like "I'm rather sure I know how it works", especially when you are straying off-topic,
Anyway, ignore who you want to ignore - I'm doing that for some time now and with success, is my feeling, so I can heartily recommend it.
I wish you a nice 21st century.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 31, 2010 04:06 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
you mean, for tyrants and dictators?
Well, actually tyrant is a ruler, who use his power to gain good for himself, not for the society. He think for himself. While not every dictator is a tyrant... this don't make him (the dictator) good. So ya, lets say Hitler was a dictotor, but not a tyrant and etc...
mvass said people who can think for themselves are dangerous, and I said they would be dangerous to tyrants
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted January 31, 2010 05:54 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 05:56, 31 Jan 2010.
|
Quote:
Sorry, Vokial, but I think your posts and points belong into the religion thread.
On page 2 you said the idea that humans have God-give rights is nonsense, contradictory, and unreasonable (that is a paraphrase.)
So what, you think it is ok to say rights don't come from God but someone can't say rights come from a higher power?
You claim there is no such thing as natural rights or God-given rights. So? Prove it instead of trying to put other opinions than your own in different threads.
I agree with the founding fathers that certain things are self evident. Like all men are equal and have the same rights. That all men have the right to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness. That those rights exist independent of any government.
It is not government that grants people rights. Government is a protector of rights, not a granter of rights.
If government were the granter of rights there would be no such thing as a tyranical governemnt because what the government did would be "right" by definition. If the governemnt said government officials could enter your home and rape your wife any time they wanted, that would be "right."
If you have no inherent right to life or liberty then you should not object if your nation decides that people of your race should all be killed because after all, you have no right to live unless the government says so.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
