|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
posted January 31, 2010 06:35 AM |
|
|
Ok, I've been avoiding these debates like the plague, but I think it is time for me to chime in. First I think people are confusing rights for privilages. Privilages are what a 'society' determines, not rights. A 'right' is something that can not be taken away except with by force that is given by nature, while a privilage can be taken away when you intrude on somebody elses rights and is given by society.
The only 'authority' that rights come from is nature. Life comes from nature. You are born, and thus alive. Your right to life exists until some outside force..time, predators, etc..intrude on that. Thus we have 'Privilages'..given BY society. Which can be revoked IF the rights of others are intruded on.
Rights don't have to come from a higher power. They certainly don't come from society, for they would be there if society was not. Some hermit living in Alaska can still LIVE without society. They can also live without ever acknowledging any higher cosmic power. So rights DO exist without society, and since every religion claims their deity is the ones who gives out rights (etc) and they can't ALL be right..then until somebody can PROVE that it is so..they don't come from a cosmic being. They just ARE. Simply from being born, regardless of species.
Now that does not mean that others can not intrude on your rights, or try to take them away. That is where Society steps in..some more then for others.
____________
Message received.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 31, 2010 07:04 AM |
|
|
JJ:
Quote:
I'm sure you can back that ckaim of yours with "objective" evidence.
Slavery is unprofitable and disadvantageous.
Mytical:
Quote:
Rights don't have to come from a higher power. They certainly don't come from society, for they would be there if society was not.
No. If society doesn't exist, rights have no relevance, because rights are about what other people can't do to you.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted January 31, 2010 07:11 AM |
|
|
I disagree Mvass. Because simply put, society can not prevent people from doing things to you anyhow. Look at the mass murderers that get away with it for decades..some even die of other causes before they are discovered. Sure they can punish somebody if they are caught, but what good does that do the ones that are already dead?
Society is also not always there for protection. Look at some of the things that have happened in the past. Especially slavery. Societies stripping others of their 'rights' for their own profit or use. Nah, Society does not determine rights..but they can definately take them away.
____________
Message received.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 31, 2010 08:08 AM |
|
|
Right, but that's not answering my point at all. I said, if society doesn't exist, rights are meaningless. It doesn't mean that if society exists, rights are always observed. It just means that without society, there cannot be rights.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted January 31, 2010 08:16 AM |
|
|
And I disagree. Just because a person is alone, does not mean they do not have rights. They may not be able to always ENFORCE their rights, depending, but that does not mean they do not have them. I will give you an example.
Lets say John Q. Millionbucks buys a private island, one lets say, officially in the waters of America (assuming one such exists). When he moves out there, alone...he suddenly loses the right to live? Come on now. Its absurd and you know it.
Just because it loses its deffinition or meaning to YOU doesn't mean that is just the way it is. Of course we can argue symantics till the moon turns into another sun..but it would get us nowhere.
____________
Message received.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 31, 2010 08:23 AM |
|
|
Quote:
When he moves out there, alone...he suddenly loses the right to live?
When he moves out there, the concept of "rights" ceases to have any relevance. The right to live can be stated as "Other people are not permitted to kill you." If there are no other people, the statement is irrelevant.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted January 31, 2010 08:25 AM |
|
|
Ahha, but there can be two people without there being a 'society'.
____________
Message received.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 31, 2010 08:38 AM |
|
|
That's true, but in your example, the man is there alone, not with another person. Also, with two people, it's still not a "right", per se - just an implicit mutual agreement not to kill each other.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted January 31, 2010 08:44 AM |
|
|
Again, symantics. It is impossible to prove or disprove an opinion however. Which is all that this is. The opinion on what is a 'right' and what is not. How to define it, where it comes from. We are just guessing. Few people will admit that, for they HAVE to be right.
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 31, 2010 11:31 AM |
|
|
Mvass, you think slavery in the Roman Empire was unprofitable and disadvantageous?
Mytical: you can't just dismiss every distinction you don't like as semantics.
The thing that hasn't been mentioned until now, but must be seen, is that there has to be a consequence and a purpose behind postulating something like a "natural right to live" - if it made no difference, why bother?
RIGHT as a term makes sense only, if there is an "institution" you can "sue" for your right (an institution that helps you getting your right). Otherwise, it's just hollow phrasing.
A "natural right" therefore would need an institution to turn to, once your right is inhibited. Going from this it's clear that these natural rights are an artificial construction that's completely human-made, to allow laws being justified as "protection of personal and natural rights".
There is nothing natural about that - it's more or less just a trick. If you consider speech - all MEN are created equal - and compare it with what actually happened, it becomes clear that wither the constitution of the US didn't consider blacks and women MEN or the people didn't live due to their constitution.
Natural rights are just a construction, a crutch, not mlore.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted January 31, 2010 11:54 AM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 11:56, 31 Jan 2010.
|
Which is your opinion. Care to prove your statement? I don't dismiss his opinion, it is his right to whatever opinion he has. It is my opinion that Rights exist without society..even if a society doesn't truely exist without rights. Cause then it is just a state of Anarchy.
You also can not 'sue' anybody if you are dead. That would be a nice trick. Others maybe able to sue for you, however.
Edit : If you can not prove something, it is an opinion. Opinions can not be proved or disproved..only facts can.
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 31, 2010 12:14 PM |
|
|
Mytical, you always make the same mistake (and not only you).
You cannot INVENT or CLAIM something "positive" (that is, the existannce of something) as in "there are natural rights" WITHOUT PROOF or EVIDENCE and then demand from others to prove you wrong and treat the inability of it as a positive proof or evidence for your opinion.
If you claim something without any proof, ANY discussion that follows logical or scientific rules is just useless and a mockery.
You have to come up with something to SUPPORT an opinion (called evidence usually), otherwise the opinion is IRRELEVANT.
Example: "All existance is just a very complex role-playing game, where entities play the roles of humans. After death the game is over and the entities awake in the real reality."
Prove that this is wrong. You can't. So this is a valid opinion for YOUR standards. IN FACT, though, it isn't. Because I can give NO EVIDENCE FOR IT. So the opinion is IRRELEVANT when it comes to discussing it SINCE THERE IS NOTHING TO DISCUSS.
The same thing is true for natural rights. If you claim that "they exist", you need EVIDENCE. If yoiu don't have evidence, your claim is IRRELEVANT.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted January 31, 2010 12:16 PM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 12:22, 31 Jan 2010.
|
You suggest that society gives rights..a POSITIVE. You can't prove that, so it is irrelivant also. Which means it comes back to an opinion. Since there is no facts to support EITHER positive.
Oh and Jolly, I never asked you to disprove my opinion. I asked you to prove your POSITIVE opinion that Society supplies the 'rights'. I have said that I have no proof, so if you can prove your opinion, then mine will by proxy have to change. Correct?
IE I am saying, in case you missed it or do not understand that your idea that society supplies these rights is JUST as made up and fictitional as you claim mine to be. Prove yourself correct.
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 31, 2010 01:01 PM |
|
|
Who writes a constitution? A book of laws? Who defines a "right" by formulating it? Who BACKS a right, which means who supplies the institution you can turn to in order to claim your rights, if they are inhibited?
Do non-humans accept "natural rights". Would a pack of wolves accept the natural right of a human to live? Isn't that pack of wolves part of nature as well? Why, then, doesn't it accept that natural right?
In fact, what IS a right, actually? Imagine the world a couple million years ago, without humans: who or what had any rights?
Note, that religious people claim that the right is god-GIVEN (which means it's not a matter of course, but a matter of god's grace), just as a note here.
I think, you do not disagree that up to this point there is nothing to "rights" that's not human-made. Just FACTS.
It's now your turn to give evidence for why you think that certain aspects are valid in an absolute sense, humans or not: where is the "natural" aspect?
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted January 31, 2010 01:08 PM |
|
|
Humans don't even always see the 'natural right' of other humans to live..so why should animals?
Fact : We are born. That is natural.
Fact : Unless some outside force like time, accidents, etc act upon us..we will continue in that state. That is natural.
Fact : We will live a long life unless an unnatural occurence like an accident or somebody (or an animal) intrude on this.
Other animals, not just humans help each other out. Sure..they maybe a bit 'colder' then humans ..more apt to interfear in a more negative way..but that right there suggests that it is NOT human society that determines this.
So therefore, if 'society' doesn't determine it, something else MUST. Since life is natural..then nature must determine the right of life.
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 31, 2010 01:48 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Humans don't even always see the 'natural right' of other humans to live..so why should animals?
Because animals act instinctively. If there was a NATURAL right, since animals are part of nature - shouldn't they respect that right?
Quote:
Fact : We are born. That is natural.
Fact : Unless some outside force like time, accidents, etc act upon us..we will continue in that state. That is natural.
That's wrong. Life isn't automatically happening, it has to be maintained. That's why very sick or very young are dependent on being helped to live on. The question is, whether helping the sick - as opposed to helping the young - is natural.
Quote:
Fact : We will live a long life unless an unnatural occurence like an accident or somebody (or an animal) intrude on this.
No, not so. Fact is, that we have to "work" to live and there is no way to know how long a specific life will be. LONG life is a function of people working together, of SOCIETY, not nature. Nature has a very different take on this.
Quote:
Other animals, not just humans help each other out. Sure..they maybe a bit 'colder' then humans ..more apt to interfear in a more negative way..but that right there suggests that it is NOT human society that determines this.
Which animals, please?
Quote:
So therefore, if 'society' doesn't determine it, something else MUST. Since life is natural..then nature must determine the right of life.
WHAT??? "If society doesn't determine it?" I can't follow you. There is no "therefore", I don't see one.
As far as nature is concerned, as far as I know, nature gives only a DUTY: To make sure life generates new life. That's it. And humans are able to choose whether they want to fulfill that duty.
Whicch would raise serious questions, if indeed the right to live would be a natural one: would you forfeit the right if you woouldn't fulfill the duty and purpose nature inflicts on you: to reproduce.
Amyway, I don't think you made any points here or gave any evidence. I don't see any, at least.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted January 31, 2010 09:29 PM |
|
|
Quote:
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?
No but that person would be more qualified in telling what religion is actually about.
____________
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 31, 2010 09:49 PM |
|
|
@Mvass
Quote:
That's true, but in your example, the man is there alone, not with another person. Also, with two people, it's still not a "right", per se - just an implicit mutual agreement not to kill each other.
Let's say that there are two people on a remote island that does not fall with the boundaries of any nation. One thinks he has a right to kill the other. The other person believes both people have a right to live.
Who is right? There is no mutual agreement.
@JJ
Quote:
RIGHT as a term makes sense only, if there is an "institution" you can "sue" for your right (an institution that helps you getting your right).
Why? If governments are the granter of rights then by definition there are no tyranical governemtns, right? The governemnt is free to do whatever it wishes because the peons only have the rights the governemt says they have.
People don't form governments so that the governments can grant them rights. People form governemnts to protect their rights.
Quote:
You cannot INVENT or CLAIM something "positive" (that is, the existannce of something) as in "there are natural rights" WITHOUT PROOF or EVIDENCE and then demand from others to prove you wrong and treat the inability of it as a positive proof or evidence for your opinion.
Your belief seems to be the deviant belief in society. Since that is so, the burden of proof is on you. Why are you right and the majority of society is wrong?
You claim people have no inherent right to live. I'm pretty sure 99%+ of human being disagree with you. What makes you the fount of truth and everyoen else wrong?
The German Constitution acknowledges God, human dignity, and human rights. What makes your Constituion wrong? It says that human rights are the basis of society, not that society is the basis of human rights. It says the state has the duty to respect and protect human dignity. It does not say the state grants human dignity.
Like the US Constituion, the German Constition says human rights are inalienable and that the state merely acknowledges those rights, not grants them.
Please prove that your claimes that there is no human dignity, no human rights even though you live in a society that says human rights exist.
Quote:
Quote:
PREAMBLE (amended by Unification Treaty, 31 August 1990 and federal
statute of 23 September 1990, Federal Law Gazette II p. 885).
Conscious of their responsibility before God and Men,
Animated by the resolve to serve world peace as an equal partner in a united Europe, the German people have adopted, by virtue of their constituent power,
this Basic Law.
The Germans in the Laender of Baden-Wuerttemberg, Bavaria, Berlin,
Brandenburg, Bremen, Hamburg, Hesse, Lower Saxony, Mecklenburg-Western
Pomerania, North-Rhine-Weststphalia, Rhineland-Paltinate, Saarland, Saxony,
Saxony-Anhalt, Schleswig-Holstein, and Thuringia have achieved the unity and
freedom of Germany in free self-determination. This Basic Law is thus valid
for the entire German People.
1. BASIC RIGHTS
Article 1 (Protection of human dignity).
(1) The dignity of man inviolable. To respect and protect it is the duty of all state authority.
(2) The German people therefore acknowledge inviolable and inalienable human rights as the basis of every community, of peace and of justice in the world.
(3) The following basic rights bind the legislature, the executive and the
judiciary as directly enforceable law.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 31, 2010 09:50 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Mvass, you think slavery in the Roman Empire was unprofitable and disadvantageous?
Yes. Slavery anywhere and everywhere is always disadvantageous.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted January 31, 2010 09:55 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Mvass, you think slavery in the Roman Empire was unprofitable and disadvantageous?
Yes. Slavery anywhere and everywhere is always disadvantageous.
Would you be more productive if your computer was not your slave and did not do whatever you wanted "for its own reasons"?
Don't get started with "humans are not tools", because a slave human is a tool.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
