|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
posted February 02, 2010 07:01 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 19:19, 02 Feb 2010.
|
Quote:
Quote:
@ Corribus
Ok, right. What I meant is the Declaration of independence (that one started with the natural rights, right?):
True, but the Declaration of Independence is not the basis of law in the US.
In any case, I'm not disagreeing with your overall line of argument, just the implication that the Law (Rights) in the US is (at least overtly) based on religion or any deity.
The founding fathers did not rewrite everything they wrote in the Declaratino of Independence when they wrote the Constitution. That would have been moronic.
They made it clear that the God created man with rights. That the State was not the source of rights. That the people are the ones with the power and the people form governments to portect the rights they already have.
The people formed the governemnt to protect themselves against other people who would violate their rights. The Constitution was written to protect the people from the government.
Quote:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
----Declaation of Independence
Quote:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
--US Constitution
The people state their intent to form a government that would protect their rithts (King George had been violating their rights, as the Declaration says) and declare certain of their rights and put limits on the government through the Constitution. You will notice they were not asking for the government to grant them rights.
The people want to SECURE the BLESSINGS of liberty that they had previously said were God-given rights.
It is illogical to claim that the Constituion does not imply that God is the source of rights. The word blessing makes that quite clear as does the Declaration of Independence.
Oh, Article 7 alse contains the phrase, "the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven" and is a direct reference to Jesus Christ.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted February 02, 2010 07:13 PM |
|
|
Quote:
All power comes from the people (at least that's stated in French and German constitutions, as far as I know).
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.
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.
So according to your Constitution human rights are the basis of society. Society is not the basis of human rights. (1) say it is the duty of the State to protect those rights.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted February 02, 2010 08:13 PM |
|
|
Elodin, you can say anything you want about JJ and his "arguments", he's going to ignore you like a kid. It's pretty obvious the flaws were addressed multiple times over and it's easy to see that. I don't agree with this being necessarily "God" who grants the rights, but his 'reasoning' doesn't add up.
Basically he equates rights with law -- in other words, he equates rights with enforcement, or power/force. Instead of saying that the law or authority merely "recognizes" certain rights, he says he grants the protection, which to his mind, is ALL there is about rights. If there's no protection, there's no rights either, or so he says. No enforcement, no rights.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 03, 2010 04:04 AM |
|
|
anyway, I still don't see the point of debating over something that is almost universally accepted.
the original question of the thread was :
Quote:
What kind of understanding and usage of the law is more important for nation?
and as I said, I don't think laws are necessary
Quote from the dalai Lama :
Quote:
We can never obtain peace in the outer world until we make peace with ourselves.
from my point of view, laws won't help you to make peace with yourself. but if we all worked on ourselves, the world would probably be much better. after all, if you aren't in peace with yourself, you'll most likely radiate negativity. And I think, today, people mostly radiate negativity (at least here in France)
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted February 03, 2010 07:30 AM |
|
|
Ok, I will try to answer in the simplest way possible. Other then that, you are on your own if you can not grasp it.
1) Not only humans have rights, even if we humans do not recognize those 'rights' and CHOOSE to violate them because we CAN. Thus Human Society does not 'GIVE' rights, but can take them away because of being more 'clever' (which is debatable, may just be the opposible thumb) or rather CHOOSE to ignore them.
2) When society FAILS to support 'rights' this does not mean they no longer exist. If you need I can site many times MANY MANY MANY times where a society has failed to observe other HUMANS rights. Does that mean that the people whos rights they chose to ignore should not have ANY? Tell that to the American Indians, Slaves, Jewish people, and the list goes on and on and on and on.
3) You ask where 'rights' come from. They do not come from JUST nature, but from the individual also. For sometimes the individual must fight for their OWN rights..when Society FAILS to do so. IF you believe society is the ONLY determining factor..see my second point..and I will feel very sorry for you.
Humans like to think they can determine rights, and who gets which. That they are the ultimate authority. They are not. Some things just are. Life is natural (unless you think we are made in some factory somewhere). I don't believe some higher power like God determines our rights, because not every religion can be right..and they all claim their deity is what supplies right. I believe it comes from within and nature. However, I've made as good as a case as a I can. I won't change your 'opinion', I am not a good enough debater for that.
____________
Message received.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted February 03, 2010 08:32 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 08:33, 03 Feb 2010.
|
Quote:
the original question of the thread was :
Quote:
What kind of understanding and usage of the law is more important for nation?
and as I said, I don't think laws are necessary
You are correct that laws are theoretically not necessary. They would not be necessary if everyone recognized universal human dignity AND acted accordingly.
If every man treated his neighbor as his brother there would be no need for a government to protect rights for rights would never be violated. Then man would only have to organize in order to work together to accomplish things better.
But in reality that will never happen in this age. That is not to say that we should not do our part to try to make it so.
Quote:
quote from the dalai Lama :
Quote:
We can never obtain peace in the outer world until we make peace with ourselves.
from my point of view, laws won't help you to make peace with yourself. but if we all worked on ourselves, the world would probably be much better. after all, if you aren't in peace with yourself, you'll most likely radiate negativity. And I think, today, people mostly radiate negativity (at least here in France)
It is true that no law can bring internal peace. No law can transform a man, make him a better person. We have to see ourselves for who we are and make the choice to become who we should be. This is a journey that lasts our entire lifetime.
And certainly the world would be a much better place if we all worked on ourselves.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 03, 2010 09:50 AM |
|
|
Quote:
and as I said, I don't think laws are necessary
Well, that's the fate of all truly great things: when they work out well for a time, people start asking whether they are necessary.
Our society/world as we know it wouldn't exist without the law. Humans are strange beings - on one hand they are social beings, that is, they like to have company, but on the other they have something called individuality, which means that every single individual has their own point of view.
Individual freedom, it has to be said, is something of an illusion, because it's possible only in company. Think about it: if you are ALONE, it's true that no ONE can tell you whaat to do or inhibit you in anything; however, circumstances do. You COULD do what you want - if you had time, opportunity, and ability, but CIRCUMSTANCES will force your hand: you have to eat and drink, you need shelter, clothes, tools, you need to be on guard all the time to protect yourself... freedom looks different.
Sharing of work in a community is, what makes freedom possible in practice - however, the freedom that was made possible through community is also limited by it. It's clear, that if a community shares work, enabling freedom by saving time, that freedom has to be shared as well. The question is how.
Moral has been (still) something of an UNWRITTEN Code of Laws which circles around the question: drawing the line between individual freedom (to do what you like as an individual) and its LIMITATION with the aim of keeping the community intact.
WRITTEN LAW has been a milestone for the development of human society since they are a necessary prerequisite for any chance on fairness and equality; this is a foundation individuals of a community can trust, which means that the individual is more willing to give up certain detrimental individual rights like bloody revenge and so on, which is positive for the community as a whole and its "performance".
If there is NO written law - I mean, you know how it is, if there's a place where garbage turns up: next day, there's more, and the day after that there's still more. Without a written law the common denominator of any society gets smaller and ever smaller, until only the individual remains.
The reason for this is easy to see: humans are not perfect and have individual point of views - they tend to disagree about things. Moreover, how a human develops, what standards they have, depends on what they experience - that's different for everyone as well. Rationality only goes so far. If two people have shared part of their life and a couple of kids, if they break up, there's often much hurt and feelings of having been treated unfairly. Often there is a point when people don't care much about ration and calmness and finding an agreement, but want PAYBACK.
People are not the Dalai Lama; they can't afford to meditate the whole day, centre on calmness and try and find universal truth and wisdom. As long as "life is a snow", we simply need a law to keep society intact.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A last addition on rights to consider:
Rights are called so for a reason. If you have a Right to do something, you can do it because it is RIGHT (as opposed to wrong). This means - automatically -, since everyone is or should be allowed to do what is right, that rights are by necessity and definition for everyone (note, that the other direction is wrong: just because everyone CAN do something it's not necessarily right).
Anyway, that's the difference between a right and a privilege. If you have a Privilege to do something, you can do it for OTHER reasons than because it's right to do it. It might even be wrong - but you can do it, still: because you have blue blood, because you have the power, because you have the influence, whatever.
Now, the question is, very simple:
What MAKES a Right RIGHT?
To give an example: What makes it a Right (and RIGHT) to live for a human, but WRONG to murder? There are those who say: God, but that closes the discussion and there are those who think that god doesn't exist, so that answer isn't satisfactory.
So: what legitimation is there for Rights/Wrongs?
For the question at hand, what makes it RIGHT to live, one small addition: If something is not right that is NOT equalling wrong. For example, people have no explicit right to snow in the woods (at least I don't think so), but that doesn't make it wrong, does it?
Any answers?
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 03, 2010 01:09 PM |
|
|
Laws are very important. They are the pillars of the society. Without laws, everything will fall into chaos in the society.
Everybody should try to be a good citizen and contribute to the society and in turn, the society should help them with healtcare and education et cetera.
It's a symbiosis.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 03, 2010 04:57 PM |
|
|
JJ:
Quote:
Well, that's the fate of all truly great things: when they work out well for a time, people start asking whether they are necessary.
I'm not usually one to defend Elodin, but it seems you failed a reading comprehension check.  What Elodin said was "They would not be necessary if everyone recognized universal human dignity AND acted accordingly." That doesn't sound like him asking whether laws are necessary.
Quote:
Any answers?
Utilitarianism.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 03, 2010 05:07 PM |
|
|
Quote:
JJ:
Quote:
Well, that's the fate of all truly great things: when they work out well for a time, people start asking whether they are necessary.
I'm not usually one to defend Elodin, but it seems you failed a reading comprehension check.
I give that right back:
Not only is the quote I answered to FAUCH's quote, it should be obvious, meanwhile, that I abstain from answering any of Elodin's (and for that matter Death's) deliberations.
Quote:
Utilitarianism.
That's a pretty short answer. However, if I have to interpret it, your opinion is this: what makes a Right RIGHT is, if it follows the utility principle.
But is this true? Does the right to live follow the utility principle? For the utility principle, wouldn't it be necessary to have a relative right, not a general one, since life as such has no fixed utility - a life may have a negative utility.
Or take slavery. It seems, utilitarism would reject slavery with the explanation that the suffering involved wouldn't make up for the happiness that come out of it.
Of course that's as wrong as it gets, because how bad slavery is for the slave depends on the utility of the slave and whether they are born as slaves and generally on the behaviour of their owners.
Of course I'm no expert on utilitarianism, but on first look I don't see much of a What here, that would make a Right RIGHT.
Maybe you should get into detail?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 03, 2010 05:15 PM |
|
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted February 03, 2010 05:20 PM |
|
|
Quote:
it should be obvious, meanwhile, that I abstain from answering any of Elodin's deliberations.
Hey, finally, someone else got on the wagon!
____________
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 February 03, 2010 05:38 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
it should be obvious, meanwhile, that I abstain from answering any of Elodin's deliberations.
Hey, finally, someone else got on the wagon!
Yeah, well. The added plus here is, that I find myself now often chuckling about posts instead of being annoyed. Not to mention that atmosphere has become much better in the OSM. Sure, it was pretty quiet lately, but no warnings, no deletions, that's pretty nice for a change.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 03, 2010 05:44 PM |
|
|
Well, there hasn't been as much discussion as before.
Also, if I only talked to the people with whom I agree, I'd only be able to talk to Corribus and Dagoth.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 03, 2010 06:13 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Also, if I only talked to the people with whom I agree, I'd only be able to talk to Corribus and Dagoth.
What makes you think 1) I agree with anyone here I talk to or 2) I don't talk to them because I disagree with them?
Also I edited a post above that waits for your assessment.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 03, 2010 07:06 PM |
|
|
Quote:
What makes you think 1) I agree with anyone here I talk to
Most of them are socialists.
Quote:
For the utility principle, wouldn't it be necessary to have a relative right, not a general one, since life as such has no fixed utility - a life may have a negative utility.
Because it is necessary to be alive in order to enjoy anything. Therefore, the loss of one's own life would result in the loss of much more utility than one could possibly gain from killing another.
Quote:
Of course that's as wrong as it gets, because how bad slavery is for the slave depends on the utility of the slave and whether they are born as slaves and generally on the behaviour of their owners.
We can't depend on the behaviour of the masters to make being a slave worthwhile - as history shows, abuse is quite rampant.
Quote:
Of course I'm no expert on utilitarianism, but on first look I don't see much of a What here, that would make a Right RIGHT.
The best way I could describe it is like this:
1. Persons A, B, and C want X, Y, and Z.
2. It is impossible for Persons A, B, and C to all get X, Y, and Z.
3. Rights are the bundle that enables A, B, and C to get as much of X, Y, and Z as possible.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 03, 2010 07:24 PM |
|
|
I'm not going to respond on the answers to quotes because that won't lead us anywhere. Of course I disagree.
Your last point, though, the explanation...
No objective gain/loss measurement possible - all too subjective and not quantifiable. That would be guesswork with lots of Might-Be, If, Perhaps, and Possibly.
I mean, in terms of Right to live, in terms of utilty - shouldn't you just kill everyone who influences the sum of the gain negatively? Let's say a cripple who has no relatives and can't do anything useful that ups happiness - instead people are losing their good humor seeing the poor wretch.
Shouldn't you just kill him off? Strictly utilitarin speaking, I mean. Or use him as a test rat in some lab. Let two dogs fight for his hide, so that people get some pleasure out of his death...
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 03, 2010 07:39 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Shouldn't you just kill him off?
No, because the utility he would lose would be greater than the utility anyone would gain.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 03, 2010 09:14 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Shouldn't you just kill him off?
No, because the utility he would lose would be greater than the utility anyone would gain.
Huh? Why is that?
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted February 03, 2010 09:21 PM |
|
|
I don't agree with mvass, but:
Killing annoying person: +5 happiness points for the 4 people who did it (example).
-100 happiness points for the dead person.
20 - 100 = -80
-80 < 0
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
