|
| Thread: Morals; Ethics; Philosophy; Religion, Science, Law, Organisms, and Rights |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 · NEXT» |
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
posted May 20, 2013 06:59 AM |
|
|
Morals; Ethics; Philosophy; Religion, Science, Law, Organisms, and Rights
Morals; Ethics; Philosophy; Religion, Science, Law, Organisms, and Rights
My basic question: Do all living things have rights? If so, what is the origin of and what are some limitations of those rights.
Some things for consideration:
1) Do rights originate from the government? That is, apart from the laws established by your government rights do not exist?
2) Do "human rights exist?" That is, do humans have innate rights that exist apart from laws established by your government?
3) If you believe in human rights:
a) Do you believe all humans have the same rights or are there categories of humans who have fewer rights or categories of humans who have more rights?
b) If you believe in government-granted rights do you think all humans should have the same rights or should there be special classes of humans who have more rights or lesser rights?
4) Do you believe animals have innate rights? If so, do they have the same innate rights as humans?
5) If you believe in government granted rights, should your government grant animals rights and if so, what rights?
6) How about plants? Do plants have innate rights?
7) If you believe in government granted rights, should your government grant plants rights and if so, what rights?
____________
Revelation
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 20, 2013 08:11 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 08:15, 20 May 2013.
|
1- Rights can be "given" by a government as part of a reform movement, modernization policy etc etc or they can be demanded from the government if there is enough public pressure, sometimes even resulting the regime to change as in revolutions and independence wars.
In both cases, a consensus and a subject that applies those rights are necessary. That is, rights are not entities that exist in the external universe without people like some distant unexplored planet.
2- You can defend human rights and hope and try for them to spread. However, since they don't exist as an external entity, if a society does not apply them, in practice, the subjects of that society don't have those rights. In Saudi Arabia women still can't drive, you can disagree to that, but what does your disagreement really change? What can you do when they say, this is our internal affairs, stay out. The only alternative would be a kind of United Nations that executes international laws based on basic rights and having authority above national states but we're not there yet.
3- Ideally yes. That excludes early stages of embryo which I don't consider a human individual yet and of course criminals conditionally lose some of their rights as part of their punishment, like when they are in prison they lose their right to travel etc etc...
4, 5, 6- Although not identical to humans rights, I don't categorically object to animals or plants having some rights. Of course, in practice it will only involve animals we are friendly with or try to protect because they are endangered species and so on... Mosquitoes won't benefit, as long as it is us who comes up with these laws.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted May 20, 2013 09:21 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Morals; Ethics; Philosophy; Religion, Science, Law, Organisms, and Rights
My basic question: Do all living things have rights? If so, what is the origin of and what are some limitations of those rights.
Some things for consideration:
1) Do rights originate from the government? That is, apart from the laws established by your government rights do not exist?
2) Do "human rights exist?" That is, do humans have innate rights that exist apart from laws established by your government?
3) If you believe in human rights:
a) Do you believe all humans have the same rights or are there categories of humans who have fewer rights or categories of humans who have more rights?
b) If you believe in government-granted rights do you think all humans should have the same rights or should there be special classes of humans who have more rights or lesser rights?
4) Do you believe animals have innate rights? If so, do they have the same innate rights as humans?
5) If you believe in government granted rights, should your government grant animals rights and if so, what rights?
6) How about plants? Do plants have innate rights?
7) If you believe in government granted rights, should your government grant plants rights and if so, what rights?
1&2: Yes, human rights exist apart from government recognition. This is a concept that is understood through ethical theory (and later enforced by government bodies)
3: It's a question that is heavily dependent on context. My primary basis for human rights (and the foundation for society & government) is on the inherent capacity for empathy; where there is empathy there are rights. Thomas Hobbes' social contract (You don't harm me, I don't harm you) is also valid but I think that serves more as a contingency reason, because "out on the field" a built-in passion is much more effective to work with in building a happy society than trying to rely on prudence. I believe that criminals can and should have their rights partially stripped away, for example, so it cannot be said that all human always have equal rights.
4&5: Yes I think animals have inalienable rights. These rights would still be somewhat limited because of animals' restrictions versus a human and simply because of pressing needs that may trump any appeal to rights (similar to why collateral damage in combat can be morally acceptable).
6&7: To our current knowledge, plants do not have any rights.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted May 20, 2013 09:37 AM |
|
|
|
There are no universal human rights. What rights the individual has depends on historical and cultural contexts. The government only adapts to that context. Attempting to enforce from outside "human rights" that are foreign to a given environment will normally backfire. That's where the typical westerner usually makes a mistake - thinking that what he perceives as "human rights" is universal and applicable everywhere. It isn't. And given that the whole "human rights" concept originates from the West, it is - at the very least - geographically and historically limited. People should stop chanting it as some mantra and using it as an excuse for conversion.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 20, 2013 09:56 AM |
|
|
Quote:
And given that the whole "human rights" concept originates from the West, it is - at the very least - geographically and historically limited.
I'm not talking about shoving reforms down people's throats but in time, the idea has the potential to be internationally spread and become truly universal. Of course, the process has a lot to do with distribution of wealth also because most rights don't mean squat if you're too poor to execute and benefit from them and if your people are illiterate peasants.(I'm not talking Western poor, I'm talking Africa poor).
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted May 20, 2013 09:57 AM |
|
|
Hence why Western societies are immensely superior to non-Western societies, like the poverty-riddled ****holes that are the former USSR, China, and Africa. Yes it's ethnocentric, and no I don't give a ****. A person that takes offense can suck my furry white balls.
Now of course a good idea can still be both executed and propagated in bad or obnoxious ways... as I just demonstrated. But the lesson here is that it hardly damages the idea itself; only its image. Humans rights are inalienable because they are inalienably a good idea. Whether or not something is a good idea is true with or without human recognition in the same way that an unexplored continent exists with or without our knowledge, except of course one is academic and the other is tangible. Academic concepts can still be universally realized.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 20, 2013 10:19 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Whether or not something is a good idea is true with or without human recognition in the same way that an unexplored continent exists with or without our knowledge, except of course one is academic and the other is tangible.
That is wrong on so many levels. A continent is an EXTERNAL reality. Human rights is a concept that only exists in humans' minds to begin with, it is an IDEA as you put it yourself. So it simply ceases to exist if no one has that idea.
Now, since the idea of rights only means something when it's executable (or else it's like saying we all have a right to live till ninety) the way you execute it is also very important. Because, as they say, politics is the art of the possible. So, in order for the concept of human rights to work, it should be handled in the sociological and cultural context it is applied in.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted May 20, 2013 10:21 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Humans rights are inalienable because they are inalienably a good idea. Whether or not something is a good idea is true with or without human recognition in the same way that an unexplored continent exists with or without our knowledge, except of course one is academic and the other is tangible.
Nope, no idea is good by itself, only if it is recognized as such. And that recognition is limited in space and time. That's the whole point.
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted May 20, 2013 10:29 AM |
|
|
Quote:
That is wrong on so many levels. A continent is an EXTERNAL reality. Human rights is a concept that only exists in humans' minds to begin with, it is an IDEA as you put it yourself. So it simply ceases to exist if no one has that idea.
Now, since the idea of rights only means something when it's executable (or else it's like saying we all have a right to live till ninety) the way you execute it is also very important. Because, as they say, politics is the art of the possible. So, in order for the concept of human rights to work, it should be handled in the sociological and cultural context it is applied in.
It obviously can't be applied until somebody thinks of it, but it's a good idea before it's actually recognized as a good idea. It either is or it isn't. You can't say that alegebra didn't work until the Arabs started applying it for various uses. The reason why this matters and isn't just a tongue and cheek differentiation is because it is far safer that a society recognizes rights as existing independent of government. They understand that they are not something that are circumstantial and can be changed like a pair of underwear.
The realm of government is all about the application of ideas, so that they are enforceable. These ideas may not be able to be realistically recognized all at once (if I was transported to ancient Rome as a senator, I would not attempt to push for even half of the ideas I currently hold) due to cultural realities, but they can still be worked towards.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted May 20, 2013 10:39 AM |
|
Edited by Zenofex at 10:42, 20 May 2013.
|
|
Here's a hint: I come up with the idea that all physically inept and mentally mediocre (or plain stupid) people should be sterilized or not allowed to reproduce with people who are physically and mentally superior to them so in the long run the humanity can produce more "high-quality humans". My name's not Hitler (or Plato). The idea is good because it can't be anything else because I say so. Should I start working towards its execution in, say, a neighborhood full of fat-ass morons by building a wall around it (and evacuating the "quality material") or just bombing the whole place?
|
|
Drakon-Deus
Undefeatable Hero
Qapla'
|
|
posted May 20, 2013 10:44 AM |
|
|
1) Do rights originate from the government? That is, apart from the laws established by your government rights do not exist?
There are rights that come from something higher than the government and cannot be denied.
2) Do "human rights exist?" That is, do humans have innate rights that exist apart from laws established by your government?
Yes, they exist.
3) If you believe in human rights:
a) Do you believe all humans have the same rights or are there categories of humans who have fewer rights or categories of humans who have more rights?
All humans have the same rights, or should have them, and also God is no respector of persons.
b) If you believe in government-granted rights do you think all humans should have the same rights or should there be special classes of humans who have more rights or lesser rights?
No way.
4) Do you believe animals have innate rights? If so, do they have the same innate rights as humans?
No, I don't believe in rights for animals, but I also do not endorse cruelty.
5) If you believe in government granted rights, should your government grant animals rights and if so, what rights?
No.
6) How about plants? Do plants have innate rights?
No.
7) If you believe in government granted rights, should your government grant plants rights and if so, what rights?
No.
____________
Horses don't die on a dog's wish.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 20, 2013 10:48 AM |
|
|
Quote:
My basic question: Do all living things have rights? If so, what is the origin of and what are some limitations of those rights.
Simple question: if a natural disaster is infringing your right to live - with whom are you going to complain about the infringement?
Rights - human or otherwise - are an invention of humanity, that stem from the WILL. People WANT to live, but they have to fight for it, "work for a living". No one is granting them anything except what they are taking. That humans do grant themselves or others "rights" is a consequence of the fact that humans living together in a society are better off than alone and that for that they have to make compromises.
Which means, rights come from the people.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 20, 2013 11:08 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 11:10, 20 May 2013.
|
Quote:
It obviously can't be applied until somebody thinks of it, but it's a good idea before it's actually recognized as a good idea. It either is or it isn't. You can't say that alegebra didn't work until the Arabs started applying it for various uses. The reason why this matters and isn't just a tongue and cheek differentiation is because it is far safer that a society recognizes rights as existing independent of government. They understand that they are not something that are circumstantial and can be changed like a pair of underwear.
I'm not saying algebra didn't work before, I'm saying it didn't even exist. Besides, math is different; it's not related to moral norms or cultural environment or historical conditions. I agree that the basics of a constitution or a social contract shouldn't be taken lightly and hold important value but this does not make them less historical (opposed to universal). And don't forget when it comes down to it, the West doesn't have a perfect score or unconditional love for human rights either. One attack on American soil and you legislate Patriot Act which, when sees fit, suspends the rights of a citizen. I'm not even talking about international crimes or colonialism or slavery (which all kept on existing after these rights were established). Let's leave them out for now, what social contract is 100 percent unconditional? What happens to your rights when an epidemic or a life-threatening attack occurs and martial law is declared? Do you vote for martial law to be declared, no. Rights exist when they are feasible. They may not be expected to be very feasible all the time, but the minute they become a hindrance to survival from an alleged threat, they are suspended.
|
|
master_learn
Legendary Hero
walking to the library
|
|
posted May 20, 2013 11:11 AM |
|
|
1) Do rights originate from the government? That is, apart from the laws established by your government rights do not exist?
They do exist apart from the laws established.
They are called unwritten laws.(or written in other forms)
2) Do "human rights exist?" That is, do humans have innate rights that exist apart from laws established by your government?
Yes,humans have innate rights.
3) If you believe in human rights:
a) Do you believe all humans have the same rights or are there categories of humans who have fewer rights or categories of humans who have more rights?
I believe humans have the same innate rights and there are many categories of humans,who have other delegated to them rights(for example I don't think anybody who is not a surgeon,should operate your body)
b) If you believe in government-granted rights do you think all humans should have the same rights or should there be special classes of humans who have more rights or lesser rights?
Look at the example above.
Also noone who is without a driver's licence,should drive a car.
4) Do you believe animals have innate rights? If so, do they have the same innate rights as humans?
Yes,they have innate rights.(example-the right to live)
Not the same as humans.
5) If you believe in government granted rights, should your government grant animals rights and if so, what rights?
The right of the animal to live.(talking about animals,who are useful to us or don't bring harm to us)
6) How about plants? Do plants have innate rights?
Yes.My answer comes from the fact,that we owe the trees our oxygen,without which we are dead in 5 min.
The same right-to live.
7) If you believe in government granted rights, should your government grant plants rights and if so, what rights?
The right to live or to be replaced at the same rate as destroyed.
____________
"I heard the latest HD version disables playing Heroes. Please reconsider."-Salamandre
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 20, 2013 11:17 AM |
|
|
Quote:
They are called unwritten laws.
If they are unwritten they are norms, not rights. And norms sometimes even contradict with rights.
|
|
Drakon-Deus
Undefeatable Hero
Qapla'
|
|
posted May 20, 2013 11:44 AM |
|
|
There are fundamental rights like the right to make a free choice, that in some countries is denied in some areas.
____________
Horses don't die on a dog's wish.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 20, 2013 12:25 PM |
|
|
People, there are no fundamental or innate rights, because there is no fundamental or innate law - or right and wrong.
There is only the subjective one: every human being has a will, and that includes, for example, to live, but rights, the law and so on come from the fact that we have to admit that essentially everyone is the same and therefore has the same rights.
It's not happenstance that only the idea of "equality" (which means basically that: if everyone is equal, it means, if ONE person are conceded certain rights, then EVERYONE is to be conceded these rights) made human rights as we know them possible, and in a way the idea of equality was around in Rome as well - but there was also the idea of a PRIVILEGE, which would mean that while people may have equal rights, SOME may have certain privileges, which means basically SPECIAL rights.
The bottom line is, that we grant ourselves these human rights, with the government having the task to PROTECT them (which is then what laws and law enforcement is about).
|
|
Drakon-Deus
Undefeatable Hero
Qapla'
|
|
posted May 20, 2013 12:28 PM |
|
|
The laws and rights must apply to everyone, or they mean nothing.
____________
Horses don't die on a dog's wish.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted May 20, 2013 12:41 PM |
|
|
|
There are no laws that apply to everyone everywhere, except the laws of nature. The "rights" have even narrower application.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 20, 2013 01:34 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The laws and rights must apply to everyone, or they mean nothing.
But THAT had to be REALIZED. You know, they HAD different ideas in the past. But those laws and right are not innately applied to everyone - we have to DECIDE to make it so, and for that we need the idea of equality.
Of course not ALL have the same rights. Children have less rights than grown-ups, but have basic rights as well, even against their parents, but that's all a matter of definition. Law is basically like mathematics: you start with a couple of basic assumptions - basic rights - and move on from that point, but the specifics are not automatically clear: simple question: where does parents's educational rights end and abuse start?
There is no right not to be hurt, obviously...
|
| |
|
|
