|
| 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 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
posted May 21, 2013 06:23 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 06:26, 21 May 2013.
|
Quote:
I don’t regard them as “things” that can be “given” or “awarded” by governments or any other authority.
My whole sentence was 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
I understand how the first one seems unlikely to you since you are from West of the West and almost all of the rights you have were historically demanded first. In the beginning of 20th century, you had suffragattes for instance, chaining themselves to the White House, fighting for the right to vote. But in my country, there was no such movement, women got the right to vote (earlier than many countries in Europe) as part of a reformation package that aimed modernization of the state. The empire had just ended, a new republic was born, and many rights were established although the public didn't care much for them. Nobody would revolt if the leaders didn't abolish the Ottoman dynasty, it was not demanded strongly, the staff that won the war lead by Mustapha Kemal saw it necessary and they did it.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 21, 2013 10:18 AM |
|
|
Quote:
But my question is:
"IF the public comes to a consensus that it is ok to kill the disabled and the government passes laws saying all disabled people shall be killed are rights being violated when disabled people are killed, since the public did not grant disabled people the right to live, but instead said that disabled people must die.
I don't think I understand you stand on rights then. Could you state your position very clearly? I thought you stated the people make the rights and the government enforces the rights?
Quote:
My position is, that the public has no business to make a general decision for every individual.
What does that mean, if the people are the source of all rights, they can't make up whatever rights they want to? What is the basis of the rights they can make up and the ones they can't make up?
If you read what I wrote, then you will have noticed that the origin of rights is the WILL of single people (for example the will to survive) combined with the will of more than one person to live and work together, since this is beneficial for all. Rights, laws and so on regulate the wants of the individual in regard to the needs of the community and vice versa, and within this context a BASIC RIGHT is for any community what an axiom is for mathematics.
Now, a decision of the community against the will to survive of some individuals for economic reasons (too expensive to care for) is against that origin, and certainly against some of the basic rights the British community is built upon. You could immediately argue that you could then go on and eliminate all unproductive members of society (since they would be too expensive to care for either).
While this is obviously possible (we look to Germany 80 years ago), it's also against my will and interest as an individual, and as such an infringement of the right and will of the individual.
I don't think that my stance on where rights come from include to decide for a community to eliminate liabilities, especially since there are other ways. You can, for example, limit public care (and leave the rest to private hands).
You could also argue, that a public, that is, a binding decision for the whole community in that regard is too limiting for the will of the individual to personally and individually help a (related) disabled or handicapped person.
In short: it's not the government's business to give or take away rights depending on their mood or whether their coffers are in the black or not. Killing people to solve a monetary problem of the public funds, does seem a bit on the wrong side of the track.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 21, 2013 12:26 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 12:28, 21 May 2013.
|
Quote:
If you read what I wrote, then you will have noticed that the origin of rights is the WILL of single people (for example the will to survive) combined with the will of more than one person to live and work together, since this is beneficial for all. Rights, laws and so on regulate the wants of the individual in regard to the needs of the community and vice versa, and within this context a BASIC RIGHT is for any community what an axiom is for mathematics.
Now, a decision of the community against the will to survive of some individuals for economic reasons (too expensive to care for) is against that origin, and certainly against some of the basic rights the British community is built upon. You could immediately argue that you could then go on and eliminate all unproductive members of society (since they would be too expensive to care for either).
While this is obviously possible (we look to Germany 80 years ago), it's also against my will and interest as an individual, and as such an infringement of the right and will of the individual.
In this case society does not want to live and work with disabled people and does not want to give them aid. Society voted to kill them.
I thought your position was that "innate rights" don't exist. Now you seem to be saying the desires and will on an individual grant him rights even though society says he has no rights.
Quote:
I don't think that my stance on where rights come from include to decide for a community to eliminate liabilities, especially since there are other ways.
If people have no innate rights, why does not society's right extend to eliminating whoever they want to? If people have no innate rights then society has no obligation to any group and can treat a group as society pleases.
Quote:
In short: it's not the government's business to give or take away rights depending on their mood or whether their coffers are in the black or not. Killing people to solve a monetary problem of the public funds, does seem a bit on the wrong side of the track.
If there are no innate rights and the consensus of the people is that that disabled people should be put to death how exactly is the government wrong for carrying out the will of the people?
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 21, 2013 01:18 PM |
|
|
Elodin, you are doing it again: you read what you WANT to read, and you argue to get a point through, but you are not really understanding it:
If Quote:
the origin of rights is the WILL of single people (for example the will to survive) combined with the will of more than one person to live and work together, since this is beneficial for all
, and if Quote:
Rights, laws and so on regulate the wants of the individual in regard to the needs of the community and vice versa, and within this context a BASIC RIGHT is for any community what an axiom is for mathematics
, then a society loses it's basic foundations, if those Basic Rights or Axioms are changed. How can a law that orders the killing of persons with a condition outside of their own responsibility be "beneficial for all"?
The suggestion of the guy you quoted does change Basic Rights or Axioms. His suggestion would basically cancel all basic rights the British society is based upon, and if a majority of people would be in favor of such a regulation (or vote a government in favor of changing the constitution and laws accordingly), the British society as a coalition of single individuals based on certain basic rights or axioms would cease to exist.
This is basically what happened in Germany 80 years ago, and many (but obviously not nearly enough) people emigrated, since it was clear to some, at least, that the new society would not be beneficial to and for them anymore.
Of course, it follows, that any number of people may actually band together and build a society with the basic axiom, that the disabled and handicapped are to be put to death. If you find people willing to live with this ... well, fine. As far as I know, there ARE still places where lepers are somewhat exiled.
As far as I know, most modern constitution have "axioms" included, that the Basic Axioms or Rights, on which they are founded must not be revoked, even if a majority of people would express such a wish.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 21, 2013 03:13 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 15:16, 21 May 2013.
|
No, I am not just reading what I want to read, your statements are not very clear to me. Let's try a simple example with no issues clouding the question.
Forget Britain. Let's talk about nation ZOP. Nation ZOP has no laws at all. Nation ZOP decides to pass a law. The law says all disabled people are to be put to death. This is the overwhelming consensus in nation ZOP, with the law being passed with 90% of vote, the 10% not in favor being the disabled.
Do you or do you not say that rights of the disabled are violated when they are put to death in nation ZOP under those conditions?
As far as I can see, in nation ZOP the disabled would not have any rights violated if there are no innate human rights. While the disabled would surely say, "but I don't want to die" society has not granted them the right to live and instead said they must die.
Either rights exist regardless of what laws society passes (innate rights) or they don't. It can't be "both."
____________
Revelation
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 21, 2013 03:29 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 15:33, 21 May 2013.
|
|
You don't have to imagine ZOP, there already are real countries that don't have basic human rights. (Actually, if you go back only 500 years, everywhere fits the description but let's stick to today). In some Islamic countries homosexual people are put to death, that's obviously a violation of their most fundamental basic right, right? In some of them, the punishment of conversion from Islam is also death. Now, in everyday talk we say that is against human rights, what we actually mean is, we wish that the standards of developed democracies would be executed in those places too, but they are not, are they? Their society does nothing about it, there is no crime according to their law, so technically it is not murder but execution. Today those people can seek to be refugees in countries that theoretically grant everybody some basic rights and accepts a limited number of escapees. But what if there were no such countries, what if some virus wiped those countries out and the only countries that are left are the ones that punishes conversion by death. Where are your innate rights now, in God's heaven? They are muslims, they won't go to your heaven. Do their rights exist only in your opinions? You (and people like you) don't exist too, virus wiped you out. Where are the innate rights?
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted May 21, 2013 03:43 PM |
|
|
We don't even need to go that far, we can just go back to any genocide that is largely ignored. Uganda, etc. Its a decent showcase of even the "world society" failing to do what authority it was suppose to possess in the first place, and hence it was never enforced.
____________
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 21, 2013 04:01 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 17:04, 21 May 2013.
|
I support universal, absolute and innate human rights. But I have trouble imagining what actually legitimates these rights. It's easy if you're a religious person, you'd just say God. But what legitimates a natural right from a secular perspective?
The question on how to enforce these rights is also interesting. Should we intervene in countries like Uganda or even, to the West, allies like Saudi-Arabia?
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 21, 2013 04:16 PM |
|
|
Quote:
No, I am not just reading what I want to read, your statements are not very clear to me. Let's try a simple example with no issues clouding the question.
Forget Britain. Let's talk about nation ZOP. Nation ZOP has no laws at all. Nation ZOP decides to pass a law. The law says all disabled people are to be put to death. This is the overwhelming consensus in nation ZOP, with the law being passed with 90% of vote, the 10% not in favor being the disabled.
Do you or do you not say that rights of the disabled are violated when they are put to death in nation ZOP under those conditions?
As far as I can see, in nation ZOP the disabled would not have any rights violated if there are no innate human rights. While the disabled would surely say, "but I don't want to die" society has not granted them the right to live and instead said they must die.
Either rights exist regardless of what laws society passes (innate rights) or they don't. It can't be "both."
If ZOP is lawless - how can "they" decide to pass a law? And why would anyone have to keep to it? Why would a majority of "voters" suddenly decide about anything? How would that be "lawful"? In a lawless state, even if the disabled - or anyone else for that matter - had any innate rights, what would they be worth?
Nothing at all.
Rights have no separate existence and a lawless state is no society.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 21, 2013 04:17 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I support universal, absolute and innate human rights.
Let's not get two things mixed up here, to support the concept of basic human rights getting recognized around the world (aggressively or step by step) is a political stance. This is not what this debate is about.
When you say absolute, what do you mean? Did those rights, although nobody was aware, already existed in the universe back in 1347? Universal as an everyday metaphor and universal in philosophy, as ontologically omnipresent are entirely two different things. Should they be applied everywhere from now on? If so, what is exactly included or excluded, is death penalty against your innate rights, is abortion, is slapping your kid a little? Smoking grass like in Netherlands?
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 21, 2013 05:24 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 17:43, 21 May 2013.
|
I should have clarified my post. Yes, I politically support universal negative rights but I see a philosophical problem in what legitimates these rights from a secular perspective. Where do they come from?
When I refer to a right as absolute, I refer to the right as something unquestionable in the sense that no individual or collective can ever legitimately breach it. These rights should be applied everywhere, anytime. Now how do we define each individual absolute and universal right? This needs to be discussed and for me, the basis is liberty (hence I won't discuss smoking weed in the Netherlands). When it comes to abortion and death penalty, I'd personally put the limit on killing at "self-consciousness" respectively "innocence".
Forcefully beating your child up obviously discriminates on the child's liberty. We agree that the justice system has the right to infringe on liberty when it comes to penalities but do parents have that right? And to what extent? If death penalty is a legitimate punishment against the guilty, should parents also have the right to kill their children if they're guilty of something bad? Or does the justice system have monopoly on penalties? If so, to what extent? If the justice system has monopoly on penalties, should a parent be allowed to give a child a curfew?
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 21, 2013 05:41 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 19:37, 21 May 2013.
|
Quote:
When I refer to a right as absolute, I refer to the right as something unquestionable in the sense that no individual or collective can never legitimately breach it.
So I guess, they didn't exist in the past, we will build a foundation of rights and it will be timeless and mandatory to all cultures and states from now on. Ideally, there will be no compromise from or modification on these rights in the future, whatever the conditions turn out to be.
1- Do you really think anybody has the means to build such a timeless foundation, who knows what new technology will bring for example, think how the internet changed the way people discuss the rights to property and copyright.
2- How far are you willing to go to enforce these laws on an international basis? And if all the world will be subject to these laws, ideally shouldn't all world participate in their constitutionalization?
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 21, 2013 06:02 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 18:07, 21 May 2013.
|
1. Is internet piracy theft? Let's say I buy a game. This game is now my property. Being a game, it lacks self-consciousness - ergo, I can do whatever I want with this property. I choose to share my property on a torrent site. Other people download it. I wouldn't say that type of file sharing is theft. I can't predict the future but I can't imagine any technological advancement so far in history that has made these essential, negative rights into a problem.
2. Ideally - since these rights are universal - all countries should participate in their constitutionalization (though this doesn't stop them from implementing their own rights, as long as they don't breach this universal constitution). What do we do with countries that do not pay respects to these universal and essential rights? Because these rights apply to all humans, no matter nationality, a government that discriminates on these rights is not legitimate. The international community should have the right to intervene on such governments. But is intervention always the smart thing to do?
If it's something like the Holocaust then yes, it probably is. If it's something very culturally attached, such as discrimination towards homosexuals in many Arab countries, then there are probably better ways to enforce these rights than through gunfire. Because in that case, it is not government that is the main problem but values of the population. Military intervention is not an effective way to change values.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted May 21, 2013 06:10 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I wouldn't say that type of file sharing is theft.
The law says the opposite and there will be consequences at long term. In general people are surprised that an insignificant action could be reprehensible but then ask yourself: what would happen if everyone did it?
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 21, 2013 06:15 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 18:20, 21 May 2013.
|
That really is another discussion but if we talk about the situation today, we can already see how the market has adapted to people using torrent sites. When this all started, there were no streaming music, films or buying games digitally. There was no DRM or crowdfunding. There were few free-to-play games and few games with subscriptions. People are not unwilling to support creators of products that they enjoy and I actually believe that file sharing has pushed the market in a direction that is largely more attractive for consumers.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 21, 2013 06:31 PM |
|
|
There cannot be "absolute universal" rights - how is that supposed to work?
Consider the actual situation worldwide now: about 900 million people are undernourisjhed, and each year millions die from the consequences of undernourishment, be it directly (starving) oder through illnesses developed from that.
On the other hand - worldwide - there would be enough food to feed the current 7 billions, but lots of people are too poor or live in countries with not enough agricultural areas to feed all their people.
So what are your absolute universal rights here? Do people have a right not to starve when there is actually enough to eat? And if they don't - do they have the right to fight for survival and take the food they need to survive by force? And if they don't - do you think they should care about "rights"?
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 21, 2013 06:52 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 19:14, 21 May 2013.
|
I agree that there are no absolute, objective or natural rights. I've realized that you only need to use logic in order to reach such a conclusion (unless you're doing it from a theological perspective, then you'd just say that God gives you absolute rights). I do however think that there should be a framework of essential, negative rights that are enforced through an international constitution with the international community.
I think these rights can only be applied towards perpetrators. Take the "right to not starve". Sure, you can charge an individual or collective for directly making people starve. This happened historically in the Soviet Union. It'd be harder to charge nature for such a crime because a group of people choose to settle in a region that isn't fertile.
Now let's say there isn't a choice. A a group of people are indirectly forced to live in a non-fertile and poor area. There is a richer neighbouring state that doesn't welcome these people. Is this state indirectly guilty for making these people starve, thus breaking the "right to not starve?". No. Because the rights only apply to direct actions. Would it be legitimate for these people to invade their neighbour with the intent to find new, fertile ground and avoid starvation?
If you believe that free mobility, i.e. "the right to not be prevented from moving", is an essential negative right then this wouldn't be an issue. The neighbouring state would not have any right to have borders to the extent that the people from this poor country are discriminated from entering. If you don't believe in free mobility as an essential negative right, then it'd be legitimate for the neighbouring country to kill the invaders though it is likely in the neighbouring country's interest to prevent such invasions.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 21, 2013 07:06 PM |
|
Edited by fauch at 19:18, 21 May 2013.
|
Quote:
1. Is internet piracy theft? Let's say I buy a game. This game is now my property.
they aren't much into game selling now. more into selling licenses to play games it seems.
Quote:
It'd be harder to charge nature for such a crime because a group of people choose to settle in a region that isn't fertile.
which is often the result of human actions...
it is also possible to make a terrain fertile.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 21, 2013 07:35 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I can't predict the future but I can't imagine any technological advancement so far in history that has made these essential, negative rights into a problem.
Ah Xerox ah, all plain logic and no imagination, that's the problem with you and mvass...
Will clones or AI that has the ability to make self-interested decisions have these rights? Let's say I want to clone a replica of myself to use as an organ storage. Do I have a right to do that, or once the clone is produced, does it (he?) have some rights too, are they identical to mine, what if all that can save me is his kidney? How about if we can upload our consciousness into computers when our body dies, will it be murder to turn those computers off? What if the earth is about to end and we move to a planet, how will we distribute property, what will happen to nation states? Who steals from who then? Possibilities are endless...
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 21, 2013 07:40 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 19:41, 21 May 2013.
|
When it comes to AI and clones, I think you get far by defining "human" in human rights as "self-conscious".
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
| |
|
|
