Rights

Former Member · December 2001

We've sort of been here before with the Gun Debate, but not quite in the way I'd like to discuss the issue of 'rights' now. The essential difference is that the question I'm asking is not "What 'rights' should we accord?" (and I suppose some here will wish to dispute that we accord 'rights' - fine by me) but "What are 'rights' and from where do they derive?"

I'm not out looking for a semantic war here - I'm genuinely interested in people's opinions on this subject, and encourage a frank discussion, provdided it doesn't degenerate into 'right' attacking 'left' (or vice versa) with mindless slogans.

Once this has got going I'll post my own thoughts, but won't do so now, in order not to prejudice the debate.

Mac

Former Member · December 2001

Well rights arent really there at all, you could argue yourself dizzy trying to define them.

But if all humans are born equal (which they are), then rights are those which means people do not have their freedom of thought and movement restricted, but mean they can eat and drink and live properly. Kind of a balance between Adam Smith and Karl Marx really.

Former Member · December 2001

I suppose they are a socially acceptable code for living in order to preserve one's happiness and ability to survive as well as those of others. Tricky one though, intresting how in theory the rights of the majority are decided by the minority. As for our rights well you'd better ask the french <IMG alt="image" SRC="biggrin.gif" border="0">

Former Member · December 2001

Originally posted by Kermit:
Well rights arent really there at all

Nice opening statement, and one I could agree with. Justification? What is "really there"? The idea of 'rights' can certainly have an effect on things, and that, in my book, makes it real. Are the 'rights' themselves 'real,' and in what sense?

But if all humans are born equal (which they are)

Why are they all born equal? We are born at different times, in different places, with different coloured eyes, skin, hair. Our genetic predispositions to various pursuits and afflictions are different. In what respect could we be said to be 'equal' at birth in anything other than age (i.e. 0)?

Former Member · December 2001

Originally posted by ebenEzer bad:
I suppose they are a socially acceptable code for living in order to preserve one's happiness and ability to survive as well as those of others. Tricky one though, intresting how in theory the rights of the majority are decided by the minority. As for our rights well you'd better ask the french <IMG alt="image" SRC="biggrin.gif" border="0">

"A socially acceptable code" - I like that. Not "accepted" but "acceptable"; after all, many reject the 'social contract' that they see as having been unjustly forced upon them. And, in essence, your phrase captures what compilers of codes of rights have been trying to do all along: find a set of rule that we can live by. Question: Is the ideal secondary to the practicality, or vice versa?

What exactly did you mean by "rights of the majority are decided by the minority"? Were you referring to the fact that codes of rights are generally drawn up by assemblies numbering less than 50% of those affected by the code? Or was it a reference to the tendency of such codes to protect 'minorities,' or to pander to them?

Former Member · December 2001

Originally posted by ebenEzer bad:
I suppose they are a socially acceptable code for living in order to preserve one's happiness and ability to survive as well as those of others.

What is socially acceptable for one group or individual may be totally abhorrent for another - who decides.

Or should we all have the right to do absolutely anything we deem acceptable?

Former Member · December 2001

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/national/story.html?f=/stories/20011219/911229.html

Rather on point I think.

But note, all men are created equal...~...not born equal as we can all take note!

Diesel

88888888 <IMG alt="image" SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0">

Former Member · December 2001

great diesel. so canadians are more likely to lose something, but less likely to shot by some maniac.

proving what exactly? that the right to defend oneself merely leads to a greater loss of life overall.

picking at the study, crime surely does not grow proportionate to population. ie a city of 1 million may have 1000 criminal acts, but a city of 2 million is less likely to have 2000 criminal acts, and a city of 10 milion far less likely to have 10,000 criminal acts. so the bigger cities of the US are, by that understanding, naturally going to have a lower crime rate.

clear? i think i coulda explained it better. =/

Former Member · December 2001

Originally posted by Diesel:
But note, all men are created equal...~...not born equal as we can all take note!

The difference? You're referring to equality at conception, I take it? Genetic content is different even then.

Former Member · December 2001

Mac, you almost got it. We are born 'human' and there the 'created' aspect ends...genetics rules the rest with the luck of having chosen the right parents!

Diesel

88888888 <IMG alt="image" SRC="eek.gif" border="0">

Former Member · December 2001

Ooh, I'm interested here. I can accept the notion of conception as a creation act. So you assert that humans are equal at creation, right? What do you take to be 'creation'? Fertilisation? If the genetic content of zygotes is different (with all the implied differences in physical characteristics, mental abilities, &c.) then - well, don't we have inequality at creation?

Former Member · December 2001

Plus are we born evil or taught evil...if both then what hope is there for any of us!

Former Member · December 2001

Born 'evil'? What is 'evil'? Perhaps someone would like to define 'good' first?

(Would 'born evil' derive from the Eden myth, perchance? See my sig.)

Former Member · December 2001

people are equal, in that the should have the same opportunities open to them. Noone should be discriminated against because they are black, are female, have ginger hair, or whatever. of course humans are not identical, but that is not the same as equal...a pound is equal to 1.6 US Dollars roughly, but £1 is not 1.6 $US.

Former Member · December 2001

Civil rights come out of the barrel of a gun, bigger gun = more civil rights!

To be truly free the government MUST fear you because you are stronger than it is!

Diesel

88888888 <IMG alt="image" SRC="eek.gif" border="0">

Former Member · December 2001

Originally posted by Kermit:
people are equal, in that the should have the same opportunities open to them.

That's an assertion of desire, not fact, but I'll take it.

of course humans are not identical, but that is not the same as equal...a pound is equal to 1.6 US Dollars roughly, but £1 is not 1.6 $US.

Well, I would say that 'equal' means 'the same in every respect.' Sounds very much the same as 'identical' to me.

I would also say that 1GBP is not equal to 1.6US$: 1GBP may be exchanged for 1.6US$. No two coins are identical, they are merely asserted to have the same value in some abstract commercial sense.

I wonder if that coinage principle might extend to humans and other life forms for which 'rights' are asserted...?

Rights

Comments