Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Rights
Feb 5, 2011 6:46:19 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2011 6:46:19 GMT -5
Rights
I am starting this thread in response to some fascinating posts by Mouse and Fret. Mouse questions the entire notion of human rights while Fret rightly asks if animals also should be considered to have rights.
All ethical judgements are value-laden and have no truth content. A moral position cannot,
logically or empirically speaking, be true or false. Instead we must assign the value-laden categories of 'better' and 'worse.'
I will try to use concrete examples as much as possible rather than simply analysing abstract ideas. Does, for example, a newly born child have the right NOT to be murdered by its parents? Not to be sexually or physically abused by them? And if (for instance) one parent discovers that the other IS abusing the child, does he or she have the RIGHT to take action?
Does a person have the right NOT to be raped, assaulted, stolen from or murdered? Does a police officer have the RIGHT to arrest a person? Does a judge have the RIGHT to sentence them, a prison to incarcerate them or anexecutioner to kill them?
Rights, like their corollary duties, surely must be a two-way street. By what 'right' do we judge ANYONE when we assign praise of blame? Is not our moral indignation simply a case of, as Freddie Ayer put it in one of his infrequent attempts at humour, nothing more than stating the FACT of a 'crime' or 'sin' in 'a shocked tone of voice?'
If we DENY the meaningfulness of rights and duties as a guide tohuman conduct, we are lost in a moral wilderness. We have NO basis other than our own prejudice or self-interest for assigning praise or blame to ANYONE.
How can we condemn a terrorist bomber if the people he killed had no RIGHT to exist? How can we condemn a rapist if their victim had no right NOT to be raped? How can we condemn a thief is his victim had no RIGHT to their property?
Human rights are not some kind of invention by modern lawyers or politically correct politicians. The first explicit formulation of the concept of human rights was made by Hugo Grotius in the eseventeenth century but it was implicit in the words of other thinkers for at least a thousand years earlier than that.
Human rights, however variousluy interpreted, in the real world represent an indispensable way of providing the glue which holds together society. Without it the world would be nothing more than a Hobbesian struggle of all against all.
That such a situation exists only in barbarous lands or in countries where law has broken down is surely significant.
|
|
|
Rights
Feb 5, 2011 8:09:20 GMT -5
Post by mouse on Feb 5, 2011 8:09:20 GMT -5
Human rights are not some kind of invention by modern lawyers or politically correct politicians. The first explicit formulation of the concept of human rights was made by Hugo Grotius in the eseventeenth century but it was implicit in the words of other thinkers for at least a thousand years earlier than that. """does a child have a the right not to be killed by its parents"""...no it doesnt have that right it doesnt even have an expectation...any more than a wolf cub we.. once able to think have expectations in our various societies.and our societies differ in those expectations .expectation and traditions handed down to us by our peers in our societies some of these expectations and traditions are turned into what we call law..and law differes from society to society most societies large or small from earliest times have rules on the taking of life..theft,incest.some on the unions of men and women be it named marriage or handfasting or even casual couplings ..the care of the young with in their own clan/group some have rules brought from religions to manage larger societies which have many clans/groups so that anarchy and dog eat dog doesnt rule the day """And if (for instance) one parent discovers that the other IS abusing the child, does he or she have the RIGHT to take action?"""" yes..whether it can be construed as a right is questionable it is more a duty to protect the vunerable young ""How can we condemn a terrorist bomber if the people he killed had no RIGHT to exist?""there is no inbuilt right to kill any more than there is a right to live...and murder in most societies is considered wrong ..some societies praise terrorists..depends where you comming from ""How can we condemn a rapist if their victim had no right NOT to be raped? How can we condemn a thief is his victim had no RIGHT to their property?"""the society in which we live.. its norms and traditions and expectations are what we judge by...rape is quite normal in some societies and in some situations ,,war for one where it is used as a weapon theft has seemigly always been condemed within own communities...but theft from other communities has been considered quite normal
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Rights
Feb 5, 2011 8:19:17 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2011 8:19:17 GMT -5
Human rights are not some kind of invention by modern lawyers or politically correct politicians. The first explicit formulation of the concept of human rights was made by Hugo Grotius in the eseventeenth century but it was implicit in the words of other thinkers for at least a thousand years earlier than that. """does a child have a the right not to be killed by its parents"""...no it doesnt have that right it doesnt even have an expectation...any more than a wolf cub we.. once able to think have expectations in our various societies.and our societies differ in those expectations .expectation and traditions handed down to us by our peers in our societies some of these expectations and traditions are turned into what we call law..and law differes from society to society most societies large or small from earliest times have rules on the taking of life..theft,incest.some on the unions of men and women be it named marriage or handfasting or even casual couplings ..the care of the young with in their own clan/group some have rules brought from religions to manage larger societies which have many clans/groups so that anarchy and dog eat dog doesnt rule the day Your opinion that a child does NOT have the right NOT to be murdered by its parents is simply an opinion and NOT a fact, as is my own view which is the opposite. For what it is worth the more primitive the society the LESS seriously murder is regarded. Other crimes are regarded as far more important. Without the concept of rights we have NO basis on which to award praise or blame or to assign rewards and punishments to people. Nor do we have any reason NOT to commit murder, rape and so on. The DENIAL of rights is simply a license for predators to abuse their victims. It is the philosophy of gangsters and serial killers!
|
|
|
Rights
Feb 5, 2011 8:23:44 GMT -5
Post by mouse on Feb 5, 2011 8:23:44 GMT -5
"""does a child have a the right not to be killed by its parents"""...no it doesnt have that right it doesnt even have an expectation...any more than a wolf cub we.. once able to think have expectations in our various societies.and our societies differ in those expectations .expectation and traditions handed down to us by our peers in our societies some of these expectations and traditions are turned into what we call law..and law differes from society to society most societies large or small from earliest times have rules on the taking of life..theft,incest.some on the unions of men and women be it named marriage or handfasting or even casual couplings ..the care of the young with in their own clan/group some have rules brought from religions to manage larger societies which have many clans/groups so that anarchy and dog eat dog doesnt rule the day Your opinion that a child does NOT have the right NOT to be murdered by its parents is simply an opinion and NOT a fact, as is my own view which is the opposite. For what it is worth the more primitive the society the LESS seriously murder is regarded. Other crimes are regarded as far more important. Without the concept of rights we have NO basis on which to award praise or blame or to assign rewards and punishments to people. Nor do we have any reason NOT to commit murder, rape and so on. The DENIAL of rights is simply a license for predators to abuse their victims. It is the philosophy of gangsters and serial killers! disagree 100%
|
|
|
Rights
Feb 5, 2011 8:26:21 GMT -5
Post by mouse on Feb 5, 2011 8:26:21 GMT -5
did i offer it up as any thing other than my opinion...no
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Rights
Feb 5, 2011 8:31:40 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2011 8:31:40 GMT -5
Without the concept of 'rights,' how can you award praise and blame?
The only other answer is on purely subjective likes and dislikes.
Surely the justice system is irratioinal enough already without reducing it to the level of sticking a pin in a board?
Rights (and duties) DEFINE a society.
Without them society does not and cannot exist.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Rights
Feb 5, 2011 9:08:28 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2011 9:08:28 GMT -5
If the obverse is Rights the reverse is Duties. They are two sides of the same coin.
To discuss any particular right without discussing the corollary of the same right ie the corresponding duty is meaningless. By that token, this thread really should be rights and duties.
The term "Rights" is meaningless by itself. Every right automatically implies a corresponding duty. If a person is unwilling or unable to fulfil that duty, he/she automatically loses or forfeits that right, IMO.
Regards.
Prashna
|
|
|
Rights
Feb 5, 2011 9:29:16 GMT -5
Post by iamjumbo on Feb 5, 2011 9:29:16 GMT -5
Human rights are not some kind of invention by modern lawyers or politically correct politicians. The first explicit formulation of the concept of human rights was made by Hugo Grotius in the eseventeenth century but it was implicit in the words of other thinkers for at least a thousand years earlier than that. """does a child have a the right not to be killed by its parents"""...no it doesnt have that right it doesnt even have an expectation...any more than a wolf cub we.. once able to think have expectations in our various societies.and our societies differ in those expectations .expectation and traditions handed down to us by our peers in our societies some of these expectations and traditions are turned into what we call law..and law differes from society to society most societies large or small from earliest times have rules on the taking of life..theft,incest.some on the unions of men and women be it named marriage or handfasting or even casual couplings ..the care of the young with in their own clan/group some have rules brought from religions to manage larger societies which have many clans/groups so that anarchy and dog eat dog doesnt rule the day """And if (for instance) one parent discovers that the other IS abusing the child, does he or she have the RIGHT to take action?"""" yes..whether it can be construed as a right is questionable it is more a duty to protect the vunerable young ""How can we condemn a terrorist bomber if the people he killed had no RIGHT to exist?""there is no inbuilt right to kill any more than there is a right to live...and murder in most societies is considered wrong ..some societies praise terrorists..depends where you comming from ""How can we condemn a rapist if their victim had no right NOT to be raped? How can we condemn a thief is his victim had no RIGHT to their property?"""the society in which we live.. its norms and traditions and expectations are what we judge by...rape is quite normal in some societies and in some situations ,,war for one where it is used as a weapon theft has seemigly always been condemed within own communities...but theft from other communities has been considered quite normal well hon, you are contradicting yourself. first, you say: does a child have a the right not to be killed by its parents"""...no it doesnt have that right it doesnt even have an expectation then you turn around with this: yes..whether it can be construed as a right is questionable it is more a duty to protect the vunerable young which is diametrically opposed to your first comment. if the child doesn't have a right to even live, it obviously can't have a right to be free from abuse, nor can there be any duty for anyone to protect it from abuse, or anything else mike is quite correct. if you don't believe that you have the right to life, your property, etc, you can't believe that it is not okay for someone to kill you, steal from you, or whatever.
|
|
|
Rights
Feb 5, 2011 9:31:53 GMT -5
Post by iamjumbo on Feb 5, 2011 9:31:53 GMT -5
If the obverse is Rights the reverse is Duties. They are two sides of the same coin. To discuss any particular right without discussing the corollary of the same right ie the corresponding duty is meaningless. By that token, this thread really should be rights and duties.The term "Rights" is meaningless by itself. Every right automatically implies a corresponding duty. If a person is unwilling or unable to fulfil that duty, he/she automatically loses or forfeits that right, IMO. Regards. Prashna very true, which is the reason that the death penalty is the only morally proper punishment for murder. along with the absolute right to life comes the duty to not violate anyone else's right to life. obviously, when you choose to violate their right to life, you automatically are voluntarily forfeiting your own
|
|
|
Rights
Feb 5, 2011 9:39:07 GMT -5
Post by fretslider on Feb 5, 2011 9:39:07 GMT -5
My argument was that one is not born with rights. Rights are a purely human concept, a concept that does not exist in nature. In nature, the fittest - in ecological terms - survives. Its as simple as that.
Now we may be evolutionarily and technologically superior to other species - that's another argument for another day - but we are still animals and as such we still carry 'natural' drives and urges.
So man awards himself all sorts of rights. But they depend heavily on where he is born, the rights he can expect will vary wildly; from the relative freedom in the western world to the police states in the middle east.
And as Prashna says, if one has rights one also has duties.
|
|
|
Rights
Feb 5, 2011 10:18:14 GMT -5
Post by mouse on Feb 5, 2011 10:18:14 GMT -5
If the obverse is Rights the reverse is Duties. They are two sides of the same coin. To discuss any particular right without discussing the corollary of the same right ie the corresponding duty is meaningless. By that token, this thread really should be rights and duties.The term "Rights" is meaningless by itself. Every right automatically implies a corresponding duty. If a person is unwilling or unable to fulfil that duty, he/she automatically loses or forfeits that right, IMO. Regards. Prashna spot on prashna...i did mention duty but it apears to have been over looked """""""And if (for instance) one parent discovers that the other IS abusing the child, does he or she have the RIGHT to take action?"""" yes..whether it can be construed as a right is questionable it is more a duty to protect the vunerable young""""
|
|
|
Rights
Feb 5, 2011 10:22:02 GMT -5
Post by mouse on Feb 5, 2011 10:22:02 GMT -5
Rights (and duties) DEFINE a society. Without them society does not and cannot exist. any group of humans who live to gether...be it a small group in a cave to a large nation make up a society.......the people or leaders..decide what is and what is not aceptable...and one either goes along with that society or removes to one more to one liking for what ever reason
|
|
|
Rights
Feb 5, 2011 10:24:25 GMT -5
Post by mouse on Feb 5, 2011 10:24:25 GMT -5
My argument was that one is not born with rights. Rights are a purely human concept, a concept that does not exist in nature. In nature, the fittest - in ecological terms - survives. Its as simple as that. Now we may be evolutionarily and technologically superior to other species - that's another argument for another day - but we are still animals and as such we still carry 'natural' drives and urges. So man awards himself all sorts of rights. But they depend heavily on where he is are born, the rights he can expect will vary wildly; from the relative freedom in the western world to the police states in the middle east. exactly what i said in very slightly different words..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Rights
Feb 5, 2011 14:07:33 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2011 14:07:33 GMT -5
My argument was that one is not born with rights. I concur, Fret. What is more, from the simple logic I presented, I can demonstrate that as obvious and axiomatic.A new-born baby cannot have duties, because when born it cannot even fend for itself. Left to itself it would die. Therefore, because it cannot discharge any dities, the concept of its having rights is untenable. All the adults surrounding it have duties, especially the parents. But the baby itself cannot be born with rights for the simple reason that it cannot be encumbered with duties from birth. Obvious and axiomatic, as I said. It's like arguing "water flows downhill", a waste of time. Regards. Prashna
|
|
|
Rights
Feb 5, 2011 15:06:48 GMT -5
Post by mouse on Feb 5, 2011 15:06:48 GMT -5
My argument was that one is not born with rights. I concur, Fret. exactly... dont know how any one can think otherwise and come up with such a idea of ,,...human rights....especially as the human condition is ever changing...and dependent on factor after factor....
|
|