I used to believe in something called "Natural Rights". The jist of rights theory is that people are born with a set of basic natural rights (generally they are life, liberty, and property - but there could of course be others). The government can only take away your natural rights if your actions threaten someone else's natural rights. In essence: your right to swing your arms around ends where my nose begins.
But after thinking about the issue extensively, I've decided that natural rights are an incomplete philosophy of governance, for the following reasons:
1. Complex Situations. Suppose I am building a factory that will manufacture much-needed medical equipment, but the only location where I can build the factory is already populated. Is it okay for me to ask the government to tear down their homes?
In complex situations, where everyone loses rights, natural rights are meaningless. You have to resort to utilitarianism.
2. Free Choice. The idea that someone cannot force another person to lose their natural rights implies that there is some "neutral" decision that the person would have made if you had not interfered. But what is that "neutral" decision? How can a person live without interference?
Natural rights only defend free choice when a person is only exposed to physical coercion. It is meaningless in cases of psychological coercion. And don't give some sneerish comment like "You're an idiot if you can be psychologically coerced". But is that really so? If I teach my children to be young earth creationists, they will lose the freedom to decide if they want to be conditioned with that philosophy. But alas we don't know what their decision would have been without coercion.
"The mountain is a quarry of rock, the trees are a forest of timber, the rivers are water in the dam, the wind is wind-in-the-sails"
-Martin Heidegger
At 3/6/09 03:46 PM, Al6200 wrote:
1. Complex Situations. Suppose I am building a factory that will manufacture much-needed medical equipment, but the only location where I can build the factory is already populated. Is it okay for me to ask the government to tear down their homes?
In complex situations, where everyone loses rights, natural rights are meaningless. You have to resort to utilitarianism.
Of course not, that is in violation of their right to their property. you have no right to someone else's property no matter hoe noble your intentions
2. Free Choice. The idea that someone cannot force another person to lose their natural rights implies that there is some "neutral" decision that the person would have made if you had not interfered. But what is that "neutral" decision? How can a person live without interference?
What?
Natural rights only defend free choice when a person is only exposed to physical coercion. It is meaningless in cases of psychological coercion. And don't give some sneerish comment like "You're an idiot if you can be psychologically coerced". But is that really so? If I teach my children to be young earth creationists, they will lose the freedom to decide if they want to be conditioned with that philosophy. But alas we don't know what their decision would have been without coercion.
And yet I was "conditioned" as a young earth creationist for the first 16 years of my life.
TANSTAAFL.
I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
I don't believe in natural any god-given rights.
But that doesn't mean I can't believe everyone deserves some basic rights given to them by a government.
Siggy
Feeling angsty?
I have to agree with the others. Natural rights don't exist. Rights are given to the weak by the strong. Its the natural order of life. People think they can change the natural order of life, and they are WRONG.
I'm not crazy, everyone else is.
At 3/6/09 08:47 PM, KemCab wrote: Rights are given by the structural framework of society, which are protected by us. However, it's all veneer and under duress rights are less important. It's more than a matter of social Darwinism.
Fact is, these same rights are subject to change even. As societies perceptions of "right and wrong" changes, so will the rights various forms of government bestow upon us.
It wasn't too long ago interracial relations were considered scandalous. Only so long ago was marriage not really outlined with a specific age...
rights are of human invention, but that dosent make them of any less value .
At 3/6/09 08:47 PM, KemCab wrote: I'd have to disagree on that.
Rights are given by the structural framework of society, which are protected by us. However, it's all veneer and under duress rights are less important. It's more than a matter of social Darwinism.
rights are given to the weak by the strong. strength lies in numbers. look at proposition 8, give it some thought, and see that I am right. the strong majority subjugate the weak minority. only when the strong say that the weak can have something can they have it. At one point only landowners could vote. the majority (at the time would be those that didn't own any land) rose up and forcefully took the right to vote. even issues that seemingly have a notion of being "right" such as women and blacks voting, its the same. only when the those in power decided to give them the right to vote did they ever get the right. Did they fight for it? yes. Did they prevail? ultimately, yes. However, if the powers that be decided to stubbornly keep the right out of their hands, they would still not have it.
Much like the notion of having the right to marry your sister, the overwhelming majority (those with the strength) say that, "no, you cannot marry your sister." Its not an issue of right or wrong, its an issue of those with the power, stopping those without the power from doing something.
I'm not crazy, everyone else is.
At 3/6/09 03:53 PM, therealsylvos wrote: Of course not, that is in violation of their right to their property. you have no right to someone else's property no matter hoe noble your intentions
Moral absolutism is silly. What if the government needs to build a highway that will reduce traffic problems, and thus save lives by preventing accidents, but there's a 70 year old man living in the middle of the area you need to build the freeway on? what are going to do? Are you going to stick to your absolutist principles and let several hundred, if not several thousand, people die a year so one man can keep his property? It's certainly never a desirable solution to kick someone out of their home, but sometimes it is necessary to do for the greater good.
It's like Al said in the original post: your right to swing your arms around ends where my nose begins. You have a right to your property, so long as your right to property doesn't hinder the rights of the rest of society. In this case, the right not be horribly mauled in a car accident.
I have no country to fight for; my country is the earth; I am a citizen of the world
-- Eugene Debs
Try these;
-Limiting the places where people can smoke. What is more important: the right of the smoker to do what they like where they like, or the right of the non-smoker to breathe smokeless air?
-Gay marriage. What is more important: the right of the lovers to wed whomever they choose, or the right of society to define the family unit (religious institutions notwithstanding)?
-Universal health care. What is more important: the right of the chronically ill to the medications they need to survive, or the right of the taxpayers to not support a system they don't think they need?
If you're a smoking yet otherwise healthy advocate of heterosexual parenting, your answer will be different than that of a nonsmoking homosexual with sickle cell anemia. Rights, of any kind, are in the eye of the beholder.
Fundamentally, people must have certain rights or society breaks down. For instance, no government can exist without the consent of the governed. That is the natural right that the entire animal kingdom operates under.
Almost all other rights are matters of ethics and political opinion, which means they can be restricted or upheld, and are therefor not technically rights. a more appropriate word to use in most cases where 'right' is generally used are either 'granted rights' or 'foundational rights' they do not really need much explaining but the latter are rights that are specficied directly in the implied, written, or verbal contract agreed upon by the governor and the governed. Granted rights are rights that are established after the contract has been agreed upon but are almost always done so by the governor. Even with comparatively small countries, pure democracy is extremely difficult to achieve and so granted rights are generally established through a legislative authority within the government.
Another example of granted right is a law pertaining to the Freedom of Speech which is a foundational right in many countries. If a law says that you cannot practice Freedom of Speech (anything, anytime, anywhere) on government property, you have a redefined right. Restricted but at the same time a granted right
Rights, be they natural or otherwise, are terms for societies. The only reason these rights exist is because government gave them to us little over 300 years ago.
Well-a Everybody's Heard About the Word, Tha-Tha-Tha Word-Word-Word the Word is the.....
no sorry i dont believe in natural rights
look at all the violations of these rights over the years
in nature rights only occur when people stick together and have rules that ban certain actions that will make a persons life less comfortable. in our society uit just got way more complicated with politics
do i think its bad that we choose to have rights? absolutely not!
At 3/8/09 07:45 PM, EKublai wrote: Fundamentally, people must have certain rights or society breaks down. For instance, no government can exist without the consent of the governed. That is the natural right that the entire animal kingdom operates under.
Really? Nearly half of the people in the US didn't consent to Obama's presidency, and there are a lot of parts of the country where a huge majority didn't support him. Likewise, there are a lot of issues where the majority opinion goes against what the government actually does.
"The mountain is a quarry of rock, the trees are a forest of timber, the rivers are water in the dam, the wind is wind-in-the-sails"
-Martin Heidegger
At 3/8/09 11:15 PM, Al6200 wrote: Nearly half of the people in the US didn't consent to Obama's presidency...
By the very act of voting, one gives consent to the winner despite one having preferred the loser.
Voting means giving consent to the system. Consenting to the system IS consenting to the presidency.
At 3/8/09 11:37 PM, StephanosGnomon wrote:
By the very act of voting, one gives consent to the winner despite one having preferred the loser.
Voting means giving consent to the system. Consenting to the system IS consenting to the presidency.
Yeah, but nearly half of the population didn't want our president to be in place. More than 50% of the population preferred him, but a lot didn't. (My point here is not that democracy is unfair, but rather that you have no right to have leadership that you consent to).
"The mountain is a quarry of rock, the trees are a forest of timber, the rivers are water in the dam, the wind is wind-in-the-sails"
-Martin Heidegger
I guess it follows the rules of cause and effect; if one person's freedom negatively affects someone else's, then that's not fair... So if someone feels like putting someone else in a cage for a month, in theory that first person should have the freedom to do so, but at the same time, that would take away freedom from that second person... I guess the law is there to find a balance.
If a big mining company finds gold residues near a residential area where houses are built; is it fair that these people should forcibly move out to make room for the mine? If 300 people have to move out as a result, it might be worth it for society in general if the mine is to later-on produce 3000+ jobs in the region.
Bla
At 3/8/09 11:45 PM, Al6200 wrote: ...you have no right to have leadership that you consent to.
I'm... not sure I follow.
At 3/6/09 07:16 PM, aninjaman wrote: I don't believe in natural any god-given rights.
But that doesn't mean I can't believe everyone deserves some basic rights given to them by a government.
Hence why the more atheistic a society is, the more socialist/communistic it becomes.
I love the irony.
At 3/6/09 11:43 PM, Musician wrote:
It's like Al said in the original post: your right to swing your arms around ends where my nose begins. You have a right to your property, so long as your right to property doesn't hinder the rights of the rest of society. In this case, the right not be horribly mauled in a car accident.
I fail to see how the old man is responsible for the stupidity of other's driving habits.
I was born in Cape Breton , it is an Island that is part of Nova Scotia. Which is a Canadian Province.
I along with all my fellow Canadians have The rights listed in the link below.
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/
I have no idea what rights that you who are viewing thi,s have in your present location.
But I do know that I have rights outlined in this Charter where I am.
Those who have only the religious opinions of others in their head & worship them. Have no room for their own thoughts & no room to contemplate anyone elses ideas either-More
At 3/9/09 12:26 AM, Memorize wrote:At 3/6/09 11:43 PM, Musician wrote:It's like Al said in the original post: your right to swing your arms around ends where my nose begins. You have a right to your property, so long as your right to property doesn't hinder the rights of the rest of society. In this case, the right not be horribly mauled in a car accident.I fail to see how the old man is responsible for the stupidity of other's driving habits.
Okay, let's take another example. It isn't an example of human logic, but many humans act irrationally.
A group of people who hate mankind (there are those) buy a stretch of ground that covers a highway. They put up a spike trap in the middle of the road.
Forbidding them from this is "restricting their right of property", isn't it? They're not infringing any other persons right.
However, not forbidding them means potentially hundreds of people dying a violent death due to their rightfully created spike trap. What stance would you take in such a case?
It may never happen, but there has been stranger things on earth.
You shouldn't believe that you have the right of free thinking, it's a threat to our democracy.
Med all respekt för alla rika svin jag känner - ni blir aldrig mina vänner.
At 3/8/09 07:45 PM, EKublai wrote: Fundamentally, people must have certain rights or society breaks down. For instance, no government can exist without the consent of the governed. That is the natural right that the entire animal kingdom operates under.
Because obviously there were no governments before John Locke came up with the idea of consent of the governed.
There have been societies and governments based a long time on and remained in power for a number of years without consent of the governed.
The real answer is that no just government can remain in power without the consent of the governed.
Between the idea And the reality
Between the motion And the act, Falls the Shadow
An argument in Logic
At 3/9/09 01:38 PM, Sajberhippien wrote:
Forbidding them from this is "restricting their right of property", isn't it? They're not infringing any other persons right.
For one, it depends on if people are using their road.
Secondly, the old man doesn't have an intent to harm anyone. He's not doing anything other than living quietly in his own house, that he bought, on his property.
Even still, he payed for his little spot of land, the drivers didn't.
At 3/6/09 07:16 PM, aninjaman wrote: I don't believe in natural any god-given rights.
But that doesn't mean I can't believe everyone deserves some basic rights given to them by a government.
This exactly. Obviously the idea of "rights" that are naturally required is ridiculous. It goes against the "survival of the fittest" system under which nature works. Nevertheless, we are human and thus are doomed to have an ingrained sense of "right" and "wrong" (two qualities that we ourselves invented). These senses are born from empathy and thus we believe in the basic good treatment of most people. That doesn't mean that these feelings are rational, just natural.
At 3/6/09 07:16 PM, aninjaman wrote:I don't believe in natural any god-given rights.
That's true. Rights do not exist. You are given whatever few priveleges those who happen to be in charge wish you to have. The only reason any power-hungry person can't just take those away whenever they feel like is because they wouldn't have enough support. Just face life.
At 3/6/09 07:16 PM, aninjaman wrote:But that doesn't mean I can't believe everyone deserves some basic rights given to them by a government.
No one deserves anything. Thinking you deserve anything is purely selfish, and you ought to be put to death for it. What have you ever done to deserve anything? And before you answer, how many bad things have you done to undo those good things? And before you answer yet again, why do you think doing anything entitles you to things? If doing things entitled you to things, then why isn't it that every time someone does a good deed they get a Snickers, or anytime they do anything bad they get pimp slapped by a random hobo?
12,000 Die Every Day!
What town is next!?
Who the fuck cares!?
At 3/9/09 05:05 PM, BitchJustLostTheGame wrote: No one deserves anything.
So, you don't deserve to live? How, if we spread that philosophy across humanity, can we have a functioning society?
Thinking you deserve anything is purely selfish, and you ought to be put to death for it.
Well, I think you ought to be put to death... simply because you deserve no better...
So where does that leave us?
Tis better to sit in silence and be presumed a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.
At 3/9/09 05:16 PM, Ravariel wrote:
So, you don't deserve to live? How, if we spread that philosophy across humanity, can we have a functioning society?
Well, I think you ought to be put to death... simply because you deserve no better...
So where does that leave us?
With one more fucking retard to explain things to. No one deserves to live. Neither you nor I ever deserved to be born. Any second of anyone's life up until now, they could've died in any manner of ways. Everyone in the world is just living on borrowed time. For all of their life. So gives thanks you've lived this long.
12,000 Die Every Day!
What town is next!?
Who the fuck cares!?
At 3/9/09 05:22 PM, BitchJustLostTheGame wrote:At 3/9/09 05:16 PM, Ravariel wrote:
With one more fucking retard to explain things to. No one deserves to live. Neither you nor I ever deserved to be born. Any second of anyone's life up until now, they could've died in any manner of ways. Everyone in the world is just living on borrowed time. For all of their life. So gives thanks you've lived this long.
Clearly we have met an endowed humanist, huh.
Now, since this is your belief, what philosophical belief or basis due you base this you? I mean, since all philosophy isn't correct or incorrect, you must have rationalized this in your mind to some extent.
I am of course digressing from your point and view life as a natural culmination of God's graces, but that is my belief.
Between the idea And the reality
Between the motion And the act, Falls the Shadow
An argument in Logic
At 3/9/09 05:22 PM, BitchJustLostTheGame wrote:At 3/9/09 05:16 PM, Ravariel wrote:With one more fucking retard to explain things to. No one deserves to live. Neither you nor I ever deserved to be born. Any second of anyone's life up until now, they could've died in any manner of ways. Everyone in the world is just living on borrowed time. For all of their life. So gives thanks you've lived this long.
From what you're saying, it seems like people shouldn't have any rights at all. Stop being human then!
You know the world's gone crazy when the best rapper's a white guy and the best golfer's a black guy - Chris Rock
At 3/9/09 05:22 PM, BitchJustLostTheGame wrote: With one more fucking retard to explain things to. No one deserves to live.
Riiight. Nice to know you're in favor of a complete societal collapse, genocide, eugenics, anarchy and pure chaos.
...because if you hadn't followed that logic through to it's natural end, that's what your philosophy implies.
Or are you just a troll trying to stir shit by saying the most outrageous thing you can think of?
Tis better to sit in silence and be presumed a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.
Select between 5 monster racers, upgrade your monster skill and win the competition!
4.23 / 5.00 3,881 Views
Build most powerful forces, unleash hordes of monster and control your soldiers!
3.93 / 5.00 4,634 Views
© Copyright 1995-2014 Newgrounds, Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use
newgrounds.com — Your #1 online entertainment & artist community! All your base are belong to us.
