Rights

[55Mercury]

you have the right to remain silent and the freedom to conform

everything else is negotiable

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Maybe it defines the undefinable nature of 'right'.
The term is only relevant to the relationship of humans to humans.
In the big picture no entity has any 'rights'.

If it can't be defined, it is a mouthfart, a null concept.

 

[Ludlow]

Maybe it defines the undefinable nature of 'right'.
The term is only relevant to the relationship of humans to humans.
In the big picture no entity has any 'rights'.

that's why I prefer the word privilege. Tobacco companies have the "rights" to produce toxic substances. That is their right because that is the law. Somehow I think life is a gift for all of us, and privileges is a word that fits better in that context, to me anywho.

 

[eh1eh]

If it can't be defined, it is a mouthfart, a null concept.

Maybe that is what I'm getting at. Interesting concept.
It's a big subject.

that's why I prefer the word privilege. Tobacco companies have the "rights" to produce toxic substances. That is their right because that is the law. Somehow I think life is a gift for all of us, and privileges is a word that fits better in that context, to me anywho.

I think much of what we call rights are actually privilege.

 

[SLM]

that's why I prefer the word privilege. Tobacco companies have the "rights" to produce toxic substances. That is their right because that is the law. Somehow I think life is a gift for all of us, and privileges is a word that fits better in that context, to me anywho.

Except a privilege is usually something that is earned or something bestowed amongst a select group. Driving is a privilege, you have to earn a driver's license by taking a test. The "right" to drive a car is bestowed only upon those in society who hold a driver's license.

No I think the term "rights" is the correct term. It is, undeniably, a uniquely human construct though, it's not found in nature.

Maybe it defines the undefinable nature of 'right'.
The term is only relevant to the relationship of humans to humans.
In the big picture no entity has any 'rights'.

It is rather a nihilistic approach to the subject.

 

[eh1eh]

It is rather a nihilistic approach to the subject.

The observation of fact and the absence of blind optimism isn't nihilistic but merely is.

 

[SLM]

The observation of fact and the absence of blind optimism isn't nihilistic but merely is.

Lol, it wasn't a criticism. Of course it's a human construct and it's entirely possible that some comet barreling towards us will render it entirely moot, but as long as we are here we do have to find some way to co-exist in some relatively harmonious manner. And on that level acknowledging others and their rights bears some level of importance.

 

[Angstrom]

You have the right to suffer the consequences of your actions.

 

[Zipperfish]

I'm refining the definition here, Ludlow. Need your help.

You have a very good argument. I would agree that a "right" that is not secured by the laws might as well not exist. But our Founding Feathers talked a lot about "natural" or "God-given" rights, as did the British legal system. Was that just political balderdash to justify their treason, or did they have something there?

Natural rights? Can you please point to where his rights are? :lol:

Rights are completely legal constructs.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Natural rights? Can you please point to where his rights are? :lol:

Did you miss the fact that I did not say that there are "natural rights?" Rather, I said that our Founding Feathers (and a bunch of judges) put a lot of stock in the notion. Which is enough to make me at least think about it, though if you read the thread carefully, you'll see that I mostly agree with folks who say that rights are a social construct, more or less enshrined in the law, and not "natural" or "God-given" at all.

So why don't you go argue with somebody who disagrees with you?

Rights are completely legal constructs.

Nope. The fact that people assert rights that aren't provided in the law indicates that they are more than legal constructs.

If you actually feel like dealing with this on the level I know from experience you're capable of, why don't you try starting with SLM's genuinely brilliant, creative definition of rights, and my minor refinements thereof?

 

[Angstrom]

They are privileges given by our country.

Natural rights and God given rights is just some fancy romantic poetry, some delusional people like to imagine, to give laws a feeling of absolution.

 

[eh1eh]

Lol, it wasn't a criticism. Of course it's a human construct and it's entirely possible that some comet barreling towards us will render it entirely moot, but as long as we are here we do have to find some way to co-exist in some relatively harmonious manner. And on that level acknowledging others and their rights bears some level of importance.

Agreed. We need to get along to make our lives better.
The 'rights' you refer to are simply the considerations we show each other.
No entity has any right other than to exist.
To call the workings of society `rights` just seems arrogant.
Someone or some organization harming or discriminating against others
could be perceived as just the natural order.
Does the lion deprive the gazzel of `rights`?

 

[Ludlow]

I was thinking that the word rights or entitlements didn't leave much room for gratitude. Kind of a weird way of looking at it I suppose.

 

[SLM]

Agreed. We need to get along to make our lives better.
The 'rights' you refer to are simply the considerations we show each other.
No entity has any right other than to exist.
To call the workings of society `rights` just seems arrogant.
Someone or some organization harming or discriminating against others
could be perceived as just the natural order.
Does the lion deprive the gazzel of `rights`?

I do think it's more than considerations though. There are certain freedoms that I believe have a bit more importance than that. I think those freedoms, those rights, are 'born' (for lack of a better term) because we are sentient beings capable of not just concerning ourselves with our own wants and needs, but those of others.

I mean, ok, we have a right to exist, but how do we exist? What's important in the way in which we exist? Why is it important? We are more than animals, not necessarily always better than, but we are more than.

 

[Zipperfish]

Did you miss the fact that I did not say that there are "natural rights?" Rather, I said that our Founding Feathers (and a bunch of judges) put a lot of stock in the notion. Which is enough to make me at least think about it, though if you read the thread carefully, you'll see that I mostly agree with folks who say that rights are a social construct, more or less enshrined in the law, and not "natural" or "God-given" at all.

No I got that. I was just reinforcing that point.

Nope. The fact that people assert rights that aren't provided in the law indicates that they are more than legal constructs.

If you actually feel like dealing with this on the level I know from experience you're capable of, why don't you try starting with SLM's genuinely brilliant, creative definition of rights, and my minor refinements thereof?

They can assert the rights all they want. Lots of people assert that God exists. That doesn't mean he exists. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, " falls apart if there is no Creator.

 

[JamesBondo]

There is a duality to 'rights' .

Wikipedia talks about rights being a principle of freedom. I agree.

Wikipedia also talks about rights being an entitlement. I agree

. And as an entitlement, it would be necessary to describe the source of authority, for example 'constitutional right', or 'natural right, ie not artificial, not man made'

 

[gopher]

I hear a lot of talk about "rights." You have a right to do this, or a right to do that, or think this or that, or believe this or that. Nowadays you have a "right" to receive this or that.

But there ain't no point in debating a concept you can't define. So, I'll leave it up to the members here. Exactly what is a "right?"

I'm looking for a definition of the term here, not a laundry list of what you think your "rights" are.

More questions after we get a definition.

The Bill of Rights may give us a definition or at least a listing of examples:


United States Bill of Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We have the right to exist.
After that we don't have any 'rights'. At least not any more than a dog, cat, ant or jellyfish...et al.
In our existence we can choose to create a society where we cooperate and treat each other with kindness. None of this, while I feel it is important to our continued existence, is actually a 'right'.
We can only choose to not fukk each other over in the name of greed.
I guess we may want to make that a 'right', if it is possible.

I thought it as settled a long time ago that this was a reference to that which is unlawful


http://forums.canadiancontent.net/history/85409-f-k-where-does-word.html