The Ontological Status of Rights

[Morality Games]

I'm curious to know the public perception -- where exactly are rights?

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Morality Games I'm curious to know the public perception -- where exactly are rights?

There's some in the constitution.

Or any direction that is the opposite of a left.

[Morality Games]

Quote by: HelioPrime There's some in the constitution. Or any direction that is the opposite of a left.

Disregarding the immature pun about the left (especially bratty considering all of the Axis powers were very far to the right), the philosophy behind the Constitution claims to identify, clarify, and represent rights, but never to create them. The Constitution is not championed as the origin or generator of rights, but the describer of them, to be used as a point-of-reference for social matters.

[SoylentGreen]

Quote by: Morality Games I'm curious to know the public perception -- where exactly are rights?

Rights are nothing more than a concept.
A simple manifestation of one's own subjective philosophy.
As they only exist on a subjective level then the creator of rights are naturally the individual.
Even though collectively people can enforce certain rights that they share in common , such as the constitution, it is still up to each individual to believe in and live by those rights.

[Gods_Mercenary]

I agree with that, but rights also represent more. They are subjective, but if they are to be recognized by society they should also be objectively reasoned out. They should also be inherent in a fair and free society, right of free speech encourages dialogue, even the right to bear arms (though I don't want to debate this here) encourages a stable, free society. If someone made up the right to press ones buttcheeks against car windows, they could hold it as a right, but it wouldn't be a Right.

[wyoguy]

The bible makes it painfully clear that, as human, we posess exactly one "right" (ontologically). That is the right to eternal judgment, thanks to our representative in the garden. Anything that we recieve that overturns this "birthright" is purely of grace and is not on account of anything meritorious that we might of done on our own, thanks to our advocate seated at the right hand of God.

The rights implied by the constitution are a construct of societal norms, wherein, if these certain liberties were not granted by the state, our own innate sense of freedom would dictate that we rise up and demand them by force, if neccessary. But they are not supported by scripture.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Morality Games I'm curious to know the public perception -- where exactly are rights?

Well on a more serious note rights are the legal version of what we see to be standards that everyone should share equally. Normally rights are only the things in which nearly any person would agree on.

We call them rights because we don't want to hear about them just be subjective. We want our rights and want them to be respected, and not picked apart.

[lsbskins1]

Well, isn't this the $64,000.00 question? I'm sure my answer will not be as succinct as some would like, and not nearly as organizized as I would like, but here we go...

A right is the consideration you need to give to another human in order that all humans be able to live and prosper. Life is an obvious choice. Liberty another. Beyond that, it gets sketchy, though that does not mean I am saying those are the only two rights humans should enjoy.

It does not really matter from whence they come. If your belief tends to foster the respect for the rights of others while striving to protect your own, I don't care where you think they come from. My opinion is that the rights most would recognize come from two places. Our personal drive to live and our millennia of living as social creatures. Respecting our own "rights" is innate. Respecting the rights of others is a learned social behavior because it increases the chances of every one's survival, prosperity and happiness. To have any meaning, they must be protected by something more than individual force and power.

But, that is just my opinion.

[SoylentGreen]

wyoguy The bible makes it painfully clear that, as human, we posess exactly one "right" (ontologically). That is the right to eternal judgment

Thank god I am an atheist then.

Anything that we recieve that overturns this "birthright" is purely of grace and is not on account of anything meritorious that we might of done on our own, thanks to our advocate seated at the right hand of God.

Bollocks to that.
If he wants credit then he better prove he did it.
Otherwise when I see some human doing something meritorious I will blame the human.

HelioPrime We call them rights because we don't want to hear about them just be subjective.

Kind of a head in the sand approach to the idea.

We want our rights and want them to be respected, and not picked apart.

First I have to pick it apart to see if there is anything worth respecting.


Just because you believe in your rights doesn't mean I have to.

[Milton Bradley]

I don't know about the rest of you, but my right were a birthright.


Others have tried to articulate where they come from, by my nations Constitution confirms them upon those born here legally.

[Voluntary]

I am a Natural Rights proponent, since this philosophy does the best job at describing the origination of rights. I am an atheist, so I am not arguing for god. But the question to ask, is where do rights originate? I don't believe they originate from authority; god, a dictator, majority rule, the state, etc. They originate from reason and a scarce nature.

Fundamental rights are persons, property, and liberty. So, how do we define them? Let's begin with property. Property arises when you apply your faculties to nature. For example, if I create an axe from nature, that axe is mine since it is an extension of my faculties. If I use that axe to create a boat from a tree, then that boat is mine. Why?

It is an extension of my faculties. It was my effort, my ingenuity, my labor that created that boat. For anyone else to come along an lay claim to my boat is an act of transgression; whether it is an individual, a group, or a state. No one can lay claim to my labor accept myself. If anyone thinks differently, then I would like to hear a rebuttal.

Since I have a right to the fruits of my labor, then I have a right to my person and the liberty to employ my labor where I see fit.

People like to chalk up the origination of rights as subjective and whimsical, but they stem from reason and a degree of objectivity. For example, should different sexes and different races enjoy the same rights of person, property, and liberty? I would hope so. I think this conclusion is reached through objective thought and reasoning rather than through the contemporaneous lenses of culture.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: SoylentGreen Kind of a head in the sand approach to the idea.

That's exactly what we want.

If someone says abortion is wrong, and the unborn has a right to life they DON'T want to hear: "wellllll... technically its just a lump of cells and technically your only following your opinion based on upbringing, etc..."

If the majority of the people in a state wanted to bad all materials as well as appearances and speeches by atheists the atheists would claim they have the right to speak and publish. They don't want to hear: "well technically you don't have a right since rights are not an object that exists and in a democracy after all the majority wins...."

[Morality Games]

It is an extension of my faculties. It was my effort, my ingenuity, my labor that created that boat. For anyone else to come along an lay claim to my boat is an act of transgression; whether it is an individual, a group, or a state. No one can lay claim to my labor accept myself. If anyone thinks differently, then I would like to hear a rebuttal.

Fundamentally, the only authority behind your assertion no one has the right to take your property is yourself, although skillful rhetoric might secure a consensus from your neighbors.

People like to chalk up the origination of rights as subjective and whimsical, but they stem from reason and a degree of objectivity.

No, some ideas stem from reason and a degree of objectivity. But to use an idea as a compass to help you through life and for that idea to be true in fact (like gravity) are two entirely different existential conditions. Your right is your idea, backed by your feeling, and nothing else. Under a different line of logic, a person could conceive of a way they deserve to have the fruits of your labor and you don't. Since you can't point to any authority higher than your own feeling, your 'right' can't be said to be anything but subjective.

For example, should different sexes and different races enjoy the same rights of person, property, and liberty? I would hope so. I think this conclusion is reached through objective thought and reasoning rather than through the contemporaneous lenses of culture.

It is a type of caution mixed with common sense. "Why should I deny people of other sexes and races the same rights as me if it doesn't produce a tangible benefit?"

don't know about the rest of you, but my right were a birthright. Others have tried to articulate where they come from, by my nations Constitution confirms them upon those born here legally.

There seems to be a profound emptiness behind your theory of rights.

[Winter wind]

Quote by: Morality Games I'm curious to know the public perception -- where exactly are rights?

The rights are just...innate.

Locke wrote them the best.

Life, Liberty, property (though I think pursuit of happiness is cooler).

And who owns rights? Society as a whole.

It's not like there's one magical person or place where rights shack up.

[Walrus]

I don’t think we have any natural rights as such, we have desires but not rights. Rights are simply laws designed to protect members of a society from oppression and if there is any intrinsic value to rights, it is probably from a development of our need to coexist.

[Winter wind]

Quote by: walrus I don’t think we have any natural rights as such, we have desires but not rights. Rights are simply laws designed to protect members of a society from oppression and if there is any intrinsic value to rights, it is probably from a development of our need to coexist.

Hell, that's a good a place as any, Walrus. A naturally agreed upon right. still works... (though you put it in such a depressing way...)

[Walrus]

Quote by: Winter wind Hell, that's a good a place as any, Walrus. A naturally agreed upon right. still works... (though you put it in such a depressing way...)

I will try to add a smiley next time.

[Voluntary]

Quote by: Morality Games Fundamentally, the only authority behind your assertion no one has the right to take your property is yourself, although skillful rhetoric might secure a consensus from your neighbors.

Why should other people take the property of others? Skillful rhetoric might not secure my property from my neighbors, but that doesn't mean theft did not happen.

No, some ideas stem from reason and a degree of objectivity. But to use an idea as a compass to help you through life and for that idea to be true in fact (like gravity) are two entirely different existential conditions.

Some rights are conducive to the individual no matter what. Others, such as theft, coercion, violence, and murder are not conducive to individual well-being. It is unfortunate you think well-being is strictly subjective.

It would be interesting if you could logically show that theft, coercion, and murder would be beneficial for societal well-being.

Your right is your idea, backed by your feeling, and nothing else.

You are wrong, my statement was not built off an emotional plea.

Under a different line of logic, a person could conceive of a way they deserve to have the fruits of your labor and you don't.

That would be considered theft. Please use logic to show that theft is a desirable right and would lead to a healthier society.

Since you can't point to any authority higher than your own feeling, your 'right' can't be said to be anything but subjective.

Stop using the word "feelings". It is based off of reason. Why do you think rights stem from some ambiguous authoritative entity?

It is a type of caution mixed with common sense. "Why should I deny people of other sexes and races the same rights as me if it doesn't produce a tangible benefit?"

Yes, I think it is self evident that people deserve equality of law such as the right to property, persons, and liberty. These rights do produce tangible benefits for individuals and society. Why wouldn't they?

[Morality Games]

Why should other people take the property of others? Skillful rhetoric might not secure my property from my neighbors, but that doesn't mean theft did not happen.

What I mean is, humans set goals and they need certain objects to help them reach these goals in order to feel fullfilled or complete. Since this condition is common to all humans, they go over to their neighbors and convince them to abide by a rule not to make off with one another's objects, as that would disrupt everyone's plans and lead to unenjoyable emotions like frustration across the board. To this end, they agree to collectively punish any people who, for whatever reason, disregard the rule, and they can do this because they are more numerous and better-armed than singular transgressors.

Rights begin as a subjective feeling, and then people attempt to objectivy their feeling by convincing others to abide by their rules (consensus reality). The difference is, personal subjectivity is the origin while the "objectivity" is artifical and contrived, formed by communual agreement and the joint power of a group. Beings may feel empowered when they persuade others to accept their views, but that is a long way from making their emotional interpretations of right and wrong true in fact.

Stop using the word "feelings". It is based off of reason. Why do you think rights stem from some ambiguous authoritative entity?

Reason is nothing to the irrational, who typically form the largest body of a community, but feeling means something to everybody. Feeling and not reason is what moves the fake organism we call 'society'. Feeling is more primordial of a drive than reason.

Stop using the word "feelings". It is based off of reason. Why do you think rights stem from some ambiguous authoritative entity?

Rights emerge from human activity and are in eternal limbo, never becoming objective in fact, that is, objective as the laws of physics are objective. They can only try.

[SoylentGreen]

Voluntary It would be interesting if you could logically show that theft, coercion, and murder would be beneficial for societal well-being.

You are looking at it from a personal / subjective view point. In that you are only considering the society that you live in at the moment.
Other places and other times those types of attitude you mentioned would have been of a benefit to a society not a hindrance.
Such as ancient vikings who felt the morality was on their side when they plundered other villages.