Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Downwiththestereotype · Nov 15, 2003, 04:07 pm

Self explanitory title really.

This is something thats troubled me for a while, being atheist I have no beleif in a higher moral authority, essentially there is no greater governer of right and wrong in my eyes.

so how do we have rights? do international organisation like the UN govern our rights? but who gave them the right to dictate those rights, and where did the people who gave that right get the right to gith them rights from?.
This all gets a little confusing and feutile, which is exactly my point.

what are rights? and what is there source?

Geoff332 · Nov 15, 2003, 06:34 pm

http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/h/hum-rts.htm
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights-human/

Paavo · Nov 15, 2003, 08:51 pm

I think rights are something that are made into official rules because they're "built in" in our minds from the beginning.
I think everyone, ignoring the cultural / religious backgrounds, have certain things they know they need. A good rule IMO, is that don't do something to another person you wouldn't him to do to you.
I hate it when religious people mix religion with morals. They have nothing to do with each other in my book, killing someone is wrong, just because I think it's obvious not becuase my religion tells me so. I don't want to be killed, so I won't kill anyone else. </a bit beery late night post>

G. Adams · Nov 15, 2003, 09:58 pm

But the thing is, why is it wrong? I can see why its not pragmatic in building a society, but morales are about something being wright or wrong in themselves. If God is dead, everything is permitted. This is so because there is no reason left to be moral, except pragmatism. And then, if you are following morals for pragmatic reasons, can they really be called morals?

nature of reality · Nov 16, 2003, 12:35 am

ugh, your a existentialist too. (another group of people who think emotions are superior to reason).

Why be moral? not for the greater good, but for your personal good. Morals are a set of rules set down that are needed for a man to live as a man.

Namely, the right to One's Own life.

The right to Property.

The right to the ---PURSUIT--- of happiness.

other then that? well, thats is just government sanctioned looting.

G. Adams · Nov 16, 2003, 10:53 am

We're not talking about government yet in this, if your going to link through your argument, otherwise it looks like just various thoughts that popped into your head.

You don't have any rights, to property, to life, to liberty or the pursuit of happiness. You have only which you or someone else is willing to protect, with violence if neccesary.

Downwiththestereotype · Nov 16, 2003, 11:47 am

[quote=nature of reality,] ugh, your a existentialist too. (another group of people who think emotions are superior to reason).

Why be moral? not for the greater good, but for your personal good. Morals are a set of rules set down that are needed for a man to live as a man.

Namely, the right to One's Own life.

The right to Property.

The right to the ---PURSUIT--- of happiness. [quote]

Im not asking what rights are, Im asking who gives you them.

and also with those rights youve mentioned, what if one person right to pursue happiness interfears with someone elses pursuit, say that persons Idea of happiness is the theft of other people property, thos are contrasting rights.

and why should you have the right to own property? there are societys in the past, such as the native americans that did not have a concept of ownership of property.

I ask this question because we have a very rights based society. More and more people are sueing each other for breiching there individual rights. I was working in my local Primary school and I told a child to leave the room and he said "My mummy says I cant be told to leave the room becuase I have a right to an education". This is a microcosm of society, where people are over concerened with rights, and not responsibility (such as the responsibilityu, in this case of allowing other children to have there education).
For the record, the Child was throwing a rubber about and banging on the table, pain in the arse that one.

Lets look at a hypatheticle scenario. An alien fleet invades the earth and forces all of mankind into slavery, our weapons are useless agains them. But OH LOOK where waving a piece of paper with the Human Rights written on it, suddenly the aliens bow down and retreat. Not likely.
The fact here is that Rights are based on force, nothing more, if someone was able to overpower all of mankind, our self defined rights would be irrelivent.

RebelWithanAK · Nov 16, 2003, 12:17 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Downwiththestereotype,)
Im not asking what rights are, Im asking who gives you them.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>If someone has to give them, they're not rights - they're privileges. Rights are inherent.

eXploiTeD · Nov 16, 2003, 02:03 pm

Thats the most destructive thinking possible. Its absolute bullshit to believe that rights are 'inherent.' Rights do not derive from God or Nature, but from Humanity.

At the same time, our ability to think and reason doesn't endow us with any more rights than, say, a lion - or, for that matter, any one of a lions prey. So it isn't our nature that guarantees rights.

So it isn't some sort of higher understanding - from God or humans or otherwise - that guarantees rights. Would you like to know what it is? Government. There's no magical moral order that dictates what's right - rights derive from human knowledge and understanding; therefore, they can only be enforced through human knowledge and understanding.

Downwiththestereotype · Nov 16, 2003, 02:58 pm

Quote:

Quote by: eXploiTeD,

Thats the most destructive thinking possible. Its absolute bullshit to believe that rights are 'inherent.' Rights do not derive from God or Nature, but from Humanity.

Thats exactly what makes Rights nothing more that ideals
[/quote]
At the same time, our ability to think and reason doesn't endow us with any more rights than, say, a lion - or, for that matter, any one of a lions prey. So it isn't our nature that guarantees rights.[/quote] Agreed
[/quote]
So it isn't some sort of higher understanding - from God or humans or otherwise - that guarantees rights. Would you like to know what it is? Government. There's no magical moral order that dictates what's right - rights derive from human knowledge and understanding; therefore, they can only be enforced through human knowledge and understanding.[/quote]

But the point is the goverment is the people, any what authority does the goverment have to decide the rights of others? we then get stuck in a cycle. Who has the right to give the goverment authority, who gave them the right to give the goverment authority? e.t.c.

RebelWithanAK · Nov 16, 2003, 04:54 pm

You don't have a right to live because the government says you do; you have a right to live simply because you exist. The government is there to defend your right - its entire existence is manifest because you want it to be there. Government is of the people, not vice versa.

Geoff332 · Nov 16, 2003, 06:27 pm

I'm very short on time, but I'll try and get some answers in here.

Firstly, anyone who is actually interested in this topic should read the links I posted -- they give you a very strong background and cover several different points of view. The rest of my points are a flying summary, that probably misses as much as it includes. I won't have time to respond, so if you disagree with me or want clarification, read the articles.

Secondly, the UN Declaration of Human Rights argues that rights are basic moral guarantees that are due to people simply because they are people. Rights are tied to individuals, not to societies or cultures. Rights are mandatory, not discretionary. They are often thought of as being the necessary conditions for leading a minimally good life.

Thirdly, there is a strong distinction between natural rights and legal rights. Natural rights are the rights that are a direct consequence of existing and being human; legal rights are a consequence of being a member of a society which has a legal system. Natural rights can be used as a standard to judge legal rights; any claim of universal rights is talking about natural rights.

Fourthly, there are several arguments about the origin of natural rights.

Locke is the most common (and the most influential today). He argued that natural rights originated from natural law, which originated from God. This natural law produced three natural rights (life, liberty and property -- property is included as the means to ensure self-preservation). These have subsequently been enshrined in the US constitution and other rights documents -- and the moral argument for these rights rests solely on the (assumed) 'fact' that human beings were created by God.

Kant is next. He started with the idea that human beings were morally autonomous and equal. He argued that any moral argument must be universally applicable to all people, rather than based on the pursuit of individual self-interest. This is the categorical imperative -- which is one of the trickest notions in moral theory to get your head around. Kant himself provided three different formulations of it. From the ideals of autonomy and equality, one can derive moral rights without reference to anything outside of humanity.

Will theories of human rights tend to fall on either Locke or Kant. They basically argue that the most important aspect of being human is the "capacity for freedom". Rights are derived from this capacity.

Interests theories argue that individuals possess basic interests. All of our rights are based on our individual interests, to the extent that they don't conflict with the interests of others. The problem is, self-interest does not provide a basis for universal rights of any kind.

There are other views. Nietzsche, for example, argued that all notions of 'rights' were false constructions (usually based on power). In his view, there are no universal rights. Ayn Rand makes an attempt to 'rationally' justify Locke's idea of rights (which are necessary for her to maintain her political agenda) that basically trips over its own assumptions.

Fifthly, there is a distinction between 'claim rights' and 'liberty rights'. Claim rights are linked to duties in others. If I have a right to life, others have a duty to respect my life. Liberty rights are the generally defined as the absence of duties to act in any given way. It does not mean the capacity to meet that liberty. We all have an equal liberty right to take a vacation in the South Pacific. We have different capacities to actually take up that right and no-one is morally obligated to help us.

Sixthly, there are a bunch of criticisms of human rights.

Moral relativism argues that rights are not universal, but tied to a particular context. As such, the notion of universal rights is a non-sense. Forcing universal standards will be at best a waste of time; at worst, actively harmful to some cultures. In practice, most of these notions focus on the individualistic nature of most theories of human rights, which are far more consonant with individualistic cultures than more collectivist cultures.

Hume (and others more recently) have argued that there is no rational defense of rights (or any other universal moral principle), instead these rights are grounded in human sentimenality. Rorty picks up on Hume and tells us that all arguments for rights are ultimately grounded in emotion rather than reason (but he also argues that they are a good thing for us to have).

castille · Nov 17, 2003, 07:49 am

We dont have any rights.

Any minute a Communist revolution could take place, led by Stalin Junior, and you could be locked up in a labour camp in Alaska for "being a counter-revolutionary".

Any minute you could be shot by a psychotic man - whether under capitalist or communist - he doesn't care.

Any minute we could destroy the world. A bullet could fly through your head, a piece of metal could blast your world into nothing, and your loved ones could be shot by a terrorist.

We have a right to nothing. Everything we have is given to us on silver plates by early pioneers, or else we get them one way or another.

G. Adams · Nov 17, 2003, 08:26 am

Wait, I just thought of a right. You have a right to fight. You may be put down or killed in attempting to exercise it by someone else exercising it, but you have a right to fight, because truely who can stop you from trying?

Downwiththestereotype · Nov 17, 2003, 01:57 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,)
Wait, I just thought of a right. You have a right to fight. You may be put down or killed in attempting to exercise it by someone else exercising it, but you have a right to fight, because truely who can stop you from trying?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

You dont have the right to fight, you have the ability.

talking about physicly,unless you have been dismembered, you have the ability to fight.

Talking Verbally, your right to fight is based upon our goverments legal system which takes us back to our first arguments about rights which have as yet, proved inconclusive.

You dont have a right to fiht, thats like saying you have a rightuse a light switch, you dont have a right, you just have the ability.

G. Adams · Nov 17, 2003, 04:30 pm

But if we have written off all rights government have given us as just privelages, then surely we all that is left is abilities, ones you are born with, and ones they can't take away. If rights are innate, the illegality of fighting wouldn't matter.

castille · Nov 19, 2003, 07:09 am

We dont have any rights. Next time you get mugged, raped, or murdered, just ask yourself where your rights went.

Black Fox · Nov 19, 2003, 08:02 pm

One thing nobody here has done is attempt to define what exactly a 'right' is. From the way it is used in popular usage, I get the idea that whatever it may be, it is something I deserve - something that I am entitled to.

Now I don't have a problem with someone saying that to foster a society where there is the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people, the authorities in that society should render certain services to the citizens in that society (like guaranteeing them freedom of speech, protecting their property, etc.) as long as they are law abiding citizens. In fact, I agree with this statement.

However, what I find risible is this idea that through some magical process these rights accrue to people whether they are granted by some authority or not even though they have done nothing explicit to deserve them. "Human rights" that are unenforceable and unrecognised in a society are worse than useless.

eburchelli · Jan 6, 2004, 10:42 am

I agree with castille that we have no rights. All the rights we claim, are things we have come to believe are our rights, but unless you believe in God, who granted specific rights to believers, there are no rights. Even believers in God have no real rights but they believe they do based upon their belief in God.

All our rights come from mankind. Early on in small groups, it was the strongest or smartest of the bunch who made the rules and as civilization expanded, governments took over and issued rules and regulations that became our rights.

If you think about the things that are considered our rights, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that everything we have is always because of someone else.

G. Adams comes the closest to a right, if it can be called that. His idea of our right to fight, is the right of self-defense. I suppose this could be considered a "natural" right. It's more an instinct than a right.

Nov 15, 2003, 04:07 pm	#1 (permalink) (top)
Downwiththestereotype Molten Ash Location: somwhere in the UK Posts: 38	Self explanitory title really. This is something thats troubled me for a while, being atheist I have no beleif in a higher moral authority, essentially there is no greater governer of right and wrong in my eyes. so how do we have rights? do international organisation like the UN govern our rights? but who gave them the right to dictate those rights, and where did the people who gave that right get the right to gith them rights from?. This all gets a little confusing and feutile, which is exactly my point. what are rights? and what is there source? Fear is your only god. Downwiththestereotype.

Nov 15, 2003, 09:58 pm	#4 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,152	But the thing is, why is it wrong? I can see why its not pragmatic in building a society, but morales are about something being wright or wrong in themselves. If God is dead, everything is permitted. This is so because there is no reason left to be moral, except pragmatism. And then, if you are following morals for pragmatic reasons, can they really be called morals? Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Nov 16, 2003, 12:35 am	#5 (permalink) (top)
nature of reality Molten Ash Posts: 134	ugh, your a existentialist too. (another group of people who think emotions are superior to reason). Why be moral? not for the greater good, but for your personal good. Morals are a set of rules set down that are needed for a man to live as a man. Namely, the right to One's Own life. The right to Property. The right to the ---PURSUIT--- of happiness. other then that? well, thats is just government sanctioned looting. Whats wrong with Liberty?

Nov 16, 2003, 10:53 am	#6 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,152	We're not talking about government yet in this, if your going to link through your argument, otherwise it looks like just various thoughts that popped into your head. You don't have any rights, to property, to life, to liberty or the pursuit of happiness. You have only which you or someone else is willing to protect, with violence if neccesary. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Nov 16, 2003, 11:47 am	#7 (permalink) (top)
Downwiththestereotype Molten Ash Location: somwhere in the UK Posts: 38	[quote=nature of reality,] ugh, your a existentialist too. (another group of people who think emotions are superior to reason). Why be moral? not for the greater good, but for your personal good. Morals are a set of rules set down that are needed for a man to live as a man. Namely, the right to One's Own life. The right to Property. The right to the ---PURSUIT--- of happiness. [quote] Im not asking what rights are, Im asking who gives you them. and also with those rights youve mentioned, what if one person right to pursue happiness interfears with someone elses pursuit, say that persons Idea of happiness is the theft of other people property, thos are contrasting rights. and why should you have the right to own property? there are societys in the past, such as the native americans that did not have a concept of ownership of property. I ask this question because we have a very rights based society. More and more people are sueing each other for breiching there individual rights. I was working in my local Primary school and I told a child to leave the room and he said "My mummy says I cant be told to leave the room becuase I have a right to an education". This is a microcosm of society, where people are over concerened with rights, and not responsibility (such as the responsibilityu, in this case of allowing other children to have there education). For the record, the Child was throwing a rubber about and banging on the table, pain in the arse that one. Lets look at a hypatheticle scenario. An alien fleet invades the earth and forces all of mankind into slavery, our weapons are useless agains them. But OH LOOK where waving a piece of paper with the Human Rights written on it, suddenly the aliens bow down and retreat. Not likely. The fact here is that Rights are based on force, nothing more, if someone was able to overpower all of mankind, our self defined rights would be irrelivent. Fear is your only god. Downwiththestereotype.

Nov 15, 2003, 06:34 pm	#2 (permalink) (top)
Geoff332 Igneous Magma Location: New Zealand Posts: 309	http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/h/hum-rts.htm http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights-human/

Nov 15, 2003, 08:51 pm	#3 (permalink) (top)
Paavo Location: Finland Posts: 712	I think rights are something that are made into official rules because they're "built in" in our minds from the beginning. I think everyone, ignoring the cultural / religious backgrounds, have certain things they know they need. A good rule IMO, is that don't do something to another person you wouldn't him to do to you. I hate it when religious people mix religion with morals. They have nothing to do with each other in my book, killing someone is wrong, just because I think it's obvious not becuase my religion tells me so. I don't want to be killed, so I won't kill anyone else. </a bit beery late night post>

Nov 16, 2003, 12:17 pm	#8 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Downwiththestereotype,) Im not asking what rights are, Im asking who gives you them.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>If someone has to give them, they're not rights - they're privileges. Rights are inherent. . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Nov 16, 2003, 02:03 pm	#9 (permalink) (top)
eXploiTeD Molten Ash Posts: 32	Thats the most destructive thinking possible. Its absolute bullshit to believe that rights are 'inherent.' Rights do not derive from God or Nature, but from Humanity. At the same time, our ability to think and reason doesn't endow us with any more rights than, say, a lion - or, for that matter, any one of a lions prey. So it isn't our nature that guarantees rights. So it isn't some sort of higher understanding - from God or humans or otherwise - that guarantees rights. Would you like to know what it is? Government. There's no magical moral order that dictates what's right - rights derive from human knowledge and understanding; therefore, they can only be enforced through human knowledge and understanding.

Nov 16, 2003, 04:54 pm	#11 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	You don't have a right to live because the government says you do; you have a right to live simply because you exist. The government is there to defend your right - its entire existence is manifest because you want it to be there. Government is of the people, not vice versa. . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Nov 16, 2003, 06:27 pm	#12 (permalink) (top)
Geoff332 Igneous Magma Location: New Zealand Posts: 309	I'm very short on time, but I'll try and get some answers in here. Firstly, anyone who is actually interested in this topic should read the links I posted -- they give you a very strong background and cover several different points of view. The rest of my points are a flying summary, that probably misses as much as it includes. I won't have time to respond, so if you disagree with me or want clarification, read the articles. Secondly, the UN Declaration of Human Rights argues that rights are basic moral guarantees that are due to people simply because they are people. Rights are tied to individuals, not to societies or cultures. Rights are mandatory, not discretionary. They are often thought of as being the necessary conditions for leading a minimally good life. Thirdly, there is a strong distinction between natural rights and legal rights. Natural rights are the rights that are a direct consequence of existing and being human; legal rights are a consequence of being a member of a society which has a legal system. Natural rights can be used as a standard to judge legal rights; any claim of universal rights is talking about natural rights. Fourthly, there are several arguments about the origin of natural rights. Locke is the most common (and the most influential today). He argued that natural rights originated from natural law, which originated from God. This natural law produced three natural rights (life, liberty and property -- property is included as the means to ensure self-preservation). These have subsequently been enshrined in the US constitution and other rights documents -- and the moral argument for these rights rests solely on the (assumed) 'fact' that human beings were created by God. Kant is next. He started with the idea that human beings were morally autonomous and equal. He argued that any moral argument must be universally applicable to all people, rather than based on the pursuit of individual self-interest. This is the categorical imperative -- which is one of the trickest notions in moral theory to get your head around. Kant himself provided three different formulations of it. From the ideals of autonomy and equality, one can derive moral rights without reference to anything outside of humanity. Will theories of human rights tend to fall on either Locke or Kant. They basically argue that the most important aspect of being human is the "capacity for freedom". Rights are derived from this capacity. Interests theories argue that individuals possess basic interests. All of our rights are based on our individual interests, to the extent that they don't conflict with the interests of others. The problem is, self-interest does not provide a basis for universal rights of any kind. There are other views. Nietzsche, for example, argued that all notions of 'rights' were false constructions (usually based on power). In his view, there are no universal rights. Ayn Rand makes an attempt to 'rationally' justify Locke's idea of rights (which are necessary for her to maintain her political agenda) that basically trips over its own assumptions. Fifthly, there is a distinction between 'claim rights' and 'liberty rights'. Claim rights are linked to duties in others. If I have a right to life, others have a duty to respect my life. Liberty rights are the generally defined as the absence of duties to act in any given way. It does not mean the capacity to meet that liberty. We all have an equal liberty right to take a vacation in the South Pacific. We have different capacities to actually take up that right and no-one is morally obligated to help us. Sixthly, there are a bunch of criticisms of human rights. Moral relativism argues that rights are not universal, but tied to a particular context. As such, the notion of universal rights is a non-sense. Forcing universal standards will be at best a waste of time; at worst, actively harmful to some cultures. In practice, most of these notions focus on the individualistic nature of most theories of human rights, which are far more consonant with individualistic cultures than more collectivist cultures. Hume (and others more recently) have argued that there is no rational defense of rights (or any other universal moral principle), instead these rights are grounded in human sentimenality. Rorty picks up on Hume and tells us that all arguments for rights are ultimately grounded in emotion rather than reason (but he also argues that they are a good thing for us to have).

Nov 17, 2003, 07:49 am	#13 (permalink) (top)
castille Citizen #21521 Posts: 2,599	We dont have any rights. Any minute a Communist revolution could take place, led by Stalin Junior, and you could be locked up in a labour camp in Alaska for "being a counter-revolutionary". Any minute you could be shot by a psychotic man - whether under capitalist or communist - he doesn't care. Any minute we could destroy the world. A bullet could fly through your head, a piece of metal could blast your world into nothing, and your loved ones could be shot by a terrorist. We have a right to nothing. Everything we have is given to us on silver plates by early pioneers, or else we get them one way or another. Ideological loyalty is the act of giving your soul to a vague concept, to be manipulated by people smarter than you.

Nov 17, 2003, 08:26 am	#14 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,152	Wait, I just thought of a right. You have a right to fight. You may be put down or killed in attempting to exercise it by someone else exercising it, but you have a right to fight, because truely who can stop you from trying? Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Nov 17, 2003, 01:57 pm	#15 (permalink) (top)
Downwiththestereotype Molten Ash Location: somwhere in the UK Posts: 38	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,) Wait, I just thought of a right. You have a right to fight. You may be put down or killed in attempting to exercise it by someone else exercising it, but you have a right to fight, because truely who can stop you from trying?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> You dont have the right to fight, you have the ability. talking about physicly,unless you have been dismembered, you have the ability to fight. Talking Verbally, your right to fight is based upon our goverments legal system which takes us back to our first arguments about rights which have as yet, proved inconclusive. You dont have a right to fiht, thats like saying you have a rightuse a light switch, you dont have a right, you just have the ability. Fear is your only god. Downwiththestereotype.

Nov 17, 2003, 04:30 pm	#16 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,152	But if we have written off all rights government have given us as just privelages, then surely we all that is left is abilities, ones you are born with, and ones they can't take away. If rights are innate, the illegality of fighting wouldn't matter. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Nov 19, 2003, 07:09 am	#17 (permalink) (top)
castille Citizen #21521 Posts: 2,599	We dont have any rights. Next time you get mugged, raped, or murdered, just ask yourself where your rights went. Ideological loyalty is the act of giving your soul to a vague concept, to be manipulated by people smarter than you.

Nov 19, 2003, 08:02 pm	#18 (permalink) (top)
Black Fox Molten Ash Posts: 40	One thing nobody here has done is attempt to define what exactly a 'right' is. From the way it is used in popular usage, I get the idea that whatever it may be, it is something I deserve - something that I am entitled to. Now I don't have a problem with someone saying that to foster a society where there is the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people, the authorities in that society should render certain services to the citizens in that society (like guaranteeing them freedom of speech, protecting their property, etc.) as long as they are law abiding citizens. In fact, I agree with this statement. However, what I find risible is this idea that through some magical process these rights accrue to people whether they are granted by some authority or not even though they have done nothing explicit to deserve them. "Human rights" that are unenforceable and unrecognised in a society are worse than useless.

Jan 6, 2004, 10:42 am	#19 (permalink) (top)
eburchelli Molten Ash Posts: 106	I agree with castille that we have no rights. All the rights we claim, are things we have come to believe are our rights, but unless you believe in God, who granted specific rights to believers, there are no rights. Even believers in God have no real rights but they believe they do based upon their belief in God. All our rights come from mankind. Early on in small groups, it was the strongest or smartest of the bunch who made the rules and as civilization expanded, governments took over and issued rules and regulations that became our rights. If you think about the things that are considered our rights, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that everything we have is always because of someone else. G. Adams comes the closest to a right, if it can be called that. His idea of our right to fight, is the right of self-defense. I suppose this could be considered a "natural" right. It's more an instinct than a right.