Human Rights, Fact or Fiction.

[Nanolathe]

Having had it brought up in my Overpopulation thread and after seeing a request to put it into it's own thread...

What do we think of as a right, and more specifically a Natural one?
Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_right) states that: Natural rights are universal rights that are seen as inherent in the nature of people and not contingent on human actions or beliefs. Such a Right is inalienable, that is to say

And who am I to disagree.

What are examples of current Human 'Rights'?
Security Rights: Those that prohibit murder, torture and rape.
Liberty rights: Protect freedoms in areas such as belief and religion, association, assembling and movement.
Due process rights: Protect against abuses of the legal system such as imprisonment without trial, secret trials and excessive punishments.
Equality rights: Guarantee equal citizenship, equality before the law and non-discrimination
Welfare rights (also known as economic rights): Require the provision of, e.g., education, paid holidays, and protections against severe poverty and starvation.
Group rights: Provide protection for groups against ethnic genocide and for the ownership by countries of their national territories and resources.

But is there really any such thing as a Natural Right?

Discuss!

**Edited for Clarity and Spling Spelling**

[The5thElephant]

Well this brings up the age old question of natural law, rational law, and dogmatic law. I believe there are certain evolutionary tendencies towards laws for the benefit of the species, however they would have to be figured out through rational law, and they would cover a very small part of what law would need to cover.

Thus the rights you have mentioned above are not "natural" rights, but rather rational rights which some people believe should be universal.

However this of course is not true of everyone due to different rationalities and dogmatic problems. Some would say that welfare rights are a harm to society, others would claim that free speech rights are a harm to society.

In the end you are left with the same old problem, nobody can agree. Sadly we are not very rational creatures (when in groups particularly), though we are quite capable of being so, thus we have very many people who let their dogma affect what they believe to be best for everyone, instead of using evidence and the scientific method.

[W'rkncacnter]

I would put forward that "rights" are a human construct, and as such only apply when there is a consensus. Afterall, each of those examples of human rights in the OP have not been present in each and every human society.

"Natural" rights are even trickier, as this assumes a form of instinctive or inherent acceptance of these conditions, which while they may or may not be commonly accepted, they almost certainly won't be universal if only due to the variations of culture present in human societies.

[TheDividedGod]

The states-of-existence that I consider to be my "rights" in this world are just that for which I am willing to do violence to anyone and anything that attempts to deny them to me without reason or recourse.

[Lrkr]

[/url] [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_right"]Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_right) states that: Natural rights are universal rights that are seen as inherent in the nature of people and not contingent on human actions or beliefs.


Man that's a shitty definition.


Rights inherent to nature ultimately depend on the current scientific consensus about 'that which is considered natural'; a paradigm which is obviously a human construct defended - in the most rational of cases but not exclusively- by empirical observation.


bollocks.

please someone defend that definition so that I shall be enlightened.


PS: I will side for the moment with The divided god's definition ; but would like to even exclude the 'reason or recourse' part.
Partially because it exhales synergy with 'survival of the one able to defend his perceived needs' which isn't necessarily a darwinist clause but rather closer to Nietschzian views.
All those are again a human construct of course. Nothing natural about it.

[Tiresias]

Rights are a human construct, I would support largely the view of Rawls and his origional position when detirmining what rights one should have one should remove any prior knowledge of the self and detirmine what rights you;d want if you did not know what gender, ethnicity, sexuality, age, class you and how wealthy one is (etc), thereby you reach a fair system without discrimination and with guaranteed universiality.

Why should we have rights? They seek to guarantee our own welfare and democratic way of life. Of course they are flawed but i think most Human rights are still works in progress so to speak. Their main purpose is to prevent a majority legislating against a minority and persecuting it. They are therefore both limiting and enabling democracy, if you accept minority rights as fundamental to the concept of democracy.

[Stripe7]

Human Rights are the bludgeon which political groups/entities use to gain marketing or political advantage aganist an adversary. It has nothing to do with poverty or slave mills.

[Lrkr]

And I thought I was a cynic.

[Mr Carrot]

I dislike Rawls and his veil of ignorance because its frankly impossible in practical application.

The Hobbesian justification of the natural right of Kings to rule is as much a "inalienable human right" as Rawlsian social justice

i.e. both are just idea there is no such thing as an inalienable human right. Otherwise it would be biologically impossible for us to torture or murder someones not just morally reprehensable.

I will bide my time until utilitarianism regains favour.... a much more logical take on the whole thing ;)

[Lrkr]

omg the veil of ignorance was Rawls !!!!

thanks mr carrot; I always liked the idea; but I had totally forgotten who put it down.

And you are right of course; it is purely a mental exercice.

[Tiresias]

Of course it is pure extraction as is all politics, but it is a desireable one, and it is one by which we can judge the desireability and fairness of Rights. Of course they don't actually exist as physical things, but surely Rawl's point is that they're not natural, they are very much human made.

I would argue that it is neccessary to recognise rights as a rule for legislation for democracy to be democratic. Bear in mind the European Court of Human Rights is an example of one that does have actual judicial power.

[SubakuGaara]

Aristotle covers all this probably in the most simple and clear form. I like the list he put out quite a bit.

[CommodoreKitty]

Okay, who didn't see this thread coming. :)

Rights are, by the definition of the world, unalienable for all people that it applies to. Even then, rights can be taken away for the interests of the community. So what makes something a right? I can think of very little things that can be considered rights, as they do not apply universally to all people. If one culture, for example, thinks it is the 'right' of men to beat their wives whenever they see fit, and the other abhors that behavior, how can it be called a right? Rights are ridiculous, they do not apply themselves universally nor are they consistent when they are applied i.e a criminal losing his rights.

On the other hand, while rights in and of themselves are human inventions, carrying no signifigance unless it is applied to them, they are still important in the overall wellness of a society. Without rights people can, and do, become slaves to the few. While the few would argue that it is their... right to rule over the people, it's not good for everyone else.

So, invented, but still important. Figuring out when and where to apply them is the problem, though.

[Nanolathe]

Remind me, What did Aristotle say?

Just to try and nudge this thread back to the actual question, we are discussing Natural Rights (I merely presented the 'Human Rights' as an example of a form of 'Right' that is clearly fiction.)

-Does the Universe contain any Natural Rights?
-Do any of these affect Humans or indeed anything else?

[CommodoreKitty]

Probably more than we could possibly discuss on the issue, but finding what you want and determining if it is valid or not would seem to be the problem. I don't know, I want to know what he said on the issue too, he's smarter than me.

[Mr Carrot]

I was inferring that the nature of Rawl's rights in how he writes about them does come accross like they are actually physically inalienable in a society and not just a legal construct of that society.

It is a criticism that he does answer in 'The New Rawls', I am just still not a fan though probably because I am a staunch libertarian and Rawlsianism is a justification for government provision of welfare and services outside of the basic remit of government e.g. as an entity to protect property rights.

[Lrkr]

-Does the Universe contain any Natural Rights?
-Do any of these affect Humans or indeed anything else?


Based on the theorems referenced to above so far the thread answers no to your first question. It also seems a consensus in the thread so far that for any society to function there is a need for human imposition of a concept best described as 'rights'. Big friggin surprise.

The motivations for why this is necessary vary from conclusions made by Romantics to the cynic attitude of Stripe; which; believe it or not; can be found almost literally (if my memory doesn't abandon me) in texts written by Nietschze.


I was inferring that the nature of Rawl's rights in how he writes about them does come accross like they are actually physically inalienable in a society and not just a legal construct of that society.

erm maybe I misunderstood you; but isn't that the entire point ? People alienated from any other knowledge will decide to govern others by imposing two fundamental concepts? Meaning that the construct that society would choose for is automatically determined by the nature of humanity itself ?

[Mr Carrot]

No because Rawls is a product of the long chain of enlightenment poltical philosophy scholars that went against current human nature and its taken 200 years to effectively bludgeon the population of the west (and through imperialism large swathes of the globe) into the line of thinking of a tiny well educated elite..... modern human rights are more an aspect of culture than human nature.

Unless we are going to delve into the realms of marxist historical determinism and say that productive and economic forces mean human nature will always end up at this point (and then progress onwards to whatever) and thus modern human rights are infact a direct manifestation of human nature...

[Tiresias]

No because Rawls is a product of the long chain of enlightenment poltical philosophy scholars that went against current human nature and its taken 200 years to effectively bludgeon the population of the west (and through imperialism large swathes of the globe) into the line of thinking of a tiny well educated elite..... modern human rights are more an aspect of culture than human nature.

no that's libertarianism nor Social liberalism, you've got them the wrong way round.

[edit] to clarify the classical liberalism of imperialism was one of minimal state interference and social darwinism with the elitist human nature view you describe. This was transformed by thinkers such as Rawls to maintain the primacy of the individual but reject the liberal idiology of Empire and of Progress but to endorce the socialist concepts of mutable human nature, equality of opportunity and democracy. It is Neo-Classical Liberalism, or libertarianism that rekindles old colonial liberalism with minimal state interfence and social darwinism, not Social Liberalism. Rawls was NOT a colonialist, nor was he an elitist as you describe, that's a libertarian thing.

[Mirehn_Bielann]

Echoing what has already been said, Rights are a Social Construct. The only right you have in this world, is the right to die, and you usually don't even get to choose when.

There is no right to life, right to freedom of speech, right to freedom of religion. All of these are rights society at large makes for itself for the continuation of the society. For all of the hubbub in Western Civilization about individual rights, in serious matters they are almost always secondary to the continuation of society. And like any social construct, such as a building, it can be destroyed and taken away from us without careful maintenance. Thomas Jefferson comes to mind.

And you know the quote, I don't even have to write it.


"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...

And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two?

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

[Mr Carrot]

Tiresias I wasnt making that point, I was making the point that a philosophical elite prior and through the enlightenment led the west down the path that LED to Rawls etc. and colonialism + empire is the only reason that so much of the rest of the world has evolved along the same lines.

It was a historical point that modern human rights is not a natural construct just because so many different nations support it (e.g. the UN). Its apparently a natural construct because France, Britain and then America foisted the nasceant concepts on others which then followed the same evolution.

[Tiresias]

well yeah the 1oo years war eventually led their too... I agree it's a human construct and a product of an industrial society

[Mullertime]

Rights are a human construct.

This is what makes them dangerous.
As they're created by humans, they can be manipulated by them.
This means that there is no real 'black and white' set of rights.
Thus, you have people going to far with them. Some of the recent things are shocking, the way people abuse rights.
I think I heard a while ago, that some have mentioned their rights to have paid holidays (As in abroad), or some crap like that.
It's quite scary.

Rights are real. We have created them to create some kinda direction to our society, and create some kinda standard of living.
But now, rights are no longer the sturdy foundations they once were.
Now, they're being bent and mishapen, for people to manipulate and use for their own selfish gains.
Of course we don't have rights naturally. Otherwise we'd have some consistency to them. For 'human rights', the definition and what it covers, changes dramatically

It's basically:
"What I deserve..."

And of course, people have different ideas about what they deserve. Some more selfish than others

[TheDividedGod]

"What I deserve" muller?

Not, "what I'm willing to fight for"?

Or are you just pointing out that currently, we have developed a sense of entitlement to our rights and have now conflated the two?

[Tak]

Excellent post Mullertime. I would love to chime in on this one *curses work*

Shall be watching, good thread idea Nano.

[Mullertime]

@TheDividedGod

Oh, people will still fight for it. They will happily pursue and demand things off other people, which they feel they're entitled too.
Anyways, remarks about society aside...
I agree with you. Modern society has clouded this. People now just look for what they deserve and should get, as opposed to things they need and should fight for.
I think that's why I'm sometimes quite cynacle when the words 'human rights' are mentioned. Some people defeinitely seem to have lost their way with regards to them

[Troubleshooter]

Oh god... I think I will sit this out till page 10 :D

I think its a great topic, but I have work to do today!!!

If you want to catch some of my thoughts on this, take a look at the overpopulation thread.

Short version : Rights are intrinsic to the person. Natural rights are the least negotiable. Everything after that becomes something of a matter of philosophy. Responsabilty can not be seperated from the discussion unless you want starfisher to crush you like a bug :D

[The5thElephant]

Does a utilitarian "the greatest good for the greatest many" allow for rights to be broken? In essence, are their societal rights which override individual rights?

[Tiresias]

The5thElephant: Yes it's a long running dispute in Liberalism, or at least, utilitarianism has kinda fallen by the waysode in preference for constitutional democracy, utilitarianism often works for the tyranny of the majority, which is the greatest Liberal Democrat fear.

[Nanolathe]

Rights are intrinsic to the person. Natural rights are the least negotiable.You say that Natural Rights are the least negotiable... could you give me an example of just one 'Natural Right'... an unassailable, unbreakable Natural Right?

So far I can't think of anything...

[Mirehn_Bielann]

could you give me an example of just one 'Natural Right'...an unassailable, unbreakable Natural Right?

The Right to die with or without your approval.

[Nanolathe]

Attempted suicides, whom we have saved... We have violated their rights?
Is someone who falls into a canal in a drunken stupor merely exercising their rights?

Plus: Bananolathe?

[Mirehn_Bielann]

Yes and Yes. The only guarantee in this world is death, therefore death is everyone's life. There is no guarantee we'll live till 70, 60, 50, hell, even 40 with the way we're porking down McDonald's and other fast food crap. There is no guarantee someone won't take away your right to speak your mind, practice your belief in whatever god(s)(ess)(esses) you have. No guarantees you won't languish away in jail before you have your trial.

The only barrier between that and everything else are the constructs society makes to keep them at bay. They are neither natural (like anything else that humanity makes), nor permanent. They are fleeting and artificial constructs to bring order and law to a chaotic and ultimately uncaring universe.

The only guarantee is that your life will end. You will die. And it is inevitable.

And sorry about the typo.

[Nanolathe]

Is your contention that a Natural Law is equal to a Natural Right?

[Mirehn_Bielann]

No, my contention that it's called a "natural" law, when there is nothing natural about these so called 'rights'. They're popular privileges, nothing more. And like any privilege can be taken away at a moments notice without our careful vigilance and maintenance. People having the right to speak their minds, speak their thoughts, practice what religion they wanted in equality with others (not subservience like the Jews under Ottomon rule): these are all recent ideas that go against the grain of everything that humanity has done before. These are no more natural than the keyboard I am typing this with. A quill with paper is more natural to human society. The general populace being unable to read is more natural

These "rights" are not natural, we were not born with them, as people who speak out against Islamic Fundamentalists in countries like Iraq clearly know. Or Pakistan, or even China.

Calling them natural trivializes them. If they're something to strive for, they're never taken for granted.

[Nanolathe]

Yes, that seems reasonable. I agree.

~Bananolathe.

[The5thElephant]

Do any of you believe that humanity will ever settle on a planet-wide set of rights? People tend to be pessimistic on this matter, but general human intelligence has been on the rise over the millenia, and this usually coincides with more open and accepting and peaceful thought (relative to the generations before at least). Perhaps it will take another millenium, but I don't think its impossible.

[Nanolathe]

I don't see the point in arriving at a shared bill of Human Rights, because they will be broken just as easily.

Ok everyone, a new question:
What does a 'Right' actually mean?
It has already been commented that the one that is used by Wikipedia was a bit rubbish (Lrkr).

So how do you define a 'Right' and why is that so?

[The5thElephant]

A rule or ideal concerning every human which those who believe in the right will defend.

[Nanolathe]

*Prod* You forgot the 'Why' part of the question 5th.

[Troubleshooter]

A right is anything you claim for yourself. Rights are not transferable.

If you are asking what are "universal" rights, then that would be anything that everyone claims for themselves.

I am using overly generic terms for a reason. Trying to define the boundaries of an intrinsic human right is harder to do than to put out a framework and build concepts around it.

So for example (and to answer your other question Nanolathe) : The right to be free.
I claim this right for my self. I also attribute this right to all of man kind. You may not choose to claim this right, and willfully subject yourself to the power of another. I may not transfer my right to be free to you, because you reject it.

Next obvious question : Can your rights be taken from you.
No. You can renounce your claim to your rights, and allow them to lapse, but they are still there if you ever choose to lay claim to them. Rights are essentially intrinsic to the person, a construct of your personality, as such they are not "things" and can not be "lost" or "stolen".

Next obvious question : Can your rights be degraded/inhibited.
Yes. I claim the right to be free, but I am a jew in a concentration camp. Its going to be a bit tough exercising my right to be free in the sense that I cant have a picnic beyond the razor wire with my family. I am still a free man, regardless of the circumstances. Depriving me of my freedom does not remove my rights to it, but my ability to exercise my rights are limited by my desire to not get shot.

To add to that. I willingly accept some limits to my rights to be free. I willingly pay my taxes because: 1. I fear punishment 2. I like my army and roads. So, a combination of incentives and disincentives form a social contract where by I agree to abide with the law of my society and allow my rights to be degraded by some amount in exchange for something I desire. If the contract is not constructed well, then I will reassert my right to be free and cancel the deal. The civil rights movement is a pretty good example of people deciding that the status quo was not a "good deal".

PS: Almost forgot ... RESPONSABILITY!

[Nanolathe]

Let me see if I understand you Trouble. Your take on the meaning of the word 'Right' is that it is something that can be lessened but never fully taken away? No, that doesn't work in my eyes.

You use the example of Freedom. Freedom to do what? Whatever you please? well that gets stopped right in it's tracks. You don't have the freedom to fly unaided do you? Or the freedom to go wherever you want. So if you don't have the right to Ultimate Freedom then exactly how much freedom to you lay claim to?

I'm a little confused by how you claim to be a free man when you are confined. What if I put you in a little, cramped chest (or other small container), locked it and threw away the key? Can you still claim your right to freedom when you can't even stand up? What exactly makes you a free man if you are locked in a tiny box? How can you exercise your 'Right' to freedom when I have thrown the key away?

[Troubleshooter]

You are mistaking "right" for "ability".

I have the Right to be free, to go anywhere, do anything. I dont have a right to break the laws of physics, or to not die if I attempt unaided flight :p

I may agree as a matter of social contract that my right to go anywhere might not extend to hanging out in the ladies room, but if I got to go... ;)

Now, is a free man not free because he has been locked in a chest? The man in the box is still free. His full title is simply " Free man in a box ". You can not remove the attribute of "free" by confinement. Nelson Mandela is a fairly good example of this... not free to move about, but still free.

You can kill a free man, and he still dies free. You can not take away freedom once a person claims it... Tyrants and villains throughout human history have tried and failed. I assure you that if it were possible to kill freedom, it would have been done long ago.

Sorry if this is too abstract for your discussion.

[Nanolathe]

No it's not too abstract at all. I am still very confused about the Man's Full title being "Free Man in a Box" because you didn't answer HOW he is still a free man. How can you be free if you are confined? How can you be free if you are dead? It does not matter that you died free, I have removed your 'right' to freedom by killing you. You cannot claim freedom if you are dead... in fact you can claim very little when you are dead, because you are dead, and can't claim anything any more.

How do you claim the Right to do anything if you do not have the means to do so? You cannot fly unaided, so how can you claim the 'Right' to fly unaided? If you try to fly unaided you cannot do so, you can only fall.

You're not one of these crazies that claim that Humans have the 'Right' to do anything are you?

I have found a quote that pretty much sums up what I think you are putting forward here Trouble... Oh noes! Monty Python! :lol:

STAN: I want to be a woman. From now on, I want you all to call me 'Loretta'.
REG: What?!
LORETTA: It's my right as a man.
JUDITH: Well, why do you want to be Loretta, Stan?
LORETTA: I want to have babies.
REG: You want to have babies?!
LORETTA: It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.
REG: But... you can't have babies.
LORETTA: Don't you oppress me.
REG: I'm not oppressing you, Stan. You haven't got a womb! Where's the foetus going to gestate?! You going to keep it in a box?!
LORETTA: [crying]
JUDITH: Here! I-- I've got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans', but that he can have the right to have babies.
FRANCIS: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother. Sister. Sorry.
REG: What's the point?
FRANCIS: What?
REG: What's the point of fighting for his right to have babies when he can't have babies?!
FRANCIS: It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.
...
REG: Symbolic of his struggle against reality.

Edit: I agree that if you actually had the 'Right' to be free I could not take it away for that is the nature of a 'Right'. If you claim that Human freedom is in fact a right, then it is not an unassilible one and therefore not a 'Natural Right'. The 'Right' to freedom, like the 'Right' for every man to bare children if he wants them ;), is a construct not a fundamental working of the universe.

If you are satisfied with your definition of the term 'Right' then I can't change your mind... but I for one am not content with your definition.

[Troubleshooter]

LOL.

You are still wrapped around the axle.

Lets try to identify the difference between our positions.
-------------------------------------------------------
I assert that a right exists regardless of circumstance.

You assert that a right only exists when a person can realize (act on it) that right.
-------------------------------------------------------
Thus, your position is that a person is only free when they are actually and physically free.

My position is that a person is free by their nature, and remain so regardless of the situation.

-------------------------------------------------------
I think what you are describing is not "rights" but are rather "conditions"

In your version, a persons condition determines what they can do, and "right" describes the sum of their ability to act within those conditions. But by removing permissive conditions, rights are thus extinguished.

I submit that rights are intrinsic to the person... wholly contained within themselves and are unassailable. Altering the conditions do not change the person or the content of their character, only the person can do that. Thus, rights can not be extinguished, only infringed upon.
-------------------------------------------------------
Going back to the man in the box.
If the man in the box was free before he went into the box, and is free if you let him out of the box, was he "not free" while in the box? If not, then what was he? I am guessing you are saying he is "confined"... but confinement is a condition, freedom is a state of being.

REMEMBER: I am not saying you have a right to do anything, and there are certainly conflicts of rights. What I am saying is that once a person claims a right to their freedom (you asked for an example, freedom was mine, not the right for a man to be a woman, and have babies :D) you can not take that right from him. Furthermore, I already did away with a persons "right" do defy physics and such.

[Nanolathe]

How is Freedom a state of being and not a condition? By what authority do you claim that 'Fact'?

I have the Right to be free, to go anywhere, do anything. REMEMBER: I am not saying you have a right to do anything...
To quote Monty Python again: "He's just making it up as he goes along!"

[Troubleshooter]

Lets answer a question with a question: If rights can be taken away, why are we not all slaves? Someone, at some point, had the majority of humanity enslaved... how did those slaves become "not slaves".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Troubleshooter
I have the Right to be free, to go anywhere, do anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Troubleshooter, a few minutes later
REMEMBER: I am not saying you have a right to do anything...
To quote Monty Python again: "He's just making it up as he goes along!"
GAH! You are smart enough to know the distiction between "do anything" in the formal sense of realize your human potential as opposed to "do anything" in the sense of make lazerbeams shoot from my eyes (TM. Chris) And fly around like a flipping bird. :D

[Nanolathe]

Public acceptance. (or to be more precise the public's NON-acceptance of slavery.) You seam to be under the impression that there are no more slaves in the world as well.

Nope I am much smarter even than that :D. I was just making the point that if you want to make an argument, make your points clear and unambiguous.

[Troubleshooter]

more detail...
You seam to be under the impression that there are no more slaves in the world aswellno, I am not. my question is how does one go from slave to not slave ;)

[Nanolathe]

I know what you want me to say: "By claiming his Freedom" right? Well that won't do you jack unless your masters let you have that freedom and don't shoot you in the head the moment you "Claim" to be free. You claim to be free when you are enslaved?

Stubborn refusal to see the truth and blind optimism is all you have.

Edit: you still haven't answered me on serveral points:
-How is Freedom a state of being and not a condition? By what authority do you claim that 'Fact'?
-How can you be free if you are dead?
and most importantly (to me anyway)
-How is Mr. "Free Man in a Box" still a free man and not just Mr. "Man in a Box"?

[Troubleshooter]

Again, your not talking about rights then. A right is not "granted" thats a privlege. If you want to discuss the difference between rights and privleges... lets do. But we are using the word "right" to define different concepts.

You still claim freedom when you are enslaved?yes, thats the whole point.

Stubborn refusal to see the truth and blind optimism is all you have. If only Nelson Mandela would have just faced the facts and not been a blind optimist...

[Nanolathe]

Again you refuse to answer the three questions that I have for you.

Ok I'll add just one more question, one that will top them all and answer all of the previous ones directed at you in one swoop: Why do you think that "rights are intrinsic to the person... wholly contained within themselves." How can you possibly prove that?

In fact I address that to all of you: Do you think that "rights are intrinsic to the person... wholly contained within themselves." and how could you possibly prove that?

[TheDividedGod]

nano: I think one could "prove" such a thing by maintaining the principle I attempted to put forth on the first page. Take this into account, and you will see that really, one can have no master unless one takes it upon themselves to accept slavery without a fight.

Indeed, in many ways, freedom just is the ability to claim itself as such even though we may appear chained and blind to each other.

As to your questions:

-If freedom was conditional it wouldn't be freedom. Thus it can only be a state-of-being that itself is a precondition for states-of-affairs.

-The reason that one cannot be free if one is dead is the same reason why asking questions about something we cannot experience makes no sense. The context meaning of your question is what stops a rational answer, not the soundness of validity of it (since it's not "technically" a valid question)

-The free man in a box is free because he KNOWS he is in a box, and his conception of the "Other", the element outside his unified self-concept, can be represented as the knowledge that there is something, some world, some reality, outside the box. Thus his essense of mind is proven free. The man in the box who believes that the box is, indeed, the entirety of reality has lost his freedom.

[Nanolathe]

So a man put into a box is 'Free' but a man born into a box is not?

What I am getting at with all of Troubleshooters posts is that he says that I could switch my rights on and off when I feel like it. And that is not my definition of a 'Right'

For the record my definition of a 'Right' is: There is no such thing.

However the construct of privileges, that mankind has claimed that I have, called 'Rights', I see as... ... Useful.

[TheDividedGod]

So a man put into a box is 'Free' but a man born into a box is not?


Plato would say no. I'm not sure, to be honest. I'm not sure how anyone COULD ever be "sure" of such a thing. I would still think though, that a man born into a box would one day begin to question how obvious the limits of his reality are....this is the beginning, the fundamental basis of the Other, the "not-me" to myself, the "that" to my "this", and it's a psychological construct that seems to affect literally every single human. The subject/object dichotomy often seems impossible to transcend, and I think this intuition would one day lead even the man born into the box (or the cave, if we wanna stop the bullshit and just use plato's classic metaphor) to stand up and take a good long hard look around, and ask himself, with intent to test himself, whether or not "this" really is all that there is, and there is no "that" just beyond the stone walls.....

he says that I could switch my rights on and off when I feel like it. And that is not my definition of a 'Right'

No, but it is the very definition of freedom (in this case).

It is only from that particular concept of freedom that we allow ourselves, or at least feel justified, in defining our own rights....it is the very reason you both feel validated in your respective positions.

[Nanolathe]

I use the definitions of freedom that are stated in the dictionary because that way I thought that I would avoid confusion, but you and Troubleshooter seam to have your own definitions, which is really throwing me off somewhat ;)

[TheDividedGod]

The dictionary is dead. It died and became worthless as soon as it was printed. Unchanging, immune to the constant flux of reality, and thus without it's own manifest purpose, it is static death in the purest sense ;)

Forget the dictionary. Tell me how you feel instead.

(keep in mind, even the man born into the cave, exercises his power of choice almost contantly, every single moment, as we all do. Not just action, but thought and the very feeling of Being in time and space just is the existential neccessitation of an unbroken stream of pure possibility and thus, for rational agents like ourselves, choice. The infinite can still be bounded, if we accept that a structure with finite boundary can encompass infinite Possibility. Thus, even the man in the cave is not "deprived" of his choices or the freedom to make them - rather, the structure of reality in which he resides only opens to him the relevant possibilities, which just ARE the entirety of reality, as it appears to him to be. The concept of his freedom extends to these boundaries, and no further (and why would it?) Thus, he is not living in ignorance, "unaware" of his prison, he really isn't a prisoner at all, and enjoys the same fundamental kind of freedom that all rational agents do - his is simply based on a different structure, and obtains to a different degree)

(sorry, ninja edit. pretend the bracketed above is my response.)

[Nanolathe]

Ok. I feel that the definition contained within the dictionary is adequate to describe how I feel on the matter of the nature of Freedom.

Freedom
Literal: The power to determine action without restraint.
Philosophical: The power to exercise choice and make decisions without constraint from within or without.

That doesn't help does it? :D

keep in mind, even the man born into the cave, exercises his power of choice almost constantly, every single moment, as we all do.But there are some things over which we have absolutely no choice. Thus no human can ever be truly 'Free'. I was never given the choice of whether to exist, but I do... I think... in fact the only thing I am sure about is that I think... ... or at least I think I do.

Hows that for abstract?

[TheDividedGod]

Ahh, yes, but, existence is just the pre-condition that allows (your ability of) choice to obtain in reality. Thus, I think attempting to conflate that state-of-affairs (your Being-in-the-world, that is) with or as the perceived boundaries of your freedom to engage choice, may indeed be fallacious. It is not that there are things we cannot "choose about" - there are clearly, though, things that lie outside the necessary conditions for "choice". I still maintain, however, that the very admission of "knowing" this, yet not being able to rationally engage it, is actually what allows for the possibility of true freedom - that is, there seem to be boundaries to our reality that we can only surpass or change based on our evolutionary state, not just biologically, but psychologically as well. The very fact that we have had such major paradigm shifts in our own understanding of ourselves and the reality in which we are embedded SO MANY TIMES throughout human history tells me that any boundaries we may percieve are only percieved as such because of inherent limitations, not explict or external ones. Ultimately, it seems that the more we engage ourselves on this level, the more we begin to open up hidden resevoirs of choice and possibility, things, not that we didn't before consider, but that, due to however reality may have obtained at that particular time, were literally not able to be considered by us at that time. This does not mean our freedom to choose, or the possibility of choice itself in any regard is ever limited - it only means that, in a rational mindframe, we can (and must!) judge the choices themselves to be either valid or invalid, based on the conditions of the situation. The possibility of the freedom of choice, however, cannot be conflated or denied in any other way than death - and death just is the cessation of the precondition that is necessary for the possibility of choice in the first place, thus it is not truly a denial, but rather, just makes the whole concept irrelevant, since the precondition of existence is no longer present. Consider also - you, personally, whatever "you" is or represents, could not have been presented with choice or the possibility thereof before you were born, since the necessary precondition of Being, of existence, had not yet been satisfied.

[Nanolathe]

Consider also - you, personally, whatever "you" is or represents, could not have been presented with choice or the possibility thereof before you were born, since the necessary precondition of Being, of existence, had not yet been satisfied.Yes I know. I also find Life and Death as very strange concepts to grasp... In fact I deem them "Ungraspable". Knowledge of one precludes knowledge of the other.
Confucius Says: "Without knowing Death how can one know life?"
Or something to that effect. I am inclined to agree, which might be why I am not frightened of death at all. It's the whole slow dying part I'm not keen on. :D

Ok, you clearly think that we as Humans do have 'Rights', yes?
Why?

[CommodoreKitty]

Rights, (being an invention of men) are not intrinsic to people, rights are intrinsic to a society. It is because rights are an invented concept, not something that we all realize when we are born. Take an animal: they follow no stucture involving 'rights' at all, a deer has no more a 'right' to live that a lion has to eat. So I can say that it is an invention of humanity because it is unique to humanity. Now, back to the society. As an invention of the human mind, rights will manifest themselfs differently based on the society. Because of this, I would say that rights should be applied based on what the society claims. (Sorry if I am repeating myself, by the way, there is a lot of noise going on and I can't concentrait, but I want to get this idea across before I forget.) So you cannot 'proove' why a right is intrinsic to a person, because it isn't. Proof of this is simply in the vast differences in rights between societies. If rights were intrinsic to people, then you wouldn't see such a difference in what is and is not considered a right in different societies. So, I say that they are not intrinsic to the person, but rather the society. Err, I'll come back later and elaborate on this and patch it up some more, but I think that I am making sense.

[TheDividedGod]

@nano:



Well, i think primarily because we can indeed "grasp" them, and we do so in the simplest way - by engaging that fundamental possibility of choice in our society itself, and defining rights as we see fit. We don't bandy semantics, we don't argue the preconditions - we make use of our most powerful ability, the ability to make real things obtain in a real universe, and we JUST DECIDE. Life and death can be seen, in this way, as just the difference between experiencing that constant flux of reality or not - the experience necessitates choice, whereas lack of existential experience negates it's very possibility.

If, ultimately, the universe cannot be reduced, scientifically or mathematically or what-have-you to axiomatic truth, then, ultimately, all "our" truths are arbitrary, and so too, our choices. The key is consistency - consistent implementation of our decisions about reality is what provides us with a bedrock foundation, an inherent purpose, for everything that means ANYTHING to us, primarily, our societies and our politics and our cultures. Human rights, then, could easily be defined as a consistent structure that lays a foundation for our very need to have that feeling of consistency, the feeling that we live in a universe that doesn't necessarily make sense, but perhaps is itself a thing that we can make sense OF. Human rights, or the idea that they "should" be universal, is just our attempt to codify that feeling within and throughout all of the rest of our social structures, even those as basic as language and interaction.

[Nanolathe]

So you think human 'Rights' are in fact true 'Natural Rights' that Humanity has managed to latch onto to try and make sense of the chaos that is our universe? If that is indeed where you stand on the matter then I think we can never have an accord, basically because you think that 'Rights' are real and I think they are a complete falsehood, a construct that we produced to make us feel better in times of hardship.

If I understand you correctly TDG, you think that we do have 'Human Rights' because of our need for constancy, and those 'Rights' help us maintain that? I cannot help but draw parallels to Religion here, another 'thing' that allows us try to make sense of the universe and maintain consistency.

I do not deny that 'Human Rights' are needed in the society we have constructed, but I do not agree with them being called 'Rights' and would violently argue against them being called 'Natural Rights'; non-negotiable and unassailable contracts with the universe (which also don't exist).

[TheDividedGod]

Then perhaps our discussion here is one of semantics, not fundamentals. In that regard, I would point out that anything that can be said to exist in a way that affects other existing elements of reality can indeed be said to be "real" in all the ways that matter - thus, a human construct is not "falsehood" per se, JUST BECAUSE it is a human construct. It is as real as anything else we can interact with or think about. Consider too - A thing is no longer definable as "chaos" or "chaotic" once we have made sense of it - making sense of it is just what reduces apparent chaos to our concept of natural order - not probability, but just possibility. "Anything is possible" is not a statement of chaos, but rather, a statement of the idea that chaos has it's place within the structure of reality that encompasses both chaos AND order in a way that, somehow, allows the two to conflate and change together as the universe changes.

What I'm trying to show is that in a world where both the rational agent and the experiencing of his environment are both co-dependent and co-defined, consistency of experience is all that allows us to make sense of our world. Human rights are an attempt to codify the "should" of the boundaries of our existence - literally, it is an attempt to moralize Being in such a way that allows the largest amount of people to "Be", to exist, in such a way that the wide possibilities of choice are not unnaturally restrained. Since the only thing that CAN naturally restrain the infinite possibility of choice is one rational agent who actively denies that possibility to another, we designed a system of human rights that focuses mainly on reducing the ability of humans to infringe upon each other's percieved "freedoms". We then codify those freedoms, most often under the guidance of and according to cultural traditions, to maintain consistency, the only thing that allows us to understand the world around us.

Thus, it could be argued that rights ARE intrinsic, but only insofar as we seem to NEED a system, any system, of rules, or ideas, of consciously imposed limitation, a scientific or other modal awareness, a religious revelation, ANYTHING that can be used as an ultimate point-of-reference, a "first cause" so to speak, for the rest of our possible actions to obtain (logically obtain, mind you) at all.

[Troubleshooter]

Thus, it could be argued that rights ARE intrinsic, but only insofar as we seem to NEED a system, any system, of rules, or ideas, of consciously imposed limitation, a scientific or other modal awareness, a religious revelation, ANYTHING that can be used as an ultimate point-of-reference, a "first cause" so to speak, for the rest of our possible actions to obtain (logically obtain, mind you) at all.
LoL... thats just one sentence :p

Thus, it could be argued that rights ARE intrinsic, but only insofar as we seem to NEED a system, any system, of rules, or ideas, of consciously imposed limitationHere's what I was driving at with my structured approach to defining what rights are. Excellent way of putting it!

The key is that you don't need rights in a void. As you start to add texture to the world around you, rules for interacting with the world will start to take shape. Some rules are for efficiency, some are self imposed. Once you start adding other beings to the world, their rules will influence or interact with your own. Here is where "rights" begin to take shape. A "right" is a defensive mechanism against that which would do you harm. Its almost always a way of saying that no natural law can usurp your choice to defend yourself against injury.

Thus we get rights to bear arms (protect you person)
Right to freedom of religion (protect your metaphysical being)
Right to assemble (protect you from tyranny of authority)
Right to die (protect you from suffering)
Right to live (protect you from murder)

and so on.

Now, when I say you can "switch on/off" your rights... what I mean is that sometimes you trade your choice to exercise your rights for something you want. Society offers many benefits to people who surrender some of their freedom for example. Security is the essence of freedom vs. safety trade offs. The more security you want, the less freedom you can enjoy. You can, at any time, opt-out of security to reclaim your freedom, but you forfeit your security in the process.

Now, while society may define rights, and resolve to defend those rights as a collective, society does not "invent" these rights. If no one had ever defined the right to freedom for you, would you not resist bondage all the same?