I was going to make a thread in the politics forum about what is the most important right that any human being should have. I was simply going to ask, "What is the biggest and most important right as a human being?" but I thought I could do better.
I do have a very strong opinion over what I think is the most important "right" that a human being can have. Some examples of rights are: freedom of speech, religion, property, etc. However, I am not going to talk about my opinion or the reasons for that opinion yet. I will not talk about those unless the discussion heads that way. First, I want to start off the discussion in a completely different, and more philosophical, direction.
People often like to talk about our "God given rights" like God actually gave them to us. Maybe God did... but God would have to exist if he did and there isn't the evidence for that. So instead of going with the "God did it" cop-out, let's examine some secular sources for our rights. Where do you think our rights come from?
One example that I can think of is from morality and the golden rule. In The God Delusion Dawkins talks about how morality may have from an evolutionary misfiring to where it would have been beneficial to treat tribal members the way you would want to be treated because there of a symbolic relationship.
So what is the philosophical or moral origin for our rights? You can argue that God gave them to us, but be warned that I, and probably many people here, will see that as a cop-out. I really want people to examine secular reasons for why we believe that everyone should be able to choose their religion, say what they want, own property, etc.
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| ... I do have a very strong opinion over what I think is the most important "right" that a human being can have. Some examples of rights are: freedom of speech, religion, property, etc. However, I am not going to talk about my opinion or the reasons for that opinion yet. I will not talk about those unless the discussion heads that way. |
Hmmm...it really appears you ARE expressing your opinion.
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| ... You can argue that God gave them to us, but be warned that I, and probably many people here, will see that as a cop-out. |
Isn't it our right to believe what we wish...even if you or anyone else thinks it's a cop out? Isn't calling it a cop-out degrading that persons opinion because it doesn't coincide with your opinion?
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| ... I really want people to examine secular reasons for why we believe that everyone should be able to choose their religion, say what they want, own property, etc. |
Where is the incentive for anyone to express their opinion here when you have already stated that if we believe "God did it", or "God gave us that right", we are taking a "cop-out"? | Vrythramax wrote: |
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: | | ... I do have a very strong opinion over what I think is the most important "right" that a human being can have. Some examples of rights are: freedom of speech, religion, property, etc. However, I am not going to talk about my opinion or the reasons for that opinion yet. I will not talk about those unless the discussion heads that way. |
Hmmm...it really appears you ARE expressing your opinion. |
No. Absolutely not? Where did I express my opinion? All I did was list some examples as what could be seen as a right. I did not, nor have I, expressed what I think is the most important right. I did not because that's not the point of this discussion. I just added that in there because I know that at some point the discussion may turn that way and then I will discuss that. But up until now, I have not mentioned which right I find to be most important.
| Vrythramax wrote: |
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: | | ... You can argue that God gave them to us, but be warned that I, and probably many people here, will see that as a cop-out. |
Isn't it our right to believe what we wish...even if you or anyone else thinks it's a cop out? Isn't calling it a cop-out degrading that persons opinion because it doesn't coincide with your opinion?
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: | | ... I really want people to examine secular reasons for why we believe that everyone should be able to choose their religion, say what they want, own property, etc. |
Where is the incentive for anyone to express their opinion here when you have already stated that if we believe "God did it", or "God gave us that right", we are taking a "cop-out"? |
It is quite a cop-out. The reason why it is is because this is a philosophy and religion forum and I wish to discuss the philosophical reasons that we have rights. Too often you see discussions like "Why is killing wrong?" Answer: Killing is wrong because it breaks the sixth commandment given to Moses by God and that is that! So instead of discussing philosophical reasons why killing is wrong or examining cultures where killing was observed as immoral yet they didn't have God or the ten commandments to find a secular reason why it's wrong people just say "God did it!" and leave it at that. That's what I'd consider a cop-out for intelligent conversation.
People do the same with science. Someone may ask a question like, "How did life get here on Earth?" Instead of studying abiogensis and evolution, examining evidence, studying, and trying to learn what the answer is they just respond, "God created us!" and just leave it at that. Sure you have a perfect right to believe that, but it doesn't lead us anywhere scientifically or philosophically.
Even if you do believe in God, you can still examine other sources that we get our rights from and bring something intelligent into the debate (do we get our rights from the golden rule, do we just agree on them, etc.)?Thank You for clarifying that for me. I'll take my opinion elsewhere.
| Vrythramax wrote: |
| Thank You for clarifying that for me. I'll take my opinion elsewhere. |
Your opinion is welcome here. All I asked in my post was that you put some thought in it and don't just use a cop-out like "God did it and that's that!" You can go along the "God route" as long as you back it up with some thought and substance.What your missing is that for some people it is not a cop-out, but actually a real belief. Many religions endorse and enforce blind obedience to their faith. I'm not advocating that in any way, but we have to acknowledge that there is indeed those factions that honestly and earnestly believe the simple tenant that..."God said so".
To them any stance opposing theirs is not only wrong, but a mortal sin, and a reason to go to war. You try telling a group of them their belief is a cop-out and you have a real problem on your hands.
Well if you do have that opinion, then you would be foolish to think that you will not have your position seriously challenged at a philosophy forum. If this was a Jesus forum, then that would certainly fly. But philosophers like to question everything and so if you do have that position and you post here, then you should expect to be challenged. I did say that I wanted a thoughtful explanation, and blind-faith is the exact opposite.... I also said that I wanted secular reasoning...
The forum is actually Philosophy and Religion.
At any rate, I'll leave you to your discussion.
| Vrythramax wrote: |
The forum is actually Philosophy and Religion.
At any rate, I'll leave you to your discussion. |
Ahh.... It is... That's why I specified in my original post that I wanted the philosophical reasons... Since philosophy and religion are covered in the forum, I specified which one this topic applies to. | Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| I do have a very strong opinion over what I think is the most important "right" that a human being can have. |
I would be interested to know what this strong opinion is. If you feel this may distract from where you want the present thread to be heading, maybe you can start a new thread for it? 
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| People often like to talk about our "God given rights" like God actually gave them to us. Maybe God did... but God would have to exist if he did and there isn't the evidence for that. So instead of going with the "God did it" cop-out, let's examine some secular sources for our rights. Where do you think our rights come from? |
The rights people are talking about have all been created by people, not God. In my mind God is much bigger than those rights, people seem to like to use Him to their advantage and for me that is almost the equivalent of blasphemy at times.
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| One example that I can think of is from morality and the golden rule. In The God Delusion Dawkins talks about how morality may have from an evolutionary misfiring to where it would have been beneficial to treat tribal members the way you would want to be treated because there of a symbolic relationship. |
I don't quite understand what this means. What golden rule is Dawkins talking about? Maybe I'm not understanding this reference as there are important parts missing from it?
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| So what is the philosophical or moral origin for our rights? You can argue that God gave them to us, but be warned that I, and probably many people here, will see that as a cop-out. I really want people to examine secular reasons for why we believe that everyone should be able to choose their religion, say what they want, own property, etc. |
I see it as people who have created the rights. As a way of Governing themselves so that they can either control other people, or at a minimum live in a harmonious society.
I totally agree with Vrythramax:
| Vrythramax wrote: |
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: | | ... I do have a very strong opinion over what I think is the most important "right" that a human being can have. Some examples of rights are: freedom of speech, religion, property, etc. However, I am not going to talk about my opinion or the reasons for that opinion yet. I will not talk about those unless the discussion heads that way. |
Hmmm...it really appears you ARE expressing your opinion. |
All of what was expressed was an opinion or at least reflected one all the time.
| Vrythramax wrote: |
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: | | ... You can argue that God gave them to us, but be warned that I, and probably many people here, will see that as a cop-out. |
Isn't it our right to believe what we wish...even if you or anyone else thinks it's a cop out? Isn't calling it a cop-out degrading that persons opinion because it doesn't coincide with your opinion? |
I agree with this too. Matrix had already decided what the response is going to be with his reference to "cop-out".
| Vrythramax wrote: |
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: | | ... I really want people to examine secular reasons for why we believe that everyone should be able to choose their religion, say what they want, own property, etc. |
Where is the incentive for anyone to express their opinion here when you have already stated that if we believe "God did it", or "God gave us that right", we are taking a "cop-out"? |
Good point. | deanhills wrote: |
| I would be interested to know what this strong opinion is. If you feel this may distract from where you want the present thread to be heading, maybe you can start a new thread for it? |
My opinion is that the freedom of speech is the most important right because speech is how you change things and protect your other rights. It's also the right that is most often restricted (wrongfully). But like I said, I do not want the discussion to head that way.
| Quote: |
| The rights people are talking about have all been created by people, not God. In my mind God is much bigger than those rights, people seem to like to use Him to their advantage and for me that is almost the equivalent of blasphemy at times. |
This is heading the right direction, but isn't deep enough. You said that rights were created by people. But where did they actually come from? Did people just pull them out of their asses and say that these are rights? What made people think that, "Maybe we should let people say whatever they want?" People probably didn't just randomly come up with them. Where did they come from? Do they have a bases in our morality?
| Quote: |
| I don't quite understand what this means. What golden rule is Dawkins talking about? Maybe I'm not understanding this reference as there are important parts missing from it? |
The golden rule basically shows a reciprocity. Treat others the way you would like to be treated. It was in the bible but is much older than the bible.
| Quote: |
I see it as people who have created the rights. As a way of Governing themselves so that they can either control other people, or at a minimum live in a harmonious society.
I totally agree with Vrythramax: |
What do you agree on?
| Quote: |
| l of what was expressed was an opinion or at least reflected one all the time. |
Actually, I didn't express an opinion at all.
| Quote: |
| I agree with this too. Matrix had already decided what the response is going to be with his reference to "cop-out". |
Absolutely not. All I said was that I wanted thoughtful responses and the usual "God did it" is hardly thoughtful and intelligent. I already covered that in my response to Vrythramax.Of course I believe that God gives us our rights and establishes them. But I agree that just saying God did it is a copout. We need to examine what the nature of human beings is, and what inherent value we have as humans.
If there is value in humanity, then there is value in the continued existence of the human race. Potential moral principles can be examined to see if they are healthy for humanity, and affirmed if they are.
Some form of the golden rule -- treat others as you would like to be treated -- seems healthy to me. Now I can examine some of the things I like, and see which ones generalize to universal preferences and benefit the recipient without harming others.
That would allow listing a number of principles such as free speech, self determination, opportunity to acquire creature comforts. I would have a hard time giving the proper weight to each. I think it could also be argued that humans, or perhaps certain humans, should not be allowed to exist.
In the absense of an "owner's manual" for humanity, which I believe I have, I think moral principles would be quite unstable. I do see it as appropriate for us to investigate such questions, but ultimately we need to depend upon God to verify what the value of humans is.
| Vrythramax wrote: |
What your missing is that for some people it is not a cop-out, but actually a real belief. Many religions endorse and enforce blind obedience to their faith. I'm not advocating that in any way, but we have to acknowledge that there is indeed those factions that honestly and earnestly believe the simple tenant that..."God said so".
To them any stance opposing theirs is not only wrong, but a mortal sin, and a reason to go to war. You try telling a group of them their belief is a cop-out and you have a real problem on your hands. |
Their belief is not a cop-out, but giving it as an answer to the question "why is killing wrong" (for example) is.
To put that in other terms, suppose you asked a child on a test, "Why do objects fall down when thrown upwards?", and they answered, "Because my teacher says so." How would you mark them? Their answer is technically right. And their reasoning is sound - it makes perfect sense to trust your teacher when they say that... there's no reason to think they might wrong or lying. It sure seems like a perfectly reasonable answer.
But would you accept it as an answer to that question when marking the test? i'm guessing not.
Because the point of the test was to measure understanding of the concept. That answer - true and reasonable as it may be - doesn't do that. It's true, it's reasonable, and under normal circumstances perfectly acceptable... but it answers nothing. It's a cop-out.
Same thing's happening here: Afaceinthematrix is clearly not interested in an opinion poll, he wants to do some serious discussion on not only what the fundamental right is, but why you should have it. Answering "because God says so", while it may be true, and while it may be reasonable, and while it may be perfectly acceptable under normal circumstances... answers nothing in this context. Because then Afaceinthematrix would have to ask "why does God say so..." and no one can answer that without blaspheming, ending the discussion.
So i'd go a step further and say that answering "because God says so" is not only a cop-out in this discussion... it is an attempt to kill it. That makes it even more reasonable to disallow it.
------------------------------------------------
Now, to answer the question, i agree with Afaceinthematrix, and for the same reason. The most important right is the right to speak freely. Why? Because if you give me the right speak freely, i can argue for any other right i want.
But that explains why the right is the most important, not why we deserve it.
To answer that, i'd have to say that it is functionally and logically unavoidable. Imagine a society where no public speech is allowed unless it fits "accepted" formats. But... who decides the "accepted" speech? What is accepted has to be decided by someone or some group. But who decides on them? Without free speech to allow for a debate, even if only to identify the criteria for a meritocracy, it's going to have to be done by some kind of force.
But! What kind of force? Let's say the strongest man in the society claims that right because no one can defeat him in combat. But then, five guys don't like his policies and get together and take him en masse... now they're the leaders. But then, twenty other guys rise up... now they're the leaders. And so on and so forth until the person or body in charge is in charge because they represent the will of the majority of the people. But... the only way everyone could finally know that the leadership represents the majority opinion is if they all discuss their opinion. Which means free will has to exist.
Now, in practise this process is not smooth, and can take centuries, and a small cabal can maintain power because they have the resources to make any revolt very painful for the majority. But that's practise. In theory, no matter which way you shave it, it's going to boil back to a society with free speech. It is a logical necessity for any stable society. Any society without free speech is not stable, and will, eventually, break down. | Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| Quote: | | The rights people are talking about have all been created by people, not God. In my mind God is much bigger than those rights, people seem to like to use Him to their advantage and for me that is almost the equivalent of blasphemy at times. |
This is heading the right direction, but isn't deep enough. You said that rights were created by people. But where did they actually come from? Did people just pull them out of their asses and say that these are rights? What made people think that, "Maybe we should let people say whatever they want?" People probably didn't just randomly come up with them. Where did they come from? Do they have a bases in our morality?
|
People "pull [rights] out of their asses and say that they are rights" all the time.
You see it when people talk about how they have a right to have children, or a right to a good education. Nobody gave them these rights, they just decided for themselves that they had a right to do so.
(Possibly, they believe God gave them the right to... ^.^) | Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
This is heading the right direction, but isn't deep enough. You said that rights were created by people. But where did they actually come from? Did people just pull them out of their asses and say that these are rights? What made people think that, "Maybe we should let people say whatever they want?" People probably didn't just randomly come up with them. Where did they come from? Do they have a bases in our morality? |
From the top of my head and projecting myself into history I would say it would be about "control" and to get people to live harmoniously. There have to be rules that get people not to kill one another, steal from one another, covet wives and husbands (usually messy for society), etc. The control part would be by different degrees, where people would surrender some of their freedom, in order to survive as part of a group, usually they give it to the leader of the clan, who would have troops/police to make sure people abide by the rules.
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| The golden rule basically shows a reciprocity. Treat others the way you would like to be treated. It was in the bible but is much older than the bible. |
I agree totally with this. This is the ideal when you look at a justice scale. I agree that this has to have been a common sense rule from the beginning of ages.
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| deanhills wrote: | | I totally agree with Vrythramax: |
What do you agree on? |
His comments. I listed them in my posting. Particularly your reference to cop-out. To me it was almost the equivalent of setting the stage for a solo chess game and trying to control the moves from the opposition coming your way, whilst already nixing some of them. I guess I'll keep my own opinion to myself, so the topic doesn't turn the wrong direction. Though I can't say I agree with "freedom" of speech being the most important right.
If you want to look at this from a local perspective, the leaders of modern societies decided long ago that instead of working with people on an individual basis and forming personal relationships, each person was given a general set of "rights" that allowed the leaders to simply enjoy their own lives and let the society run itself. That way the leaders would never have to decide what each person was allowed to do.
At least that was the general idea in the beginning. Whether that idea has reached its first purpose is another debate.
Just a quick jump to religion:
Maybe saying that "God gave us rights" is a discussion killer, but I don't think that religion has to be entirely excluded thanks to the fact that one religious statement ruins the topic.
(I'm one of those crazy "believer" guys so frequently found scarce on this forum, so the following may shock and awe you, but )
The way I've always looked at it is that God didn't give us any "rights". It gave us the ability to think up our own set of these "rights" and impose them on those individuals who we take leadership over.
But these are all just my insane opinions, of course. Hope you enjoyed. | pampoon wrote: |
| I guess I'll keep my own opinion to myself, so the topic doesn't turn the wrong direction. Though I can't say I agree with "freedom" of speech being the most important right. |
You can disagree with that being the most important right - but this is really not the place for it. I regret even mentioning that that was what I considered to be the most important right because like I said, I do not want to discuss that here. I only answered that question because Deanhills wanted to know.
| Quote: |
| If you want to look at this from a local perspective, the leaders of modern societies decided long ago that instead of working with people on an individual basis and forming personal relationships, each person was given a general set of "rights" that allowed the leaders to simply enjoy their own lives and let the society run itself. That way the leaders would never have to decide what each person was allowed to do. |
What this implies, to me, is that you can have no rights without society. Is that what you're saying? Maybe society helps protect your rights but I'd sure like to think that I'd have rights even in an anarchy (although there would be nothing to protect those rights except for my own fighting).
| Quote: |
At least that was the general idea in the beginning. Whether that idea has reached its first purpose is another debate.
Just a quick jump to religion:
Maybe saying that "God gave us rights" is a discussion killer, but I don't think that religion has to be entirely excluded thanks to the fact that one religious statement ruins the topic. |
But that really is the only statement that you can make using religion. Everything boils down to what God does in most religions. | Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| pampoon wrote: | | I guess I'll keep my own opinion to myself, so the topic doesn't turn the wrong direction. Though I can't say I agree with "freedom" of speech being the most important right. |
You can disagree with that being the most important right - but this is really not the place for it. I regret even mentioning that that was what I considered to be the most important right because like I said, I do not want to discuss that here. I only answered that question because Deanhills wanted to know. |
Forgive my intervention here, especially since I begged off this topic...but any Member determining what can be discussed somewhere, and where the right place for another Member's comments are is Back-Seat Moderating.
Sorry Afaceinthematrix, but since you yourself broached the subject, you can't say later on that this isn't the place for a comment on YOUR comments. Just do what I do when someone says something I don't like...ignore them. You don't have to respond to every post 
| pampoon wrote: |
| I guess I'll keep my own opinion to myself, so the topic doesn't turn the wrong direction. |
I've always valued your opinions so of course am immediately curious to what it could have been. Right now we are in the minority, so that means your opinion must be scarce and therefore valuable ...
| pampoon wrote: |
Though I can't say I agree with "freedom" of speech being the most important right.
If you want to look at this from a local perspective, the leaders of modern societies decided long ago that instead of working with people on an individual basis and forming personal relationships, each person was given a general set of "rights" that allowed the leaders to simply enjoy their own lives and let the society run itself. That way the leaders would never have to decide what each person was allowed to do. |
Are you sure it worked that way? I thought most of the rights we have "earned" have come on the basis of fear of either not having them, or losing them. There has always been the fear of safety and security for example. Or of despotic and corrupt leaders and bad Government. In the beginning of time it was quite easy to move away, but people always had to stick together so that they could survive against external threats. In doing that they have always had to surrender some of their freedom to some form of leadership and a list of rules of conduct and do's and dont's. | Vrythramax wrote: |
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: | | pampoon wrote: | | I guess I'll keep my own opinion to myself, so the topic doesn't turn the wrong direction. Though I can't say I agree with "freedom" of speech being the most important right. |
You can disagree with that being the most important right - but this is really not the place for it. I regret even mentioning that that was what I considered to be the most important right because like I said, I do not want to discuss that here. I only answered that question because Deanhills wanted to know. |
Forgive my intervention here, especially since I begged off this topic...but any Member determining what can be discussed somewhere, and where the right place for another Member's comments are is Back-Seat Moderating.
Sorry Afaceinthematrix, but since you yourself broached the subject, you can't say later on that this isn't the place for a comment on YOUR comments. Just do what I do when someone says something I don't like...ignore them. You don't have to respond to every post ;) |
Well I kept advising that it would be off-topic to go into what you think the most important right would be. I did say from the beginning that I accepted that it may go off topic but I kept suggesting that it doesn't.
I only went there for a brief second as a side note because Deanhills was interested. I started this topic because I wanted to discuss a certain topic. I am just reminding people about that subject. That would be like starting a topic on the origin of beer and then people arguing over budweiser being better than heineken or vise versa. | Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| What this implies, to me, is that you can have no rights without society. Is that what you're saying? Maybe society helps protect your rights but I'd sure like to think that I'd have rights even in an anarchy (although there would be nothing to protect those rights except for my own fighting). |
Not exactly what I was trying to say. It is true that the only reason we think we have rights in the first place is because the society we live under says we do. If you or I were born an never told that we had any rights, we wouldn't know that we had any.
But what I was trying to say it that we wouldn't have any rights, at all, if someone hadn't decided long ago when they took leadership over people that he would give them to us. At least that's how I see it.[/quote]
| deanhills wrote: |
| Are you sure it worked that way? I thought most of the rights we have "earned" have come on the basis of fear of either not having them, or losing them. There has always been the fear of safety and security for example. Or of despotic and corrupt leaders and bad Government. In the beginning of time it was quite easy to move away, but people always had to stick together so that they could survive against external threats. In doing that they have always had to surrender some of their freedom to some form of leadership and a list of rules of conduct and do's and dont's. |
I'm not sure of anything. This is just how I like to look at it.
And I agree. Take America for example. The founders of the current government had just been through very hard times over in England. So when the leaders of new born America were given the leadership, they got to decide who could and couldn't do what.
I simply stated that to me, instead of having a concept of where we assumed these rights, I think that we were "given" the rights by those who so saw fit to use that leadership over us. | pampoon wrote: |
I'm not sure of anything. This is just how I like to look at it.
And I agree. Take America for example. The founders of the current government had just been through very hard times over in England. So when the leaders of new born America were given the leadership, they got to decide who could and couldn't do what.
I simply stated that to me, instead of having a concept of where we assumed these rights, I think that we were "given" the rights by those who so saw fit to use that leadership over us. |
I think the discussion is meant to go even deeper than this. You could assert the masses 'received' rights because those in leadership/power positions handed them out. But that only explains why the masses have a concept of rights. If we keep going on that path, it boils down to "where did those in power get the idea of rights?" Why did the issue of rights (and perhaps morality) ever arise? I think the original point of the thread is to discuss, not where we get our rights in (modern) society, but where mankind as a whole obtained rights, or the idea of rights. | pampoon wrote: |
And I agree. Take America for example. The founders of the current government had just been through very hard times over in England. So when the leaders of new born America were given the leadership, they got to decide who could and couldn't do what.
I simply stated that to me, instead of having a concept of where we assumed these rights, I think that we were "given" the rights by those who so saw fit to use that leadership over us. |
Your own example illustrates the folly in that argument. The founding fathers of America did not simply pull the rights they chose to outline in the founding documents out of their hats - not even using their miserable past as a basis. They used philosophies laid out by John Locke and Thomas Paine. In other words, they did have a concept where they assumed those rights. | pampoon wrote: |
Take America for example. The founders of the current government had just been through very hard times over in England. So when the leaders of new born America were given the leadership, they got to decide who could and couldn't do what.
I simply stated that to me, instead of having a concept of where we assumed these rights, I think that we were "given" the rights by those who so saw fit to use that leadership over us. |
I doubt we are given any rights. For me that is the other way round. We can only have rights by surrendering our freedom to subscribe to the entity/Government, i.e. giving it power, because if it does not have the power, it cannot exist. The rights we have, come from surrendering some of our freedom to the Government. | deanhills wrote: |
| pampoon wrote: | Take America for example. The founders of the current government had just been through very hard times over in England. So when the leaders of new born America were given the leadership, they got to decide who could and couldn't do what.
I simply stated that to me, instead of having a concept of where we assumed these rights, I think that we were "given" the rights by those who so saw fit to use that leadership over us. |
I doubt we are given any rights. For me that is the other way round. We can only have rights by surrendering our freedom to subscribe to the entity/Government, i.e. giving it power, because if it does not have the power, it cannot exist. The rights we have, come from surrendering some of our freedom to the Government. |
So then anarchists do not have any rights? What if two people become stranded on an island? Do those two people not have any rights unless one surrenders to the other so that the other can graciously give that person the right to live, say what they want, etc.?
Shouldn't rights always exist because they are the basis of any decent source of morality (in my opinion)? Furthermore, just because people do surrender to a government does not mean that they will have rights and on what basis (and why would the government do it) does the government chose what rights to give their citizens? | Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| deanhills wrote: | | pampoon wrote: | Take America for example. The founders of the current government had just been through very hard times over in England. So when the leaders of new born America were given the leadership, they got to decide who could and couldn't do what.
I simply stated that to me, instead of having a concept of where we assumed these rights, I think that we were "given" the rights by those who so saw fit to use that leadership over us. |
I doubt we are given any rights. For me that is the other way round. We can only have rights by surrendering our freedom to subscribe to the entity/Government, i.e. giving it power, because if it does not have the power, it cannot exist. The rights we have, come from surrendering some of our freedom to the Government. |
So then anarchists do not have any rights? What if two people become stranded on an island? Do those two people not have any rights unless one surrenders to the other so that the other can graciously give that person the right to live, say what they want, etc.?
Shouldn't rights always exist because they are the basis of any decent source of morality (in my opinion)? Furthermore, just because people do surrender to a government does not mean that they will have rights and on what basis (and why would the government do it) does the government chose what rights to give their citizens? |
How can one have rights if you have not agreed on what they are? Yes, you may have personal freedoms, but I see rights as something that needs to be agreed. And generally when you agree, you have to give away some of your personal freedom for it. For me an anarchist would be a rebel against establishment.
One probably needs to define what rights are as well. There seems to be quite a number of views on what they are, as well as a variety of types of rights.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right | deanhills wrote: |
| Yes, you may have personal freedoms, but I see rights as something that needs to be agreed. |
That is circular, and self-contradictory. "Personal freedoms" are rights, such as the right to self-determination. So your sentence is really: "you may have rights, but rights are something that need to be agreed on (so you don't have them... unless agreed on)". | Indi wrote: |
| That is circular, and self-contradictory. "Personal freedoms" are rights, such as the right to self-determination. So your sentence is really: "you may have rights, but rights are something that need to be agreed on (so you don't have them... unless agreed on)". |
Thanks for fixing my wording Indi.
