Another "rights" question....I'm stumped!

[Drjones]

Hello. Ongoing debate with a relativist rolleyes: I know....)
and he's got me stumped.

I think that we have rights because we agree to them, but here's what he replied to that:

WHOA there, cowboy. Let's back up a second and take a look at something you
just wrote:

"...I believe that humans have rights for the same reason money has value:
because we agree to them." Did you think I'd just gloss over that section of
your e-mail?! ;-)

Do you see how admitting that puts you in a wee bit of a conundrum regarding
your earlier position on rights? Why the flip-flop? Are rights definite and
immutable, or are the relativistic? Sounds like you quite a relativistic
position you've just staked out for yourself there, buddy. Care to
elaborate, or maybe you care to take it back? If you don't you got some
'splaining to do.

And by the way, admitting that rights are rights because we agree to them
does, indeed, make them no longer inalienable. If they are rights only
because people agree to them, then as soon as people STOP agreeing to them,
they are by definition no longer inalienable. C'mon, Strati!! Follow your
own logic -- I shouldn't have to do it for you. Seriously.

Regarding carrying a gun to protect my life and that of my family: Why do
you think I choose not to carry a gun? I bet you have no idea why I don't.
There are two reasons actually, but one of them applies to me personally,
and is also the main reason I'm generally in favor of banning handguns.

Strati wrote: "The right to self-defense follows naturally from the right to
life,
because if one does not have the right to defend their life, then the
initial right to life is meaningless."

I agree with you here for the most part. However, societies have always, and
will always, put limits on how someone is able to defend themselves. If you
don't agree with this and wish to take the ridiculous Libertarian stance,
then you are forced to believe that all people should have the "right" to
carry grenades and bazookas, C-4 and tactical nukes. However, if you can
answer why societies everywhere have decided that civilians are not allowed
to carry the items listed above, then you will be on your way to
understanding why I am generally for gun control and the banning of
handguns.

How old are you, Strati?
------------------------------------------------

(Oh, and you don't EVEN want to know what he said when I asked him what he would do if society decided that every man and woman should have their way with his wife and youngest kid five days a week....(He's a utilitarian too...) )


HELP!
Drjones

 

[Blackhawk]

If this is your premise in the debate:

"...I believe that humans have rights for the same reason money has value: because we agree to them."

Then your premise is flawed. You're right about money. If the people using it as a medium of exchange don't agree that it has value, it doesn't. So the concept of money REQUIRES consensus.

My right to life does NOT require your or anybody else's agreement that it exists. It only requires MY conviction that it exists. It's up to ME to protect it by NOT doing or eating dangerous things or letting others or circumstances put me in mortal danger.

If I sense something's after me, I'm going to evade or avoid it.

Where you begin to agree that MY right to life exists is when you get the idea that YOUR life is in jeopardy if you try infringing with MY right to life. There's NOTHING relative about it. It's an absolute.

After all that stuff transpires, we may agree that we both have the right to life. "Civilization" begins when members of a society agree that others in the society have fundamental inalienable rights that THEY will individually protect with every fiber of their being.

The important point is that I don't have a right to life because you and everybody else says so. I have it because I say so.

It's a fine point, but it's a very important one to understand if you're going to debate inalienable rights.

 

[Mark Benningfield]

Hello All.

Sorry, Drjones, but he may have a point. If rights exist predicated on the prior agreement of concerned parties, then if any of the parties decides to disagree, those rights are rightly abrogated, by definition. The purpose of constructing a government is to try and make sure that all parties concerned respect those rights possesed by each, prior to the construction. That would be the only "agreement" factor that I'm aware of, and it's more of a "recognition" than an "agreement." HTH.

 

[Drjones]

Hello and thanks for the replies.

Blackhawk, I thought this was YOUR idea from the original TFL thread; that we have rights for the same reason that money has value; because we agree on it.

Regardless, you are right.

I guess I will reply to this guy, and to others in the future, that we only have rights that we can defend.

i.e.; I have whatever rights I want to, says my Mossberg.

Is that a more solid argument?

 

[Blackhawk]

Blackhawk, I thought this was YOUR idea from the original TFL thread; that we have rights for the same reason that money has value; because we agree on it.

It was, but you fell into the sand trap of appropriating arguments. You have to get the WHOLE argument if you're going to use it for yourself!

When people agree, you have to figure out why they agree if you're to understand them.

Why, for example, would 500 people agree that each one of them has a right to life?

Could it be that each one of them is convinced that the other 498 will kill him/her if s/he kills somebody else? They're not necessarily agreeing as much as they fear what will happen to them if they don't go along with the others. That, my friend, is a consensus, which means that a person is willing to go along with something even though it's not necessarily agreed with.

Most people pay taxes by consensus rather than by agreement. To hear the German people after WWII, they didn't agree with the Nazis, but most went along with them, didn't they?

You can put your debate back on track by delving into what agreements among people really are as opposed to a consensus.

An "I'll agree to his right if he agrees to mine" isn't really an agreement as much as it is a truce. However, "this amount of gold represents 1 year's labor" once a consensus is reached works beyond the mere agreement of two people because the parties are fungible within the agreement. The gold still represents the same thing if the original parties disappear. As long as there are enough people able and willing to kill murderers in a society, a "right to life" can be said to exist independent of a person's individual claim to his own life. But the former is not an inalienable right as the latter is!

When losing a debate, wear your opponent out with peripheral facts until he opens up another avenue of attack you can take advantage of.

 

[CZ-75]

The important point is that I don't have a right to life because you and everybody else says so. I have it because I say so.

I sense a pitfall here, which is why then don't I have a right to have a say in the rights of others?

I could lay claim to a right to one's wife, property, etc. because I said so.

I guess I will reply to this guy, and to others in the future, that we only have rights that we can defend.

You might be enabling the next Attilla with this statement, since he would be justified to use force to protect his "right" to your property and life.

You could predicate rights on being contingent to that which is in your best interests and doesn't conflict with the best interests of your neighbor.

This will set you up to be attacked because everyone's definition of best interest varies. To one it is to be armed to protect one's self; to another to be free of the potential from harm (thus arms). That one position is unrealistic is beside the point, since the point will devolve to an emotional level of what one feels to be in one's interests.

The idea of God-given rights sounds better and better all the time, since very few of us could defend our self-declared rights against a majority that didn't believe we had them.

 

[Blackhawk]

I sense a pitfall here, which is why then don't I have a right to have a say in the rights of others?

Each of us has an inalienable right to life that nobody else has a say about. That's the natural right that causes you to fight to preserve your life regardless of what danger you sense. YOU can't even prevent your body to reacting to protect your life in the face of danger.

Each of us also has an alienable right to life in this country. Nobody can legally take any of our lives without due process of law, etc. But that's a right by agreement, consensus, or however else you want to put it. That's NOT the natural right to life we each have, and others do have a say in it.

 

[MacPelto]

If you don't agree with this and wish to take the ridiculous Libertarian stance,
then you are forced to believe that all people should have the "right" to
carry grenades and bazookas, C-4 and tactical nukes. However, if you can
answer why societies everywhere have decided that civilians are not allowed
to carry the items listed above, then you will be on your way to
understanding why I am generally for gun control and the banning of
handguns.

This is not an accurate statement.

This may be an anarchist belief, I don't know - it is not a Libertarian belief. Randian-type Libertarians believe that it is wrong to initiate force against another, but that it is not only right, but immoral to not , defend yourself against wrongful force initiated against you. Hence, Libertarians are in favor of allowing personal arms.

The devices mentioned in the above quote are not arms they are ordnance. The direction of the application of force from ordnance can not be precisely controlled. For example a bomb explodes in many directions, initiating force against everything around it,whether appropriate or not, nor is it defensive in nature.

As all shooters should know, we are responsible for the terminal resting place of every projectile we fire, and with firearms we can control that resting place, thereby not initiating force against inappropriate targets.

From this belief in the morality of the non-initiation of wrongful force, the morality of defending yourself against said force, and the responsibility for proper application of defensive force, comes the conclusion that personal arms are for the good of society.

 

[Art Eatman]

I've always said that for every Civil Right there is a Civil Responsibility.

Arguing "Rights" without at least stipulating the conditions of these rights is pretty much a waste of time.

The right to defend one's own life carries with it the responsibility to not unintentionally hurt somebody who's not involved in the problem. "Oops!" justifiably carries penalties.

I submit the right to defend one's life is an absolute right. I believe that nobody has an absolute responsibility for my protection except me. LEOs are not obligated by law except as they happen accidentally upon the scene--and the response time when called upon for help is likely problematic as to utility. In this, the Second Amendment is superfluous. One typically chooses the most efficient tool for the job at hand--which in this case is a firearm.

Art

 

[TheBluesMan]

Sounds like a good debate, Doc. Watch out for those self-proclaimed relativists... they tend to be good at talking the talk, but they seldom walk the walk. Chances are he's not a true Utilitarian either. Believe me, I've read a lot of John Stuart Mill.

He said: "Are rights definite and immutable, or are the[y] relativistic?"

Take your statement back. Human Rights are immutable.

He said: "Regarding carrying a gun to protect my life and that of my family: Why do you think I choose not to carry a gun? I bet you have no idea why I don't. There are two reasons actually, but one of them applies to me personally, and is also the main reason I'm generally in favor of banning handguns."

Don't argue this point with him. You'll lose. If you want the right to carry a gun you have to recognize his right *not* to carry a gun. Explore his favorability toward banning handguns. The weakness of his argument lies there.

He said: "If you don't agree with this and wish to take the ridiculous Libertarian stance, then you are forced to believe that all people should have the "right" to carry grenades and bazookas, C-4 and tactical nukes. However, if you can answer why societies everywhere have decided that civilians are not allowed to carry the items listed above, then you will be on your way to understanding why I am generally for gun control and the banning of handguns."

Don't fall for this tactic. As MacPelto said, none of these items are directional. The discussion is about the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Keep it there and you'll win. Don't let him define the terms of the argument or you will lose the contest before you even start to fight.

Again, explore his reasons for banning handguns. Post his responses here and watch the good members of this forum tear his argument to shreds.

 

[MacPelto]

Wow, was I confusing enough last night, or what?

 

[Blackhawk]

Wow, was I confusing enough last night, or what?

Naw. It was clear that you were just wrong....

 

[NewShooter78]

Drjones,
I think you've got some pretty good material here to use in your argument. I with that I had more to add, but it looks like everyone has covered the basics for a good rebuttle. And always beware of those that want to broadly ban anything. Chance are he's not a relativist at all and just a grabber of some sort.

 

[CZ-75]

Each of us has an inalienable right to life that nobody else has a say about. That's the natural right that causes you to fight to preserve your life regardless of what danger you sense. YOU can't even prevent your body to reacting to protect your life in the face of danger.

Case # 1 - suicide or self-sacrifice

Obviously, these people didn't value their lives, as in the case of suicide, or willfully went into a situation where they put their life in jeopardy, as in the case of self-sacrifice (e.g., the soldier who jumps on the grenade to save his buddies).

Case #2 - Those who espouse pacifism.

Obviously, a good portion of those who do are conditional in their beliefs, or just liars.

Still, there are committed pacifists who would be willing to die (and have) rather than defend themselves.




So, my question is, how do these confirmed examples of human behavior contrary to self-preservation affect the supposedly innate, inalienable right to self-preservation?

Are they exceptions?

If so, isn't the actual example of the individual who has acted toward self-preservation also an exception, since most people won't be in life-threatening situations (we'll exclude diseases and illness, since these engender primarily passive responses from the individual afflicted)?

It would seem that one could dig up a statistically significant number of examples from both extremes, at least for humans.

I'd expect that were one to use examples of plants and animals that passively or actively employ self-preservation strategies, the balance would overwhelmingly tip in the favor of self-preservation.

Were this to be the case, would one say that these creatures are exercising a "right" (even if they are unaware of the concept -- possibly as most people are)?

 

[Blackhawk]

Are they exceptions? No. Read it again:

YOU can't even prevent your body to reacting to protect your life in the face of danger.

The brain can control many reactions, but it can't control reacting to pain, heartbeat, etc.

Maybe a clearer example of a natural right that everybody has that is singular and completely inalienable should be pointed out. You cannot infringe it yourself regardless of your convictions or intentions unless you're bent on self destruction through drugs, etc. It is something that simply cannot be infringed, period.

It's exercised every second of every day in a person's life.

It is the right to think.

Even when you're asleep, your thinker moniters your environment for temperature, comfort, threats, etc.

Threats...?!

Yep.

Startle somebody who's asleep, even in REM sleep, and they're INSTANTLY ready to fight or flee as they automatically practice that other inalienable right, their right to self defense.

 

[CZ-75]

YOU can't even prevent your body to reacting to protect your life in the face of danger.

Doesn't the man who goes into a fusilade of bullets to rescue a friend or storm an enemy position prevent his body from reacting to protect him?

Sure he may have adrenalin dump, but he is reacting against that and even utilizing it.

Subordination of self-preservation instincts sounds like prevention to me.


Now, again, since self-preservation is a right, do other animals that act towards that end have a right to protect their lives?

 

[NewShooter78]

Doesn't the man who goes into a fusilade of bullets to rescue a friend or storm an enemy position prevent his body from reacting to protect him?

No, because he is reacting to the situation. Fight or flight stimulation. He chooses to fight because he is trying to preserve his life instead of just sitting there waiting to die. And with rescuing his friend he's still exhibiting a fight response. In both situations, he's still controlling his own right to exist/life no matter how foolish it may seem, or how to the contrary it might sound. He is controling his own destiny, and may or may not be lucking in the endevour.

 

[MJRW]

The nukes and C-4 argument is pretty ridiculous. None of these are valid in terms of self-defense. This has been explained previously in this thread. He has a weakness here, let him push the line of how a firearm falls into these categories. He should trap himself into wanting to outlaw kite string, too.

 

[Bikeguy]

A people or person has only those rights which they can secure for themselves. Anything else is just talk.

 

[CZ-75]

The nukes and C-4 argument is pretty ridiculous.

I'll concur, since they are offensive weapons, not defensive, unless you think from a strategic point of view.

An individual has no need for nukes or explosives to defend himself, and ordnance like this is equally hazardous to user and target alike.

Firearms are the only adequate tools for the job until someone develops a blaster ray, etc. They apply just the right amount of force to the right target.

Try doing that to a mugger with a briefcase nuke or a block of C-4.

 

[CZ-75]

A people or person has only those rights which they can secure for themselves. Anything else is just talk.

With the right amount of force, I can secure my rights over your rights.



I still see that no one wishes to tackle whether or not an animal has rights to life, since they exhibit self-preservation behaviors.

I know some would argue for sentience as a criteria, but we've already seen admissions that humans react to danger and that the instinct for self-preservation can be subordinated by thought processes (ergo, it is a lower level, instinctive reaction). Hence, an animal should have a right to life, since I doubt anyone disputes they have instincts.

Where I'm going with this, I don't know, but I sense that it may weaken the argument for rights as being self-declared entities.

Natural rights may gain from this line of reasoning, since it would seem universal between man and beast, hence a "natural" truism.

 

[Blackhawk]

CZ-75,

No offense, but you're being somewhat obtuse so there's not much point in unraveling what you're knitting.

 

[Bikeguy]

With the right amount of force, I can secure my rights over your rights.

Exactly my point, CZ.

And talk of the right to think and the right to self defense coming from the fact that animals can think and defend themselves is nonsense. Just because they can do it does not make it a "right". "Rights" are a man made concept. Self preservation and thinking are not. If it is a right just because I can do it .... well, you see where that could go.

Behavior does not equal "right".

 

[Khornet]

Dr. Jones,

the most devastating debate tactic I know is to immediately aknowledge when you stand corrected. Your opponent in this case correctly rejected the concensus/money analogy, and you should say so right away. Then you can go on to take him apart with other, better arguments, because he has one weak spot:he's wrong overall, while you were wrong on a minor point of debate. Go git 'im.

 

[CZ-75]

No offense, but you're being somewhat obtuse so there's not much point in unraveling what you're knitting.

Gee, thanks for clarifying that for us.


So you're saying there is no point in stating that what would be called instinct in an animal is a right for a human because he says it is?

Yet, you would say that this right can be subordinated by a human through the exercise of reason?

This isn't a shill for animal rights, but I find it kind of hard to believe that someone make a distinction between the reactionary behaviors of sentient beings (humans) and non-sentient life for exercising the same precognitive behavior.

Perhaps I'm obtuse, but the soapbox philosopher routine doesn't amount to much unless you can defend your points clearly and that they are prima facie. I'm going out on a limb for the points I want to make, even if they don't comprise a weltanshauung for me.

Sounds like you are ducking out, using esoterica as your refuge.






Bikeguy,

And talk of the right to think and the right to self defense coming from the fact that animals can think and defend themselves is nonsense. Just because they can do it does not make it a "right". "Rights" are a man made concept. Self preservation and thinking are not. If it is a right just because I can do it .... well, you see where that could go.

I think you hit upon what I'm getting at here, which is that rights are man-made, not divine and not "natural." They exist because we say so. That being the case, what one man declares is his right is only his right if no one opposes it. Additionally, animals don't have rights because they didn't say so and we didn't give them. Still, that means a consensus is required, which would torpedo what Blackhawk has been saying, in addition to the point about instincts for self-preservation being tantamount to rights.

I also think that your last sentence, in regard to being able to do something, yet not being a right conflicts with the original post you made about having those rights that you can defend. If one man can take your rights, then doesn't he have a "right" to do so?

It seems a slippery slope that I can declare those rights that I want, even if they harm others, if I can force others to yield them to me.