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

[buzz_knox]

Actually, to a large extent our rights are based on agreements as to what those rights are.

You have the right to life. Does that mean bacteria can't infect you without your permission? Does a predator have to file for a writ before trying to eat you? Nope. The right to life only applies to a social context: i.e. I have the right not to have my life taken.

Personally, the only right I know I have based on my existence as a human being is the right to think what I choose. The other rights are those which I demand based on my status as a free person willing to fight for said rights.

 

[Blackhawk]

CZ-75

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

No, I wouldn't say that. That's what you said.

With the exception of heartbeat, thinking, and a few others, humans can control their reactions to stimuli. One of those others is the body preparing itself for fight or flight when danger is perceived. Humans can, however, control what they do subsequent to that. That is not subordinating the reaction to the stimulus to "reason", it is merely controlling actions taken subsequent to already having reacted to the stimulus.

 

[CZ-75]

No, I wouldn't say that. That's what you said.

I did say that. But doesn't that still mean that rights are sub-rational, especially since your examples are stimulus/response in nature?

I concluded that, on that concept alone, animals should have an equal claim to rights, since they exhibit similar behaviors to humans with regard to the self-preservation, which weakens the case for rights as self-declared, since animals don't do many declarations.

This might, however, construe that there exist universal laws (natural rights) that exist for all creatures, such as there exist laws of physics, with regard to rights. This would, it would seem, be hard to support without a basis in religion.

Like religion, I don't think that we are going to find a universal truth that is going to define rights for everyone.

 

[Blackhawk]

...which weakens the case for rights as self-declared...

I've been talking about two distinct types of rights:

1. Natural rights, which exist on their own and without the agreement of anybody being necessary, and they certainly don't need to be self-declared.

2. Concensus rights, which exist only by the agreement of those concerned.

Grasping the concept of natural rights isn't easy, so it's far more comfortable to try to squeeze every conceivable right into the second category. However, all you have to do is think, and a natural right leaks out....

As somebody's tag line says: "My opinion is just as irrelevant as yours," and maybe that's where we should leave it....

 

[Bikeguy]

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?

Actually that is the same argument that Blackhawk is making - because you can do it, it is a right. I may think I have a right to kick your butt for having blonde hair. If I'm really convinced of it, no amount of convincing me otherwise is going to change that. To me it is my right. To the rest of society, it is not. In other words, there is no such thing as a "right". It is a concept. Different societies and peoples have different concepts as to what is a "right". Therefore, If I am powerful enough to impose my will upon you, and no one stops me, then you have no rights. Do I have a "right" to do so? If I can do it and no one stops me then sure. If I say it is so and no one can stop me, then I am the definer of what is a right. If they can stop me, then they get to define what is a right.

As for natural rights, different cultures have disagreed as to what are natural rights. The very fact that we have to sit down and decide what is and what is not a natural right points to the fact that it is a man made concept.

However, on Blackhawk's side is the fact that there are some things that are taboo in almost every, if not every, culture - such as incest and murder. Of course, different cultures define these differently, but within the definition, they are almost universally taboo. Hmmmmmm

 

[QKRTHNU]

Dr. Jones,

This guys sounds like he's pretty bright & pretty misguided. Send him this link and ask him to promise to read it. It might change his mind about what should be put into "law"

http://www.constitution.org/law/bastiat.htm

 

[Low Budget Shooter]

Dr. Jones,

Thanks for reviving this discussion. I am still moved with sorrow, anger, and determination when I hear so many people regecting Thomas Jefferson's conclusion on this topic.

So, I'll chime in, even though I am straying slightly from you original question.

CZ-75 wrote:

"Like religion, I don't think that we are going to find a universal truth that is going to define rights for everyone."

I would argue that just because not everyone will agree to an idea, that doesn't mean it is not still truth.

-many did not agree that the world was round, but it was TRUE
-many did not agree that there were little thingies in our bodies making us sick, but it was TRUE
-many did not believe that Jews were being exterminated in Germany, but it was TRUE
-not everyone believed that blacks are just as human as whites, but it was TRUE
-not everyone believes that Jesus, or Muhammad, or any other religious figure was really the TRUE messenger of God, but if, when we die, one of them greets us on the other side, we will find out his message was TRUE.

The reason it is so difficult to find a definition of rights that depends in some way on the actions of human beings is that rights are endowed upon people before birth.

-My rights are whatever I can defend? So, you have the right to free speech unless I come up and hit you over the head and knock you uncounscious---then you no longer have the right of free speech?

-My rights are whatever the society consents to observe? So a black man has the right to worship how he pleases unless the white folks around you keep burning down your church and linching your congregation?

No, the TRUTH is that each person is endowed by his Creator with certain unalienable rights. Even if you reject the idea that you have a Creator, with a capital C, you can still realize that each person is endowed during the process of his creation, with these rights.

A person in communist China who is not allowed, by his government, to speak freely, worship freely, own firearms, or peaceably assemble, still has the RIGHT to do these things. It's just that instead of his government performing its hightest function---protecting his rights, it is actually infringing those rights.

I'll pose my usual question here, since so far I've never had anybody really take it up:

Can you reject the main tenets of the first sentence of the primary founding document of our country
-all men are created
-all men are legally equal
-all men have unalienable rights
-these things are so obvious as to be self-evident
and still rightly be called an American?

Love this discussion!

LBS

 

[CZ-75]

However, on Blackhawk's side is the fact that there are some things that are taboo in almost every, if not every, culture - such as incest and murder. Of course, different cultures define these differently, but within the definition, they are almost universally taboo. Hmmmmmm

Disagree on the examples.

Egyptian culture was tolerant of incestuous relationships (i.e., the Pharonic Dynasties), as were some other near-eastern cultures.

Murder has been allowed if you had high enough social status in nearly every culture.

It was killing an equal or someone above your station that was frowned upon. a lord could kill a peasant, but not vice versa.

These seem to be excellent examples that those who have the power can determine just what their rights are.

 

[CZ-75]

-not everyone believes that Jesus, or Muhammad, or any other religious figure was really the TRUE messenger of God, but if, when we die, one of them greets us on the other side, we will find out his message was TRUE.

If you were a Muslim, you'd meet them both, along with Moses, Isaac, Abraham, Job, Saul, David, Jacob, etc., and they'd ALL be true messengers of God. Mohammed would only be the last of God's 144,000 (allegedly that number is representative of infinity to Arabs) prophets sent out to show humanity the light.



I think I mentioned that religion makes the question of rights an easy one, as they become God-given at that point and out of the realm of human intervention.



Since you lay a gauntlet down, I'll pick it up and reject this statement.

-all men have unalienable rights


I think that many can, have been, and will be alienated from the unalienable rights.

That said, disabuse be of this belief.

 

[Bikeguy]

Egyptian culture was tolerant of incestuous relationships (i.e., the Pharonic Dynasties), as were some other near-eastern cultures.

As in mother/son or father/daughter? If that is so, then that example is no good.

It was killing an equal or someone above your station that was frowned upon. a lord could kill a peasant, but not vice versa.

This is my point about defining murder differently.

 

[CZ-75]

As in mother/son or father/daughter? If that is so, then that example is no good.

I think brother/sister was most common, but Rameses III married several of his daughters. King Tut was married to his sister. Cleopatra to her brother.

 

[buzz_knox]

Can you reject the main tenets of the first sentence of the primary founding document of our country
-all men are created
-all men are legally equal
-all men have unalienable rights
-these things are so obvious as to be self-evident
and still rightly be called an American?

When that document was written, many men were slaves and were considered as created by God strictly to be servants; many otherwise free men were not legally equal because they did not own property; unalienable rights didn't apply to a large portion of the population (including slaves, women, unlanded men, and children); and these things were not so obvious as to be denied to said population for years to come. Only when society decided that they were appropriate candidates for true citizenship did they gain rights.

 

[Low Budget Shooter]

Buzz,

I'll buy the first part of what you wrote, that some of the founders, or maybe most, did not believe that blacks were fully human and truly equal.

And I grant that citizenship for blacks, as well as suffrage for both blacks and women was not granted until much later. (Do remember that suffrage was never mentioned as a right, and should not be considered a right.)

But, this last part of what you wrote doesn't cut the mustard:

Only when society decided that they were appropriate candidates for true citizenship did they gain rights.

No, sir, they HAD rights all along. Only when society RECOGNIZED that they were appropriate candidates for ture citizenship did they gain PROTECTION of their rights, so that they were no longer infringed.

The founders, especially Jefferson, wrote down the truth. Each successive generation of Americans has more fully been able to shed ancient prejudices and practice the truth.

 

[buzz_knox]

Actually, that last statement of mine was shaped inappropriately, but the argument stands. Even the natural law concept relies upon an inherent belief that some rights are inherent by virtue of our existence as thinking beings. But what those rights are depends upon an agreement as to what rights are inherent.

As for suffrage not being a right, the ability to actively partake in and effect control upon the direction of society is at least as fundamental as any other right in the Constitution. The entire offical (if not practical) point of the revolution was "no taxation without representation."

You can't compare natural rights with the laws of physics as some have done. Those laws apply universally, absent human interaction. "Natural rights" only exist where people agree to them and recognize them. There is no right to self defense in nature; there is no right to freedom of expression in nature; there is no right to property in nature; there is certainly no right to life in nature. Each of those only exists where there are humans who can acknowledge their desire for these things, and their willingness to insure that they can achieve their goals, whether by force of arms or by social contract i.e. an agreement between sentient beings to recognize and protect each other's rights.

However, this does not mean that there are not concepts inherent in being a free person. A person cannot be considered free unless certain criteria are met i.e. each of the rights enumerated above are recognized and guaranteed and freedom is restricted only to the absolute minimum required for society to operate. Those are preconditions to freedom acknowledge since societies began (although usually reserved for those in power), and those are the foundations of modern free society.

Notwithstanding the above, and as stated previously, there is one natural right that is guaranteed us by virtue of our sentience: the right to think as we choose and, by extension, the right to choose to act on our behalfs. It is from that right, combined with sufficient force of will, that all other rights can be forged and guaranteed. I have the right to reject whatever society demands of me and to affect my will upon society. I may pay a price for exercising that right, but so be it. That is how freedom developed, and that is how it will be maintained. By deciding to be free and making that a reality.

 

[Blackhawk]

There is no right to self defense in nature;

Then we're arguing semantics, Buzz. Without agreeing on what a "right" is in the context of the discussion, this discussion is going nonwhere.

 

[Low Budget Shooter]

I realized a few weeks back, during the original TFL thread, while talking with my wife, that we have to define "rights" as pertaining only to how humans deal with one another, not how we deal with animals, not how animals deal with one another or with humans, not how we deal with God, or He deals with us.

Could we consider this to be part of the definition?

 

[buzz_knox]

Actually, that's a good definition. But, on reflection, I would submit that there is one right that applies universally, except in relationships with God: the right to struggle for one's own survival or, be extension, the survival of one's progeny. That could be the one true natural law, and would serve as a good foundation for all other rights.

 

[Blackhawk]

But, on reflection, I would submit that there is one right that applies universally, except in relationships with God: the right to struggle for one's own survival or, be extension, the survival of one's progeny. That could be the one true natural law, and would serve as a good foundation for all other rights.

But doesn't that contradict your other statement that:

There is no right to self defense in nature;

or am I still confused by semantics, or did you change your mind on reflection?

 

[buzz_knox]

To an extent, it does contradict my earlier position. I got to thinking about the fundamental characteristics of life, and one of those is a desire to live. One of the most essential aspects of all life is the desire (instinctual or calculated) to continue living and to flourish. In the face of this basic and inherent fact, I found that I had to acknowledge that the ability to attempt to survive (if not to actually achieve survival) was fundamental and should be considered as a right.

 

[Blackhawk]

Now we're cookin', Buzz!

I contend that rights fall into two categories:

1) Natural, e.g., survival, and
2) Consensual, e.g., relationships, agreements, laws, etc.

Do we agree on this point?

 

[faustulus]

I believe

that is your key

 

[buzz_knox]

Blackhawk, I think we can see the beginnings of a consensus.

 

[B9mmHP]

The only rights you have are the ones you perceive to be yours. Your rights may be different than the ones I perceive to be mine.

Keep your rights as you like, I will keep mine as I like. My rights come from a since of what is right and wrong, the rights and wrongs of what you do are yours to live with, as well as I have to live with what I do.

I don`t think the ongoing debate will change anyone, but have at it.:banghead:

 

[Blackhawk]

buzz_knox said:

Blackhawk, I think we can see the beginnings of a consensus.

Then I am happy!