are rights absolute?

Status
Not open for further replies.
L

labgrade

Member In Memoriam
Joined
Dec 22, 2002
Messages
1,289
Location
west of Loveland, CO
We had a good ol' time at TFL with this & it's come up as a mention here as well - that they aren't! Shocking, I tell ya.

I'll say that they are. The caveat that my opposition will use is that for every "over extension" you would do, is a violation of anothers' right.

My counter is that you never had that right to begin with - you're reading too much into what are actual rights.

Let's do it again.
 
Define your terms.

What's a "right"? Don't give me examples; give me a consistent definition.

pax

When we look at the shameless abuse made, in print and on the platform, of controversial expressions with shifting and ambiguous connotations, we may feel it in our hearts to wish that every reader and hearer had been so defensively armored by his education as to be able to cry: “Distinguo.†-- Dorothy Sayers
 
If there's going to be a serious discussion, I'd like to point out that traditionally (when discussing the Constitution and American rights and liberties), "rights" are things like equal protection and maybe suffrage, and the rest (virtually all of the BoR - can't think of a counterexample) are considered civil liberties.
 
Figures the first one would be hard. ;)

First off, I'd start with our basic & Good Ol' Bill of Rights (void where prohibited).

Let's just try that for now. Clearly delineated & no obfuscation (except where we differ on what "arms" are, etc.)

My fave is the "crowded theater" example & I'll 'splain.

Yes, you can mostly certainly yell "fire!" in a crowded theater - if there is a fire. The right is there as is the obligation to warn others of the danger. You'd be stupid not to yell fire - if there was one.

If there's no fire, I'd argue that you never had that right (to yell "fire!"). That would be placing others in unnecessary danger (through the possibility of "stampede" - the whole reason it's brought up so often) & clearly, no one has that "right."
 
Well, how about this: You're free to do as you like so long as your actions fall within the non-aggression principle.
In other words the non-aggression principle states that it is illicit to initiate or threaten invasive violence against a man or his legitimately owned property.
 
Rights are not absolute. Just look at the history of mankind.

Human Rights must constantly be defended and you can not rely on God to defend them.

America was the first country to really try to define, by law, absolute rights for the common man (at the time, slaves and women excluded of course). But that is all changing, and the "Bill of Rights" is all but a forgotten dream, trampled on by those in power and their pawns (lawyers).
 
If there's no fire, I'd argue that you never had that right (to yell "fire!"). That would be placing others in unnecessary danger (through the possibility of "stampede" - the whole reason it's brought up so often) & clearly, no one has that "right."
Click to expand...

Call me an extremist, but I would go so far as to say that you have the right to yell 'fire!' even in a crowded non-flammable theater.

However, any repurcussions of such an act are your direct responsibility. If by yelling 'fire!' you cause a panic, and someone gets trampled in the ensuing rush, you are responsible for that person's death.

Also, if the rest of the patrons get annoyed with you and decide to pummel you for being an obnoxious twit, that's your fault, too.

So I would argue that individual rights are absolute, but in following that line of thought, one must conclude that you are also absolutely responsible in how you exercise those rights.
 
"However, any repurcussions of such an act are your direct responsibility. If by yelling 'fire!' you cause a panic, and someone gets trampled in the ensuing rush, you are responsible for that person's death."

Obviously. But you don't have the right to do that though.

"if the rest of the patrons get annoyed with you and decide to pummel you for being an obnoxious twit ... "

Hey ... enough already - trying to live that one down. ;)
 
I think there are two approaches to this question - what is the ideal situation, and what is the reality?

Ideally, the rights we can all agree on - those defined in the Bill of Rights, for example - should be absolute, with no exceptions. I fully support this view. However, in reality, this has long since ceased to be the case. Our legal system has consistently ruled that the regulation of a right does not necessarily amount to the infringement of that right, unless the regulation(s) is/are so sweeping that it/they amount(s) to an effective denial of that right. Whether we like it or not, that's the reality we live with every day, and if we try to deny it and exercise our rights in defiance of regulations governing them, we will be punished by the courts for doing so.

I've been called all sorts of things for speaking like this, but I challenge anyone to tell me that I'm wrong about the reality of our situation! We can all agree, I think, that that reality is less than satisfactory: but until we convince the nation that this is the case, and elect a government that will undo the damage to our "pure" rights that more than two centuries of litigation and political interference have wrought, we're stuck, I'm afraid... :(
 
You are responsible for the consequences of exercising your rights.

You have the right to free speech - and I have the right to sue you for damages from libel.
You have the right to keep and bear arms - and I have the right to double-tap you if you point that gun at me.
 
The problem with regulation of a right is that it amounts to prior restraint.

I understand the concept: there are some actions which are so likely that social prudence suggests a gov't pre-emptively move against the misuse. Example is the NICS check preventing known criminals from obtaining firearms. Most "reasonable" people agree with such pre-emptive regulation.

Problem is such regulation is anathama to what the Founding Fathers sought: that reasonable people be free to act as they choose, and simply be held accountable for their actions.

Regulation IS infringement - just a form palatable to the majority. It is, indeed, a slippery slope (as "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" has become "the right to keep and bear arms shall be limited to obsolete arms permitted at the whim of the state").
 
A bit nit-picky, but if one yells "Fire!" in that crowded theater, and there is no fire, then it's an issue of a Right to Lie. Seems to me the founding fathers envisioned that mythical society of mature adults, who would accept responsibility for their decisions and actions. I imagined they assumed nobody would so yell, with the knowledge that retribution would occur.

Seems to me that to look at "reality", we're stuck with the ever-lessening consequences--retribution--for all manner of anti-social actions. The only serious consequences seem to accrue who are guilty of the crime of "I disagree!"--the most egregious, of course, are disagreeing with the War on Drugs and with the tax code. Ergo, the creeping loss of "Original Rights".

If a right is not absolute, it becomes a privilege. Restrictions on rights are indeed prior restraint.

Yes, you have the right to be armed, but your use of the arms must be lawful. If not, consequences and retribution.

That's philosophy, and is the ideal.

The problem is our Brave New World of 300 million, a too-high percentage of whom have no moral code, no political philosophy, no concept of the inherent rights of others.

I don't know how you reconcile the ideal with the reality.

Art
 
Rights are absolute, if you insist on using such a concept as rights. A right is a permission to act, which implies the existence of some overseeing authority.

Better to say that the sole moral restriction on human behaivor is the non-aggression principle. More clear that way.

- Chris
 
I consider this a good beginning:


"Natural law and natural rights follow from the nature of man and the world. We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

Natural law has objective, external existence. It follows from the ESS (evolutionary stable strategy) for the use of force that is natural for humans and similar animals. The ability to make moral judgments, the capacity to know good and evil, has immediate evolutionary benefits: just as the capacity to perceive three dimensionally tells me when I am standing on the edge of a cliff, so the capacity to know good and evil tells me if my companions are liable to cut my throat. It evolved in the same way, for the same straightforward and uncomplicated reasons, as our ability to throw rocks accurately."

Natural Law and Natural Rights
By James A. Donald
http://www.jim.com/rights.html
 
If rights come from people then they can't be absolute since people are not absolute.
If rights are absolute, then those rights did not come from people.
Think about that one! :neener:
 
As a "legal" concept, rights are simply those things to which you; 1) make a claim, and 2) successfully defend against the aggression of another by either or both, reason and force.

I use quotemarks on the word legal to indicate that rights are integrally woven into the concepts of both law and reason which are functions of humans only. In nature and particularly in the animal kingdom or domain of sub-human life, there exists no capacity to reason. There exists only force. We term it the law of the jungle. Survival of the fittest. Since reason does not exist here, no rights are claimed. Indeed, neither can they be claimed. It is a Hobbesean vision of life. A war of all against all with each living being of every species hard at work towards achieving the same goal, that of survival as an individual in order to propagate the species. There is also among some species the socialization among like kind, rearing and training of the young, defense, protection and caring for the young, the ability function as a herd or flock and so on. Among many species also, these things do not exist.

We humans are cursed in that we also are subject to this brutish existence in all of it's diversity. Yet, at the same time we also have the higher faculty of reasoning. It is from this higher ability that we are able to extrapolate from the natural characteristics of a brutish existence choices of will which provide both benefits and consequences and discern the finer details of those choices. We are not bound to genetically controlled behaviour patterns. We are very adept at the concept of cause and effect and have elevated it to the broad categories of science and engineering. By reasoning we are able to work our way through the challenge at hand. We can deal at length with abstract reasoning such as mathematics and art. This and so much more do we have on top of what has already been given by nature in our senses and instincts.

In all of this we have found that brutish force does NOT tend to extend our lives or insure propagation of the species. Neither do we have need to live as opportunists seeking our next meal from whatever other species happens to wander by. Nor are we as squirrels or vermin who are only able to eat now and hoard food for the future. We can plan and take appropriate action to insure our future. We can plant and grow our owns sustenance. We can domesticate and continually breed our own meats. We can design and build many forms of shelter. We can engage in trade and commerce with others of our species. In all of this we have found no need to employ force against others of our kind. Yet, we find that we do need some way to define the limits or extent of inter-relations and interactions with others of our species as we are capable of reasoning and acting according to the products of that reasoning. It is here where discover morals, laws and rights. Our challenge then is to define and discern between these as they each bears a significant and distinct weight in our lives.

Morals are highly individual. They can be understood as personal standards of behaviour arrived at by a blend of both reason and belief that are shown or taught to us from our birth. There origin is from the family and have been passed on throughout all generations with modifications. This is a highly complex mixing that has gone on for generations which leaves no room for a "one size fits all" approach.

Rights are what are OBJECTIVELY common to ALL people. As silly as this might sound because it is so absolutely basic, a person is a living, breathing life. If it exists, it has a right to it's life. If nothing else other than by the fact that it is a life. It has the right to exist freely and independently of all external control and to take those actions necessary to secure it's survival. As each human meets this criteria this right becomes unique in that it stands alone, unassailable in all cultures as the right to life. It is from this right that all others must follow because it is in the exercise of this right that we discover our other rights and the rights of others. In this light then our rights become limits on the extent of our actions in relation to others. This is where we define liberty. It is also where we dicover and define law. We will save those for another thread.

As to the original topic of this thread, we will soon see that rights are absolute in that they are limits within themselves and therefore need no external regulation. The difficulty comes in exercising those rights to their natural boundary. It is this natural boundary that will define both transgression (crossing the boundary) and aggression ( the force employed to cross the boundary).

I look forward to this thread continuing.

Chipper
 
Rights are absolute. Whether you decide to exercise it or not, is not. If you do decide to exercise your right, you might have some consequences. The “absoluteness†of a right does not absolve a person of consequences. Sometimes those consequences are good sometimes they are not.


Seems to me that to look at "reality", we're stuck with the ever-lessening consequences--retribution--for all manner of anti-social actions.
Click to expand...
Preach it brother! ;)
 
labgrade: the problem with so simple a statement of the question is that, as others have pointed out, each term needs to be defined. Any time I hear a word like "absolute," my attention shifts from the realm of here-and-now and into the realm of perfect forms. bad_dad_brad's objection seems to be that because "absolute" is not here-and-now, it has no existence at all. I disagree, but am reminded of the need to be as clear as possible about what it is we're talking about.

Humans are entirely capable of coming up with the concept of rights because we have intellectual access to the realm of perfect forms. Since rights exist as perfect forms, we need now only to define them. For a right to be a right (that is, to carry moral force against incursion) it has to apply absolutely within the area in which it applies at all. Therefore, "absolute" is part of the definition of "right." There is no separating them.

IMO, only one right exists: the (by definition: absolute) right of self-sovereignty. It has lots of corollaries, among which are those listed in the Bill of Rights.

Back in the realm of here-and-now, history shows how easy (and usual) it is for unethical people to use force to deny other people their rights. This does not render those rights unreal. It's perfectly possible to do wrong (and go on doing wrong for centuries, building up whole systems of cosmology to suit). The argument between those who believe in rights and those who believe differently is probably unreconcilable: the two systems are built on different intuited first principles.
 
Wrong question?

Several of the definitions of "absolute" are:

1. free from imperfection
2. having no restriction, exception, or qualification
3. POSITIVE, UNQUESTIONABLE
4. being self-sufficient and free of external references or relationships

Also, let me make a distinction between "positive" rights and "negative" rights. A negative right requires no action on the part of anyone else to "satisfy", e.g. the right to not be attacked, to not have your stuff stolen, the right to your body. A positive right would require some positive action on someone else's part to satisfy, e.g. a "right to food", "right to housing", "right to a TV", etc.

Going back to definitions of "absolute", no system of "absolute rights" can exist if it implies some sort of hierarchy of rights, e.g. my right to a free lunch trumps your right to your $100,001st dollar of income, because that implies that the rights have "restrictions, execptions, or qualifications" and they are not "self-sufficient and free of external references or relationships."

Furthermore, no "positive" rights can exist in an "absolute" sense for the same reason (see previous example).

If rights are thought of as axioms in a logical system, from which the morality of any particular action can be determined, then it is possible to define a rights-set that is "perfect" in the sense that it is non contradictory and implies no moral conflicts (dilemmas) within the system, e.g. there will never be a question if it is right or wrong to steal food to survive. Proof that it is possible is simple: I just need to give the example of this system: A person owns his body and the fruits of his labor. Those two rights provide a system in which there are no contradictions as described.

-z
 
When it comes to The Bill of Rights, it ought and should be aboslute, but from the second it was signed, the human factor of ignorance, stupidity, greed for power and control, along with other things to numerous to mention came into play and has progressively gotten worse by those that would have it their way.

While browsing trough The Bill of Rights, I wonder if any of it has not been compromised or outright destroyed by the numerous local, state and Federal Governments.

The only Aboslute Rights you have are the ones you make for yourself.:(
 
I personally have a problem with the "fire" in the theater example. If I yell fire, you are under no obligation to believe me, in fact you shouldn't until you can make a determination for yourself. I yell fire, you should look around, Do you see smoke? If you are trampled then it is the problem of the one doing the trampling, just like if I shoot you it is my problem not the man who sold me the gun, or the TV show I was watching the night before.
Some people believe in rights and some do not, I believe in God, some do not, I have no proof that God exists, so I go on faith. Same thing with rights. I cannot prove they exist, but I believe it to be so and will fight for them. I also believe rights should be unrestrained. What those rights are is the problem.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top