are rights absolute?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Which rights are we talking about?

I think I know the answer (life, liberty, property, and their permutations such as self-defense), but with so many people preaching about so many false rights (right to a job, right to education, etc.) that are actually demands for entitlements, it's important to define them.

Let's keep this thread going -- it's important for us to discuss this topic so we can keep America on track.
 
Well, so far we seem to have several definitions and a question concerning what an "absolute person" is. Working out a definiton seems to be more like herding cats with an absolute person.

In all fairness to MitchSchaft, I will assume that the use of the word "absolute" was an attempt to indicate that people are not absolute as in God being absolute, carrying the sense of permanent, immovable, unchangable, solid, stedfast and similar characteristics. In other words, people and their ideas neither form or present a solid or stedfast foundation or basis for rights.

Chipper
 
I think Mitch and Chipper are on the right track with this one.

God is the only absolute. Life came from God so rights come from God. Man can not abrogate what god has given, unless you let them. The original laws (10 commandments) were summarized in the 'common law' laws of which there are two.

1. Keep all contracts you enter into voluntarily.
2. Do not infringe on the rights of others. (this is sweeping.)

If you keep these two laws there is none other. You cannot claim 1st amendment rights to yell fire in a theater because its reasonable to assume that people will unnecessarily panic and possibly be hurt. That would be infringment of others, duh.

If you adhere to Gods principles and truly walk with God, there is no law, only rights. Its only when we walk away from God that things get confusing and need sorted out. Seek ye first the kingdom of God and all these things will be added unto you.

JMHO.
 
Well either you beleive in God or you dont. If you dont, thats your business. I'm not here tryin to convert anyone. Just answering another mans question. In case you missed it I put in

JMHO

If I touched a nerve with you, there probably an absurd reason why that only you would know.:neener:

They call it conviction where I come from.
 
I never looked at the BOR as rights, but as responsibilities to be upheld not only for myself, but for all Americans, wherever, whenever, however it takes.
 
Edward, why are you yelling? I got your "JMHO" the first time. I was just pointing out the inconsistency in your argument. (Given your reaction, I am forced to reassess your H claim.)

Your argument for the validity of human rights—and they have to be absolute to be rigorously valid—is based on a theology that is not shared by most humans. Either: A) your argument is insufficient to the task of explaining the origin of the rights held by all humans or B) rights are exclusive to those who share that one theology. I find B absurd. If you find my reasoning suspect, I wish you'd point out how rather than :neener: ing at me.

I believe C) human rights flow inevitably from the premise of human equality. No theology required.
 
I normally avoid religious discussions on TFL/THR, but...

nualle has a good point.

If you are going to base your argument "for" rights on the existence of a certain god, then you need to have proven that that basis is correct. In other words, your argument for rights would only be as strong as your argument for a certain god, theology, or religion.

People have been arguing for or against various religions, including the existence of the Christian God, for a long time. No such proposition of existence has yet passed the rigors of the scientific method, which is the most robust epistemology there is.

-z
 
Boy howdy people sure freak out when you mention God. I cant 'prove' the existance of God any more than anyone can 'prove' the existance of rights in any form. Its all conjecture. We could argue for years and not prove anything conclusivly. So we give our opinions. Thats my opinion and beliefs. Why'm I absurd cause I mentioned God without providing proof? That would make us all absurd, eh? No one has proof of anything.

But I digress,

Lets take God out of the equation for the sake of discussion. You're all fond of the written law. The BOR and Constitution was based on the premise of the common law which as noted comes out as two laws;

Keep all contracts entered into voluntarily.
Do not infringe on the rights of others.

If one holds to these two laws, then one would have the right to do any darn thing he/she so pleases so long as they dont cross the line and violate either of these two laws. Period, in my mind. Anyone who would tell you no to this is either (a) A JBT trying to violate YOUR rights or (b) a criminal trying to violate YOUR rights. (Same thing.) If the JBT or Criminal held themselves to the same two laws, they would not try to violate your rights. Any argument against this (theory) could be shown to be a violation of one of the two laws by one or the other of the interested parties.

Bring it on!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
People have been arguing for or against various religions, including the existence of the Christian God, for a long time. No such proposition of existence has yet passed the rigors of the scientific method, which is the most robust epistemology there is.
Click to expand...

(Sorry, had to address this) Uhh, Who's epistemology has proven that the scientists are definitivly correct, hmmm? Or have you simply chosen to have faith in and believe in the scientific findings?
 
Regarding the rights enumerated in the US Bill of Rights, some are absolute and others are not. Let's look at some examples:

The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law" doing various things. There are no qualifications--it does not say, "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech except to prohibit the shouting if 'fire' in crowded theaters. The First Amendment is absolute.

The Second Amendment states that "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Again, there's no qualification. It does not say "...shall not be infringed except when the government has a compelling interest in doing so." The Second Amendment is also absolute.

But now we come to the (often overlooked) Third Amendment. This one states that "No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law." This time there is qualification. It gives to cases in which soldiers might be quartered in a house--in time of peace with the owner's consent, or in time of war in accordance with the law. It does not say "No soldier shall be quartered in any house," so the Third Amendment is not absolute.

And the Fourth Amendment is also not absolute. It does not say "The right of the people to be secure...shall not be infringed." Rather, it spells out clearly the circumstances in which that right may be infringed--a warrant issued upon probable cause, etc.

Of course this is all purely theoretical. In practice, the US government routinely ignores the entire Bill of Rights with the exception of the Third Amendment--and would doubtless ignore that one too if quartering soldiers in houses was still done.
 
Another potentially good thread suffering from lack of definitions.

We need to define the word "rights" and all try to use the same definition, or we will never get anywhere useful here. No fun talking past each other, is it?

My definition? I'm of the opinion that most people here are using the word "rights" as an appeal to a moral code of some sort.

So when I hear someone say "I have a right to ________," I think they mean that they believe it is morally wrong for someone else to take away their ability to _____________.

Is that the sense you are using the word? Or does it mean something else?

pax

How many a dispute could have been deflated into a single paragraph if the disputants had dared to define their terms? -- Aristotle
 
Keep all contracts entered into voluntarily.
Do not infringe on the rights of others.

If one holds to these two laws, then one would have the right to do any darn thing he/she so pleases so long as they dont cross the line and violate either of these two laws. Period, in my mind. Anyone who would tell you no to this is either (a) A JBT trying to violate YOUR rights or (b) a criminal trying to violate YOUR rights.
Click to expand...
First of all, I pretty much agree, except that this explanation leaves a big hole: Without providing a definition of "rights", it allows such disagreements as "I have the right to welfare! No, that's taking my stuff!"

No two legitimate rights can conflict. I.e. "positive" rights cannot exist.

People have been arguing for or against various religions, including the existence of the Christian God, for a long time. No such proposition of existence has yet passed the rigors of the scientific method, which is the most robust epistemology there is.
Click to expand...
Uhh, Who's epistemology has proven that the scientists are definitivly correct, hmmm? Or have you simply chosen to have faith in and believe in the scientific findings?
Click to expand...

Read carefully. I said, "the scientific method is the most robust epistemology". I didn't say that scientists make no mistakes.

Faith? Not at all. What makes the scientific method epistemology better than all others is that claims made in its framework have: precise meaning; are based solely on reality; and are objectively verifiable.

There's no "well, it's my opinion that X" or "I believe Y". A well-formed (ie, precisely defined) theory can be tested to see if it is in fact true or not, in reality.

-z
 
As a constitutional textualist, I follow the pattern of answering a question by first defining its terms. For this thread we must clearly define the terms absolute and right (American Heritage Dictionary):
"Absolute":
1. Perfect in quality or nature; complete.
2. Not mixed; pure.
3a. Not limited by restrictions or exceptions; unconditional: absolute trust. b. Unqualified in extent or degree

"Right":
6a. Something that is due to a person or governmental body by law, tradition, or nature.
7. A just or legal claim or title.

"Human Rights":
The basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled, often held to include the right to life and liberty, freedom of thought and expression, and equality before the law.

I think the discussion should use these basic definitions as a starting point. If I were an editor of the Dictionary, I would personally add to "Human Rights" the right to own private property; the Supreme Court, Constitution, Declaration of Independence would all back me up on that inclusion.
 
Applying the above definitions, it is clear that none of the rights discussed so far are "absolute" or "not limited by restrictions or exceptions; unconditional." The closest right we have to an absolute right would be the right to life, but even that right is subject to restrictions. A person can be deprived of his right to life if given due process and sentenced to the death penalty for murder. The Supreme Court has also ruled, in Roe v. Wade, that a fetus does not have the right to life. Whether the fetus is defined as a "person" for constitutional purposes is another matter, but there is no denying it is a living being. It is certainly justified to deny the right to life of someone who is trying to take your right to life (self defense). There are many cases when rights such as this overlap and a restriction must be applied in order for the Rule of Law to function and prevent anarchy. The only thing worse than the courts interpreting the extent of our rights would be an anarchy of rights where everyone interprets what rights they possess by themselves for themselves.

The rest of the rights discussed so far (whether they are believed to be derived from nature, God, the Constitution, or other source) are also all subject to some types of "restrictions" or "exceptions." Some, imo, are reasonable restrictions but most are not. For example, there are over 20 exceptions to the so called "warrant requirement" of the 4th Amendment.

Thus, applying any reasonable definition of "absolute" leads to the inescapable conclusion that all rights can in some legitimate way be limited by reasonable restrictions or exceptions.
 
Last edited:
Beer,

6a. Something that is due to a person or governmental body by law, tradition, or nature.
Click to expand...
I venture to suggest that this definition is inadequate, not least because the question of whether rights originate in law, tradition, or nature is precisely what is at issue.

If rights come from law, then they justly may be removed by law. IOW, you could have a right to liberty unless there were a law which enslaved you because of the color of your skin.

If rights come from tradition, then they justly may be removed by new traditions. IOW, you could have a right to sleep with another consenting adult, until the social pendulum swings back toward more prohibitive rules.

If rights come from nature, then they may not justly be removed unless human nature itself undergoes a fundamental and radical change.

Also, is a right really something that is owed to you by others? Do others have to give a right to you, in order for you to have it?

Corollary, does the gov't have to recognize your right to defend yourself in order for you to have that right? Or do you have that right, whether gov't or others recognize it or not?

pax

Words are, of course, the most powerful drug used by mankind. -- Rudyard Kipling
 
Hmmm. I fell kinda like I may have hijacked this thread down a different road than intended, so I tell ya what. I'll make a couple points to clarify my position, then bow out of the thread and let you all continue. OK?


So when I hear someone say "I have a right to ________," I think they mean that they believe it is morally wrong for someone else to take away their ability to _____________.
Click to expand...
Is that the sense you are using the word? Or does it mean something else?
Click to expand...

Yes, thats the sense that I was using the word. (I'm not touching the argument of the definition of 'morals' which is to do whats expected of you...The gubmint expects me to obey false laws, yet I expected them to not delve into tyranny or abuses...!)

First of all, I pretty much agree, except that this explanation leaves a big hole: Without providing a definition of "rights", it allows such disagreements as "I have the right to welfare! No, that's taking my stuff!"
Click to expand...

Hmmm. I think the welfare system was a scam to begin with to foster dependency on the gubmint. If a person does not want to work, then they should not eat, plain & simple. Elderly? Infirm? Thats what family is for. Who wouldnt help their family. Widows? No family, unable to work? Whats their address? I'll go help them. I'll dump so much food & help on em they'll have their proof that God does exist. No one will miss any meals when welfare gets abolished.



No two legitimate rights can conflict. I.e. "positive" rights cannot exist.
Click to expand...

I think I agree with this. Give me an example of it happening and I'll try to spot the apparent conflict to show that the rights did not conflict but were worded to make it seem like they conflict. (I have a right to welfare is no good because it infringes on the others rights to the fruit of their labor under duress rather than goodwill of the heart.)



What makes the scientific method epistemology better than all others is that claims made in its framework have: precise meaning; are based solely on reality; and are objectively verifiable.
Click to expand...

There's no "well, it's my opinion that X" or "I believe Y". A well-formed (ie, precisely defined) theory can be tested to see if it is in fact true or not, in reality.
Click to expand...

Well this is a whole nother thread. Granite for instance. Have you any clue how much dispute is ongoing on the origin of granite? Some theories approaach precise meaning, but none are objectivly verifiable. How about the darwin theory of evolution that they teach as fact but are in fact only (un) educated guesses. What part of Darwins 'well formed precisely defined theory' can be tested to see if it is in fact, a reality?

What part of the theory of liberty can be safely tested?:D
 
I venture to suggest that this definition is inadequate, not least because the question of whether rights originate in law, tradition, or nature is precisely what is at issue.
Click to expand...
The definition indicates that "rights" can be derived from any of the three sources. What is at issue in this thread is not the origin of rights, but whether "rights" are absolute.

Also, is a right really something that is owed to you by others? Do others have to give a right to you, in order for you to have it?
Click to expand...
If it is a "legal right" then yes, it is owed to you by others. You possess the "right" merely because the law states that you possess it. For example, the right to vote. Others must give you the right to vote and may not obstruct that positive right.

Corollary, does the gov't have to recognize your right to defend yourself in order for you to have that right? Or do you have that right, whether gov't or others recognize it or not?
Click to expand...
The government must recognize your right to self defense if you wish to rely on that right in court to excuse the killing of an attacker. The right of self defense has been a long recognized part of our common law and now codified by most states.

It is of course true that in a general sense people have the "right" to do whatever they want, even if it violates a law passed by the government. A more helpful analysis, however, is whether people have a "legal right" to do what they want. This is so because we live under the Rule of Law, and without it we would live under the Rule of Anarchy.
 
Corollary, does the gov't have to recognize your right to defend yourself in order for you to have that right? Or do you have that right, whether gov't or others recognize it or not?
Click to expand...

Good question! My (theory) is that rights are like money in the bank that you may not know you have until you make a withdraw. IOW, first you have to perceive that you have the right to______, then once you withdraw it and activate it through the spoken word and pure intent, its an absolute right. Absolute meaning real but not necessarily that it wont be denied or trampled on.

Edited to add: I stand on my faith in the Lord. Everything past the 10 Commandments is tripe filler designed to confuse.
 
Last edited:
Let me state unequivocally for the record that I 100% believe that all rights come from God, the Father of my Lord, Jesus Christ.
I do not force this belief of mine on anyone. The acceptance or rejection of God must be each individual's decision. I prefer to think that everyone has the right to go to hell if he so chooses.

Now, to the topic at hand. The framers of the constitution generally (not to a man) believed that the origin and basis of rights was nature. The defining of rights is an act and product of reason. There is no "scientific method" other than perhaps observations of interactions between humans that would even indicate the existence of rights. You can not put a right under a literal microscope. There is no type of litmus test or any other type of test to prove the existence of rights. Rights are a concept. Rights are abstract. We utilize rights rights only because by consensus we have acknowledged their existence and by reason we have defined them and continue to re-define them.

It is by the use of reason that this concept of rights has categorized in our knowledge as belonging to that body of thought that deals with laws and morals as these are the things that work to govern the interactions of humans. This is part of what I attempted to communicate in my first post on this thread. Apparently I missed the mark. Nevertheless, I will stick to my definition of rights which is:
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.
Click to expand...

In our country, T. Jefferson and the other signatories to the DoI reached the consensus we had a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This last was originally property but disagreements arose and was changed to happiness which is poor judgment in my NSHO. Nevertheless, it remains that these comprise the basis of our rights. Perhaps these were people were on the right track except for that happiness gag. It is from life that all other rights would emanate. Without life, what is the point of rights? It is only in life that any notion of individual sovereignty would be relevant. Without liberty(the will and ability to act without restraint of coercion to provide what is both needed and wanted by the indiviual)what would life be but mere existence? Liberty then naturally takes us to the pursuit of property and property is what human interaction is based. The ability to gain, hold and maintain, improve or destroy and dispose of property whether our body, the works of our minds, the works of human hands or parcels of earth is what humans spend the greatest portion of their lives expending their time, energies and resources on. Whether these activities are conducted as an individual, a family, a clan, a tribe, a community or any fabricated organizations, it must be realized that it all starts with the individual. From here, the non-aggression principle becomes a guide in defining rights in our interactions but the rights of the individual do remain superior.

In matters of community and governments it must also be remembered that our rights as being natural are antecedent to any and all laws or governments. Though this poses many challenges to how we can organize these institutions of society, it is clear that no society will long endure if due regard is not given the rights of individuals.

Chipper
 
Chipper,

My comments about epistemology and the scientific method were not meant to be an argument for any particular stance about rights (besides the general inference that any such stance should use it!), but to make the point that basing an argument one wants to be water-tight on a premise that is itself based on a poor espitemology isn't going to be very successful, since that premise can easily be attacked or refuted because of its weak basis.

Regards
Zak
 
This works fine for most monotheists. It works not at all for everyone else in the world. Do only those certain monotheists have rights, then?
Click to expand...
Nualle,

You know better than that. Your belief about a thing's origins do not affect the existence of that thing.

If you do not know, or if you choose to reject, the parent who gave you the gene for your pretty brown eyes, would your eyes then cease to exist?

Zak's argument is more cogent, and harder to answer. Zak, I'd recommend reading Plantinga's excellent Warrant books for some beautifully close-reasoned discussion of epistemology. His God and Other Minds is likewise excellent.

pax

Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley
 
The definition indicates that "rights" can be derived from any of the three sources. What is at issue in this thread is not the origin of rights, but whether "rights" are absolute.
Click to expand...
Beer,

No, I meant -- by the definition you offered, rights are both absolute (rooted in the very nature of human beings), and not absolute (a matter of legal or societal whim).

But, logically, rights cannot be both absolute and non-absolute. (A cannot be both B and not-B.) This is true unless one is willing to equivocate on basic meanings -- in which case the argument presented has no validity anyway.

Therefore, the offered definition is inadequate for the purpose under discussion.

It is also misleading, for the reasons given above. That definition requires each of us to beg the question by choosing whichever aspect of the definition best suits our own side of the argument ... which puts us right back in the position of having a non-defined term as the basis for our reasoning.

pax

No man means all he says, and yet very few say all they mean, for words are slippery and thought is viscous. -- Henry B. Adams
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top