are rights absolute?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Zak,

On a more serious note. That very thing is the reason I was thinking of Plantinga when I read your post. Plantinga claims that deism can be a properly basic starting point from which to reason, and his arguments for this appear sound to my untrained eye. Not only so, but his writing is lively enough to hold the interest -- if you don't mind having to look up a new word every page or so. :)

pax

In any non-trivial axiomatic system, there are true theorems which cannot be proven. -- Kurt Gödel
 
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).
Click to expand...
That's not at all the definition I offered. Re-read my post. I give several definitions for "right" and "absolute." I conclude that rights, whatever their origin, cannot be absolute because they are not unconditional, and are subject to restrictions and/or exceptions. Just because a certain right might be "rooted in the very nature of human beings" does not mandate that it constitutes an "absolute" right; such rights are still subject to certain restrictions or exceptions. As I posted previously, the most basic right that in your words is "rooted in the very nature of human beings" is the right to life, and even that right is subject to exceptions (see my above post).
 
Zak,

My comments were not directed toward you. If you inferred such, then I'll offer my apologies as that was not my intent. I do not think disparagingly of either science or scientists. I do question the motives of those who too easily forget that theories are not yet proven fact just as much as I question believers who accept the traditions and doctrines of men over the commandments of God.

It has been my experience in similar discussions that when religion pops up then, then atheists and agnostics show up then scientists. The difference between believers and non-believers is self-evident. The difference between believers and scientists is generally a lack of understanding. The problem becomes one of these lesser differences clouding the topic at hand.

Threads on this topic are of utmost importance. Quite honestly this entire nation is predicated on the concept of natural rights. It is quite clear that the current scheme of government does not support this premise. This necessarily indicates, if history is any guide, that the scheme of government will change. If we are to have any say what the new scheme will be, and wish to make the transition smoother than it would normally be, it is best that we prepare now by engaging in such discussions. Without a solid foundation of understanding our rights we will not be able to effectively design a new scheme of government which is better suited to preserving those rights.

Chipper
 
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? Absurd.
Click to expand...

Nualle, for the pagans out here we could say from the Gods, and dosen't the rede cover much of the same concepts as the golden rule?
 
Beer,

You make a good point. Have to think about this whole area some more.

I'm going offline for a week or so -- see you all when I get back.

pax
 
Are rights absolute?

Of course not.

For a 'right' to be absolute, the exercise of that right must be without restriction.

Note that 'restriction' doesn't read 'governmental restriction'.

Every right has at least, at least, one restriction on it: That right may not be exercised to the degree that it impinges on someone elses rights.

In simpler, more colourful language: Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.

That is a restriction, ergo, no right is absolute.

You have the right to worship the deity of your choice, in the manner of your choice ... but not in my living room, and don't even think of human sacrifice, no matter what your holy scribblings demand.

You have the right to peaceably assemble ... you do it on my lawn, and I'll have you run off.

So on and so forth.

LawDog
 
LawDog -

You have just illustrated why a few of the most commonly assumed rights are false, and why I'm really becoming disillusioned with the concept of 'rights' in general.

You do not have the right to worship as you please, if you please to do it on LawDog's front lawn.

You don't have the right to free speech, if you are in my apartment.

You don't even have the right to property, if you consider other human beings to be property.

Forget rights.

Instead, think of it this way. You can do anything you like, so long as you act in accordence with the non-aggression principle.

- Chris
 
Instead, think of it this way. You can do anything you like, so long as you act in accordence with the non-aggression principle.
Click to expand...
Not always. Why not just stick with the recognition that you can do anything you like, so long as you act in accordance with the law. Our system of government operates based on the Rule of Law, not the rule of the non-aggression principle. The Rule of Law also recognizes "rights" -- while not absolute -- that cannot be infringed by the government. The recent posts discuss the recognition of rights by individuals, which is entirely nebulous.
 
Two pages & we're just now starting to get down to the basics.

Good deal.

"In simpler, more colourful language: Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."

Exactly, but I never had the right to "punch" your nose in the first place. That's my own definition of my rights limitation.

Mine are still absolute.
 
Mine are still absolute.
Click to expand...
You can choose to believe that, but if you exercise your rights "absolutely" -- that is, without recognizing that they are subject to certain exceptions and restrictions -- you will absolutely end up either locked up or owing someone a lot of money.
 
Freedspeak: (I see you're a new poster... welcome!)
the rede = the nonaggression principle
and, IMO, they are both refinements of:
the golden rule = Kant's categorical imperative
... so yes, they cover the pretty much the same ground.

Having this sort of statement (the rede/NAP; the golden rule/categorical imperative is too broad to suit) -- a human principle that is so basic that humans who don't assent to it can be considered to be socially defective (antisocial) is all that's required.

Having this human basis, any statement of "from the Gods," just like "from God," is extraneous. Not merely extraneous... any specification past "human" tends to exclude rather than include. Some are atheists. Some are animists whose spiritual landscapes are populated with small characters, none as grand as gods. If rights come from gods, do they miss out?

Chris may be correct that "rights" as a concept is too vague to sustain argument. I still think it's a concept worth working with.

Perhaps the refined statement will help: the rights of innocents are absolute. That is: those who have harmed none cannot rightly be harmed. Thoughts?
 
"You can choose to believe that, but if you exercise your rights "absolutely" -- that is, without recognizing that they are subject to certain exceptions and restrictions -- you will absolutely end up either locked up or owing someone a lot of money."

Beer, not at all, but I agree.

My rights are absolute. I certainly don't, & never did have the "right" to infringe upon anothers' anything. That is the restrictions I think you mention. Within that limit though, I have the right to do anything = absolute.

I'm not being an idiot about this, BTW. ;)

If this thought process is "anarchy," so be it. I'd disagree far as the standard definition goes, but you're welcome to what you think that might be.

I'd think that the standard definition is in need of some refinement.
 
Every right has at least, at least, one restriction on it: That right may not be exercised to the degree that it impinges on someone elses rights.
Click to expand...

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

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.
Click to expand...

Same thing reworded. So given no impingement on the rights of others, the logical conclusion is that the right becomes absolute.

Perhaps the refined statement will help: the rights of innocents are absolute. That is: those who have harmed none cannot rightly be harmed. Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Exactly. or;

My rights are absolute. I certainly don't, & never did have the "right" to infringe upon anothers' anything. That is the restrictions I think you mention. Within that limit though, I have the right to do anything = absolute
Click to expand...

or;


Instead, think of it this way. You can do anything you like, so long as you act in accordence with the non-aggression principle.
Click to expand...

also read as #2 of the common law.

Sounds like were all on the same page now.:)
 
nualle

Perhaps the refined statement will help: the rights of innocents are absolute. That is: those who have harmed none cannot rightly be harmed. Thoughts?
Click to expand...

I used "Gods" as a broad brush, from the 'fey' to the 'scientific' beliefs. As to the above it is a good concept and principle to live by, the problem is not all are willing to be accountable/responsible for their actions.

I have the Libertarian view of acountability/ responsability and believe that if we engage in aggressive actions (ie: forcible), then we deserve any response we get from those we try to force. Logical persuassion and agreed upon cooperation works much better with less waste of effort and resources,

Edward429451

You said it most succinctly! Thanks.
 
"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. ;)
Click to expand...

:confused: Huh?
*Justin goes off to click on the 'Search' function...*
*tappitty tappitty tappitty, "Enhance," tappitty tappitty tappitty, "Enhance"*

Results pop up.
:eek:
Does anyone have a shoehorn? I seem to have inadvertently placed my keyboard in my mouth...


As to the rights debate, I think that most of us seem to agree that rights are absolute, and that if you infringe on the rights of others that yours then become forfeit. (Ayn Rand actually had a really swell essay on this very topic in her book 'The Virtue of Selfishness.')

As for arguing where rights come from, I don't think it much matters. There are plenty of philosophical paths/outlooks that really come to the same conclusion, regardless of whether you are incredibly devout, or the most outspoken atheist.

As for rights vs. the non-aggression principle, I think that's really a false dichotomy. Once you acknowledge the NAP as legitimate, then it's very easy to derive all true human rights from it. In fact, the NAP can be used as a sort of litmus test of rights. If what you propose is a 'right' doesn't pass the NAP, then it most assuredly is not a true right. (For instance, the 'right' to a job, home, television, etc.)
 
Justin,

An excellent summation! Whatever religious or philosophical pathway gets you to the NAP is your business as an individual. It is the NAP that is the point from which humans can live and work in society.

Now that we have reached this point in the discussion, let's move on to defining those rights.

Chipper
 
Perhaps you missed [or want to ignore] pax's response. It's still there... :cool:
Click to expand...
Apparently noone recognizes a rhetorical question anymore.

The (I had hoped) obvious answer to the questions I asked (and, the first time, answered myself with "Absurd!") is "No".

But neither does pax's response satisfy me.
Your belief about a thing's origins do not affect the existence of that thing.
Click to expand...
True as far as it goes, but rights as a concept is not equivalent to a genetic heritage like eye color. If you don't believe you have a right, you can't act upon it, even if it really exists.

Let me try to lay this out carefully because there are two things going on here:

Hypothetical constuct:
A) I believe rights exist objectively -- that is, I believe they exist whether anyone believed in them or not.
B) I back up my belief by saying they are a gift from another thing I believe exists objectively, a God.
C) You do not believe in gods and you are not sure about rights.
D) You must reject my support for rights because you don't believe in gods.
E) In lack of any better support, you reject "rights" as a concept.

An atheist or animist might have chosen differently from E. She might have chosen access to "rights" by means of a human origin. But maybe that doesn't occur to her. She doesn't like it, but she can't justify "rights," therefore she rejects them. In so doing, she loses recourse to them. They are as unreal to her now as warp drive—conceivable, but not workable.

But there's a subtler thing going on from B forward... the idea of "objective existence" of any given theological idea. To say that rights predicated on a theology exist whether anyone believes in them (and their accompanying theology) or not is tantamount to saying that that theology is objectively realer than any other. People are free to believe whatever they want, but only this one system is really, really true. The inevitable corollary that all believers in other systems are unfortunately deluded. It's insulting in a well-meaning, unintentional sort of way. Since no theology is any more provable than any other, it terminally begs the question, keeping rights in a limbo of uncertainty.

Personally, I'm willing to entertain the possibility of objective reality of rights predicated on the equality of all humans. Those rights can exist whether people believe in them or not. We know objectively and can demonstrate that humans exist. The only belief anyone needs to have to gain access to rights is one regarding human nature and interrelations (equality). No theology required. People can subsequently have any theological beliefs they want (including none) without endangering their (or anyone else's) access to rights.
 
I'd like to think that rights are absolute because they are are a condition of existence. No existence, no rights making rights existencial. Existence is absolute and those conditions resulting from and directly anchored to existence are by association absolute. Anything attached to existence by the machinations of man are therefore conditional and owing to the doctrine from whence they came.

Some would argue that all things are conditional upon existence and they would be right, but some things are incidental and some things are there when you come into existance. You are born on equal footing with all others and at that moment are no greater or lesser than any other being. It's only when parents, society and civilization begin making determinations for you does that change.

I know I'm rambling here, am I making any sense at all? Help me out here folks. I guess what I'm trying to say is that rights exist beyond cognitive rationalization for the methods to proscribe them... kinda, maybe.
 
Some of y'all's loftiness makes my head hurt. ;)

Nonetheless, the discussion is welcomed. From such, I further define my own - I guess.

Thanks for yakin' it out.
 
So, from everything stated already it could be surmised that an individual, alone, isolated from other humans has absolute rights. Then that condition of isolation begs the question-what use are rights? It also begs the question-what need of the NAP? It is only in the company, presence, society of other humans that there:
1) exists a need for rights:
2) that those rights are limited due the rights of other people with whom you are in society:
3) exists a need for the NAP:

The NAP is then the guiding principle, the standard, the litmus test from which we define the claims of rights that are objectively and equally common to all people within a society.

Chipper
 
Chipper, beg to diff. The presence of other humans is in no way shape or form necessary for rights to exist, other than parents of course.

Let's take the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. How is another person required for any of these? Your right to life exists whether anything is there to formally acknowledge it at all. By your standard, our pal Mowgli has no right to life. Likewise, he would have no right to freedom, or to pursue his own dreams, whether they be gorging on bananas or doing the jitterbug with Baloo. It's what I was trying to get at in my earlier post. Certain rights are there from the moment you come into existence and are universal throughout the living universe. Every animal has the right to defend itself to protect it's life, from another animal, from the cold, from volcanic eruptions, what have you.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top