NOTE: What follows should be read from start to finish as it should be considered as a whole and not in it’s individual parts. If you are not willing to read the whole thing I would ask that you just skip this thread. Thanks
The mandatory service thread got me to thinking about rights. It became apparent that the roots of the major disagreements stemmed from the different views people hold of what constitutes a right. That made me wonder about:
THE NATURE OF RIGHTS
1) What is a right?
2) Where does a right derive from?
3) Are all/some/no rights absolute?
4) Who or what controls the exercise of rights?
I am sure that other questions regarding rights can/should be asked. Feel free to bring them up.
To get the ball rolling:
What is a right? Little Help Please. I don’t have a clue. I can think of a great many examples of what folks consider a right but coming up with a general definition seems to be something difficult to define.
Where do rights derive from? I believe many would answer that they derive from nature, God, the mind of man or any of a number of other sources that all boil down to we’re born with them. I believe we’re born with but one right - the right to life. Every other right derives from that single basic precept. Whether the right to life’s derivatives are actually rights and not earned privelidges is debatable (more on that later).
The US Constitution, The UN Delaration of Human Rights, the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen and other documents of declaration all seem to agree that liberty is a natural right. They stop there though. In the US the natural rights are declared to be life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (notably missing is the right to resist oppression - though it is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence it has no force of law in the US). In France it’s liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression (notably missing is the right to life). The UN says everyone has the right to life, liberty and the security of person (notably missing is the right to resist oppression, the right to own property and the pursuit of happiness). So three major documents only partially agree on what constitutes basic fundamental and natural rights - that’s not a very comforting thought.
What I believe is that the only fundamental natural right is the right to life.
Man is an animal. We cannot and should not forget that. All animals have the instinct to survive, man included. Our minds and our bodies are wired to the single and fundamental natural requirement to keep on living as long as possible. From that desire can be derived a natural right to defend one’s own life. It can further be argued that in so far as liberty, property, security, the pursuit of happiness and resistance to oppression aids in the preservation of life that they are also rights that may be considered natural - maybe. It can also reasonably be argued that the only real right a human being has is the right to life. Remember that man is a natural creatures and a creature of nature’s right to life extends only so far as it is able to preserve it through fight or flight.
So the right to life is fundamental and derives from nature. By association liberty, property, security, the pursuit of happiness and resistance to oppression may possibly be considered natural rights.
Some creatures of nature are social. They live in groups because there is safety and power and thus increased survivability in numbers. This is true for ants, bees, monkeys, chimps, wolves and all the other social animals. It is no less true for man.
For the non-social creature the question of rights is almost moot. A non-social animal is not concerned with the continuation of any group only the continuation of itself. Therefore it is free to do what ever is necessary to assure that continuation. If a carnivore - it kills to eat. If a herbivore - it runs away to eat another day. Note that reproduction isn’t even a right. Reproducing is an action that must be earned - generally by fighting for it (note that fighting can take many forms other than physical aggression) and thus can be considered an earned privelidge (important concept and just as applicable to man as any other creature).
Groups are made up of individuals. However, the survival of any specific individual is purely incidental to the survival of the group (examples of why this is true abound but are outside the scope of this discussion). In each social group there is an established structure that provides for the continuation of the group. Every social group that exists has leadership and rules in one form or another that the individual members follow by nature, agreement or by force for without rules the group ceases to exist. Without the group the individual is placed at risk. AND this fundamental truth about social groups is what provides the answer to the question:
Are all/some/no rights absolute?
For social animals NO right is absolute if that right impacts the survivability of the group for if the group fails to survive, in the long run (nature doesn’t care about the short run), so does the individual. (Note: this basic concept does not preclude individuals moving between groups or destroying one group and forming another. It simply assumes that man must belong to a group to survive).
Let’s take a close look at the concept stated above. I think we’d all agree that LIFE is a fundamental natural right. But I’m here to tell you that even it isn’t absolute. Take - for example - a scenario where a group member decides that he wants to mate with any female of his choosing. To implement that desire he kills what ever male stands in his way. If that type of action was permitted to continue in a group that group for many reasons would not last long and would cease to exist thus the group generally kills or expels the type of male who behaves in the aforementioned fashion (chimps and baboons expel males that behave in the described manner regularly. For most social animals it is the alpha male who gets first choice of mate and the rest of the males get the left overs - man is no different - think about it). Thus the right to life is not absolute in a group (though in modern resource rich societies the action often taken against an offender is to isolate/expel the offender. That option exists only because the group is resource rich). If the right to life is not absolute then it should be obvious that neither are any of the other so called rights. Which finally leads us to the question of:
Who or what controls the exercise of rights?
As previously noted every social structure has leadership of one form or another (it would be interesting to learn if there are any known social units that exist without some type of leadership structure). Leaders become leaders by force of personality, force of arms or force of wealth. They enforce their leadership through benevolence, consent or thru force. Leaders make the rules and it cannot be denied by any reasonable thinking person that it is the leadership that decides what actions group members can and cannot take. Thus what we call rights are actually privelidges granted by the powers that be and since not even the continuation of an individual’s life is absolute we can extrapolate that there are no real rights only privelidges granted by group leadership.
If the members of a group do not like the privelidges it has or lack thereof and wants more or in some cases fewer then it changes it’s leadership either by consent or by force. The new leadership then grants the privelidges it deems necessary and appropriate.
Which leads to the summary conclusion that social animals (man) have no rights but only privelidges granted by the powers that be.
GOD! That sucks!
The mandatory service thread got me to thinking about rights. It became apparent that the roots of the major disagreements stemmed from the different views people hold of what constitutes a right. That made me wonder about:
THE NATURE OF RIGHTS
1) What is a right?
2) Where does a right derive from?
3) Are all/some/no rights absolute?
4) Who or what controls the exercise of rights?
I am sure that other questions regarding rights can/should be asked. Feel free to bring them up.
To get the ball rolling:
What is a right? Little Help Please. I don’t have a clue. I can think of a great many examples of what folks consider a right but coming up with a general definition seems to be something difficult to define.
Where do rights derive from? I believe many would answer that they derive from nature, God, the mind of man or any of a number of other sources that all boil down to we’re born with them. I believe we’re born with but one right - the right to life. Every other right derives from that single basic precept. Whether the right to life’s derivatives are actually rights and not earned privelidges is debatable (more on that later).
The US Constitution, The UN Delaration of Human Rights, the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen and other documents of declaration all seem to agree that liberty is a natural right. They stop there though. In the US the natural rights are declared to be life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (notably missing is the right to resist oppression - though it is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence it has no force of law in the US). In France it’s liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression (notably missing is the right to life). The UN says everyone has the right to life, liberty and the security of person (notably missing is the right to resist oppression, the right to own property and the pursuit of happiness). So three major documents only partially agree on what constitutes basic fundamental and natural rights - that’s not a very comforting thought.
What I believe is that the only fundamental natural right is the right to life.
Man is an animal. We cannot and should not forget that. All animals have the instinct to survive, man included. Our minds and our bodies are wired to the single and fundamental natural requirement to keep on living as long as possible. From that desire can be derived a natural right to defend one’s own life. It can further be argued that in so far as liberty, property, security, the pursuit of happiness and resistance to oppression aids in the preservation of life that they are also rights that may be considered natural - maybe. It can also reasonably be argued that the only real right a human being has is the right to life. Remember that man is a natural creatures and a creature of nature’s right to life extends only so far as it is able to preserve it through fight or flight.
So the right to life is fundamental and derives from nature. By association liberty, property, security, the pursuit of happiness and resistance to oppression may possibly be considered natural rights.
Some creatures of nature are social. They live in groups because there is safety and power and thus increased survivability in numbers. This is true for ants, bees, monkeys, chimps, wolves and all the other social animals. It is no less true for man.
For the non-social creature the question of rights is almost moot. A non-social animal is not concerned with the continuation of any group only the continuation of itself. Therefore it is free to do what ever is necessary to assure that continuation. If a carnivore - it kills to eat. If a herbivore - it runs away to eat another day. Note that reproduction isn’t even a right. Reproducing is an action that must be earned - generally by fighting for it (note that fighting can take many forms other than physical aggression) and thus can be considered an earned privelidge (important concept and just as applicable to man as any other creature).
Groups are made up of individuals. However, the survival of any specific individual is purely incidental to the survival of the group (examples of why this is true abound but are outside the scope of this discussion). In each social group there is an established structure that provides for the continuation of the group. Every social group that exists has leadership and rules in one form or another that the individual members follow by nature, agreement or by force for without rules the group ceases to exist. Without the group the individual is placed at risk. AND this fundamental truth about social groups is what provides the answer to the question:
Are all/some/no rights absolute?
For social animals NO right is absolute if that right impacts the survivability of the group for if the group fails to survive, in the long run (nature doesn’t care about the short run), so does the individual. (Note: this basic concept does not preclude individuals moving between groups or destroying one group and forming another. It simply assumes that man must belong to a group to survive).
Let’s take a close look at the concept stated above. I think we’d all agree that LIFE is a fundamental natural right. But I’m here to tell you that even it isn’t absolute. Take - for example - a scenario where a group member decides that he wants to mate with any female of his choosing. To implement that desire he kills what ever male stands in his way. If that type of action was permitted to continue in a group that group for many reasons would not last long and would cease to exist thus the group generally kills or expels the type of male who behaves in the aforementioned fashion (chimps and baboons expel males that behave in the described manner regularly. For most social animals it is the alpha male who gets first choice of mate and the rest of the males get the left overs - man is no different - think about it). Thus the right to life is not absolute in a group (though in modern resource rich societies the action often taken against an offender is to isolate/expel the offender. That option exists only because the group is resource rich). If the right to life is not absolute then it should be obvious that neither are any of the other so called rights. Which finally leads us to the question of:
Who or what controls the exercise of rights?
As previously noted every social structure has leadership of one form or another (it would be interesting to learn if there are any known social units that exist without some type of leadership structure). Leaders become leaders by force of personality, force of arms or force of wealth. They enforce their leadership through benevolence, consent or thru force. Leaders make the rules and it cannot be denied by any reasonable thinking person that it is the leadership that decides what actions group members can and cannot take. Thus what we call rights are actually privelidges granted by the powers that be and since not even the continuation of an individual’s life is absolute we can extrapolate that there are no real rights only privelidges granted by group leadership.
If the members of a group do not like the privelidges it has or lack thereof and wants more or in some cases fewer then it changes it’s leadership either by consent or by force. The new leadership then grants the privelidges it deems necessary and appropriate.
Which leads to the summary conclusion that social animals (man) have no rights but only privelidges granted by the powers that be.
GOD! That sucks!