Does it tire you...

Poll - Total Votes: 0

STOP TAKIN' MAH MAGICAL RIGHTS, DANG GUMMINT!!!

I disagree with your conclusions but have no solid foundations for doing so.

Waaah, stop saying bad things about human rights because [insert moralistic fallacy here].

You may vote on multiple answers, up to 3.

Seeing all the posts about gummint tekkin away ur rites? Is anyone still familiar with Jeremy Bentham? Hobbes had to come to the absurd conclusion that in a state of nature you had both all rights and no rights. Bentham said that rights anterior to the creation of government were "nonsense upon stilts". As he put it, want is not desert, hunger is not bread (a refutation prior to its genesis of the best theory of what the foundation of human rights could be, that they stem from human needs - once God was taken out of the equation human rights lacked any metaphysical foundations whatsoever). The thoughtlessness of it pains me. Moreover, if you want to put God back into the equation, please show me in the Bible where rights are granted by God. More moreover, show me how this escapes Bentham's point, since God would be acting as supreme legislator. Government gave you your rights, and the only rights you have are civil rights. I know, I know, there are things you could do on one day that you can't do on subsequent days, and you're all scared of the big bad boogeyman, but please God give up the govt is the antithesis of rights talk, it's irritating nonsense. Instead, make a real case for why something should be a civil right in the first place. Or keep whinging and make some stupid, anti-intellectual remark about practice and life-or-death struggles that somehow obviate the need for explanation and sound argument, as though your personal emotional fixations are all that's needed to win people over to your view of the magic of rights.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

Gloomy · F

Rights are always something people agree on and then they help build the foundation of a society.
They then are enforced through laws, regulations, etc that organise our societal lives. In that sense a government can take granted rights away.

I don't know what you consider to be a real argument but beyond moralistic arguments (everyone operates within a moral framework so brushing that aside isn't smart or intellectual) we can look at places where for example the Declaration of Human rights is mostly adhered to and places where this doesn't happen and then look how society is doing.
If I want to argue access to medical help should be a right I would point to mortality rates for example.

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

Gloomy · F

@Alyosha [quote]Rights are usually initially based in traditions sanctioned by the ruling group (the rights of aristocratic Englishmen, say), and have something to do with what your group norms allow you to pursue as projects.[/quote]

But then you agree that the enforcment and granting of rights is tied to a form of governance.

You conflate freedom with rights although we could have a philosophical discussion whether someone purely living off of nature is truly free. In that state of being rights aren't existant. They are abstracts and take forms in regulated systems that grant you certain things and prohibit others. In a functioning society you wouldn't be allowed to just impose and take away rights of others.

[quote]their right to violate your rights on you, which brings out how having all rights is itself self-contradictory[/quote]

There is no "all rights" because rights are always pre - defined in a society. Of course being allowed to violate rights defeats the purpose of implementing any in the first place.
That's why the right to hit a child and granting kids the right to a childhood free of violence won't and can't coexist.

[quote]when Western nations were already relatively well off[/quote]

No they just went through two world wars and the atrocities of the Nazi regime played a huge part in ensuring Human rights in order to prevent such cruelty from happening again.

Alyosha · 31-35, M

@Gloomy I'm just going to address one point, your last one. Western nations even after the plundering of Europe by Germany were still richer than most of the Earth. And by the time the Declaration was made, the Marshall Plan had had its intended effect, to prevent a resurgence of fascism by making creature comforts available again.

Gloomy · F

@Alyosha Besides your argumentation being all over the place what is your objection to let's say the declaration of human rights?
It's not like it's a binding document yet as humanity setting ourselves standards is a good thing.
The marshall plan didn’t prevent fascism. The Nazis got their ideas from the United States to begin with and hateful ideologies still exist.

I don’t think we are even arguing with the same definitions of "rights".

Alyosha · 31-35, M

@Gloomy I find it difficult to follow your argument at all.

Gloomy · F

@Alyosha Which one I'm happy to elaborate

Alyosha · 31-35, M

@Gloomy All of it after my first response. I think you mistake my position at multiple points, and I'm not sure where your objections are coming from.

Gloomy · F

@Alyosha Oh well that could be the case. Could you break your position down again?
You criticise the lack of metaphysical foundation of rights? Any religious doctrine rights could be based on is just a human invention anyway

Alyosha · 31-35, M

@Gloomy I disagree with your position on religion, but I won't get into it too much. As I said, a religious doctrine of rights doesn't escape Jeremy Bentham's point that rights come into being with the creation of government, whatever that government is, howsoever formal or informal. My basic position is, yes, rights apart from civil rights lack metaphysical foundation. Human or natural rights are this species of rights. Typically the word "rights" when used by itself is used in this sense. Civil rights are a creation of society with governance and are sanctioned by the legitimacy of government and backed by force.

Gloomy · F

@Alyosha So you oppose civil rights?
What are natural rights supposed to be?

Alyosha · 31-35, M

@Gloomy No, I don't oppose civil rights. Natural rights or human rights are supposed to be the rights that all sapient beings have, I just don't believe in them.