[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
By what “right” can rights be taken from an individual? [/quote]
By the ‘right’ of nature. Often translating to right of might. Or right of fitness. Happens all the time.
Basically, what do you mean by asking what ‘right’ some animal has to take ‘rights’ away from another? It’s isn’t a question about rights. It’s a question about, can that animal(s) accomplish it.
[/quote]
Oh, I get it.
You’re a Nietzschean.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
How does one claim rights they would deny to others?
[/quote]
With a gun and better aim?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
By what “right” can rights be taken from an individual? [/quote]
By the ‘right’ of nature. Often translating to right of might. Or right of fitness. Happens all the time.
Basically, what do you mean by asking what ‘right’ some animal has to take ‘rights’ away from another? It’s isn’t a question about rights. It’s a question about, can that animal(s) accomplish it.
[/quote]
Oh, I get it.
You’re a Nietzschean.[/quote]
No. But, I am avoiding faith-based arguments.
There is another side of this and that is responsibility. And some people seems to think that responsibilities take away from freedom. But I would say freedom is the ability to conform to and perform ‘God’ given responsibilities. Rights are concepts that allow freedoms for people to act on these responsibilities while not impinging on other’s abilities to do so. Granted, in my view it is impossible to impinge on others ‘freedom’ while accepting and performing responsibilities as we are all of the same substance.
I use the term ‘God’ loosely and would argue that there are perceptions and perspectives of the concept closer and farther from ultimate being and purpose than others and us humans being finite beings we are incapable of a perfect understanding of the concept, but that’s a different thread.
If freedom=rights than total lack of fear would be a strong form of having rights as one would be totally uninhibited in performing their responsibilities as far as one’s self is concerned, but of course others could interfere with this even if one had no fear in performing their God given responsibilities.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
How does one claim rights they would deny to others?
[/quote]
With a gun and better aim?
[/quote]
So the only limiting factor is who is better at using force?
Can circumstantial rights really be called rights? That would mean that in certain instances they are not rights but rather “wrongs” (not using the literal meaning of “wrong” but rather to contrast the opposite meaning of a right).
Shouldn’t a right always be right no matter what?
Today :
the result of a contract.
before modern times :
the consequence of the order of the cosmos.
We too often forgot that “right” was an adjective before it became a substantive.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Shouldn’t a right always be right no matter what?[/quote]
Do you honestly believe a cold, dumb, universe conceived of timeless rights for us? Timeless, inalienable, ideals? Edit: Written specifically for us, a self-aware thinking creature, by a thoughtless universe? Sounds a bit…purposeful.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Shouldn’t a right always be right no matter what?[/quote]
Do you honestly believe a cold, dumb, universe conceived of timeless rights for us? Timeless, inalienable, ideals? Edit: Written specifically for us, a self-aware thinking creature, by a thoughtless universe? Sounds a bit…purposeful.
[/quote]
I do believe that we are what we are, however we came to be.
Rules do flow from that.
There are ideas that truly are alien to human nature.
[quote]orion wrote:
Rules do flow from that.
There are ideas that truly are alien to human nature. [/quote]
Opinions might. Rules flow from the power to make the rules. A ruler or rulers. Whatever those rules might be.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Rules do flow from that.
There are ideas that truly are alien to human nature. [/quote]
Opinions might. Rules flow from the power to make the rules. A ruler or rulers. Whatever those rules might be.
[/quote]
Natural laws cannot be broken no matter how much power one is convinced he has.
A ruler is a device which measures distance.
There are no such things as rulers of men.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Shouldn’t a right always be right no matter what?[/quote]
Do you honestly believe a cold, dumb, universe conceived of timeless rights for us? Timeless, inalienable, ideals? Edit: Written specifically for us, a self-aware thinking creature, by a thoughtless universe? Sounds a bit…purposeful.
[/quote]
If you claim to have a right then how do you claim that others do not have that same right?
If you claim that it is attributed to how much force you can wield over people then do you admit your own powerlessness and lack of rights in this regard?
If not, what force do you wield over people in your daily life to secure your rights over other people?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
If you claim to have a right then how do you claim that others do not have that same right?[/quote]
With a gun, bomb, etc. But please, show me the mathematical model for “human beings, universally, are meant to have a right to firearms, private property, or even their lives.” Hell, natural selection works through editing (killing off). Show me under a microscope. Ok, then how about a telescope? Has the dumb, cold universe somehow fashioned a great big monolith, floating eerily in space, with some rights listed in a human language, for the human animal to discover? Please, inform NASA.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
If you claim to have a right then how do you claim that others do not have that same right?[/quote]
With a gun, bomb, etc. But please, show me the mathematical model for “human beings, universally, are meant to have a right to firearms, private property, or even their lives.” Hell, natural selection works through editing (killing off). Show me under a microscope. Ok, then how about a telescope? Has the dumb, cold universe somehow fashioned a great big monolith, floating eerily in space, with some rights listed in a human language, for the human animal to discover? Please, inform NASA.
[/quote]
If rights come down to the use of force then civilization is doomed.
If you don’t believe civilization has any relevance then you may have a point. I might disagree with you.
I don’t know why you bring mathematics into this. We are not talking about physics but rather human action.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
We are not talking about physics but rather human action.[/quote]
No we aren’t. We’re talking about HOW humans should SHOULD act. Humans have the capability and capacity to act in any manner what so ever within the anatomical and physiological limits of the body. That includes cracking the whip on slaves. Nature doesn’t care if we nuke ourselves off the planet. Or accidentally fashion some species ending virus that was only supposed to introduce a genetic therapy into the human body. In the case of humans having inherent rights, something above human whim and force, show them to me.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
We are not talking about physics but rather human action.[/quote]
No we aren’t. We’re talking about HOW humans should SHOULD act. Humans have the capability and capacity to act in any manner what so ever within the anatomical and physiological limits of the body. That includes cracking the whip on slaves. Nature doesn’t care if we nuke ourselves off the planet. Or accidentally fashion some species ending virus that was only supposed to introduce a genetic therapy into the human body. In the case of humans having inherent rights, something above human whim and force, show them to me.
[/quote]
Nature doesn’t do anything.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Nature doesn’t do anything.
[/quote]
Including providing us with INHERENT rights.
Ethics is the study of the moral principles of human action.
Ethics is a means to an end.
If we do not understand what our end goals are then there is no use in talking about ethics and means for anything.
This has nothing to do with mathematics but rather pure philosophy.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
This has nothing to do with mathematics but rather pure philosophy.[/quote]
So rights are whatever we argue them to be? I thought they were inherent/inalienable?
Edit: Heavens knows this sight alone could be dedicated to just what our ‘rights’ are, if we even have any, if turned over to philosophy. So, a matter of opinion. Well, opinion that can made the law by force.
I hate to admit it, but I agree with Sloth 100% on this (from what he’s written so far). In an era of tribute taking states, your “rights” are whatever the state you happen to live in gives you. I live in the good old USA, so my “rights” are far more pleasant than if I were a woman born in Afghanistan.
There are no “inalienable” rights. History has shown this time and time again. The one with the most nukes, biggest gun, sharpest sword, most capable army, best information system, etc… WINS. The rest is simply a cost/benefit balance that the gov’t strikes to keep the population in line AND paying taxes (taking tribute).
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
I hate to admit it, but I agree with Sloth 100% on this (from what he’s written so far). In an era of tribute taking states, your “rights” are whatever the state you happen to live in gives you. I live in the good old USA, so my “rights” are far more pleasant than if I were a woman born in Afghanistan.
There are no “inalienable” rights. History has shown this time and time again. The one with the most nukes, biggest gun, sharpest sword, most capable army, best information system, etc… WINS. The rest is simply a cost/benefit balance that the gov’t strikes to keep the population in line AND paying taxes (taking tribute).[/quote]
Ideas have been stronger than governments and have encouraged people to sometimes forcefully remove a tyrannical government from power and sometimes non-forcefully such as India against imperial Britain. By force, the American revolution. So in a sense… one could say might makes right… but the might of principles that go beyond physical power would be the might I speak of.