Full Version: Rights in Nature
I don't know if this topic is questioned already....
Many philosophers have different ideas of what rights in nature are.
My opinion will be said tomorrow...
My question:
Are rights in nature infinite, or is the government a necessary entity for defining and actually making the rights "something"?
Many philosophers have different ideas of what rights in nature are.
My opinion will be said tomorrow...
My question:
Are rights in nature infinite, or is the government a necessary entity for defining and actually making the rights "something"?
QUOTE(blingice @ Jul 15 2005, 12:41 AM)
I don't know if this topic is questioned already....
Many philosophers have different ideas of what rights in nature are.
My opinion will be said tomorrow...
My question:
Are rights in nature infinite, or is the government a necessary entity for defining and actually making the rights "something"?
Many philosophers have different ideas of what rights in nature are.
My opinion will be said tomorrow...
My question:
Are rights in nature infinite, or is the government a necessary entity for defining and actually making the rights "something"?
Declaration of Independence
QUOTE
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
It's all right there buddy. Unalienable rights endowed by our creator...not by governments.
It seems to me that "rights", like "beauty", are entirely in the mind of the beholder. It's an idea created by the human mind, and like all such ideas, there will always be endless debate about it. In some cases, there is general agreement about rights, just as there is often general agreement about beauty. Most people agree that you should not kill people at random; most people think rainbows are beautiful. These statements are not controversial.
But what about other "rights"? Some people think that people have the right to some form of health care, others do not. Some people think that animals have certain rights, others do not.
Just as with morality, there will be endless argument about the exact nature of rights. Even if, for the sake of discussion, we accept the premise that rights have a supernatural source, there will never be exact agreement on what they are.
But what about other "rights"? Some people think that people have the right to some form of health care, others do not. Some people think that animals have certain rights, others do not.
Just as with morality, there will be endless argument about the exact nature of rights. Even if, for the sake of discussion, we accept the premise that rights have a supernatural source, there will never be exact agreement on what they are.
I believe that there are two ends of a spectrum. On one are rights that no rational government would deny. On the other is that which is unquestionably malum in se. Locke famously gave the rights as "life, liberty, and property," but because property is outright rejected by most modern schools of thought, I will omit that. On the other end are such things as rape or indiscriminate murder. No government could be considered rational and keep these legal. In between are those things some governments deny, and while they may be condemned for it, they are not considered completely irredeemable. These range from quibbles such as sales tax and street laws to that which is not quite a human rights violation, such as criminalization of homosexual behavior or mistreatment of felons.
This scale, however, varies with ideology. There are cultures in the past that would have placed this scale at far different places than we do. That is what grants these rights: ideology. The government cannot take them away but to find condemnation at the hands of ideology. If the ideology were otherwise, then the government would not be condemned. This is why personality cults work. They shift the people's ideology, so that what would be seen by those outside the country as a gross violation of rights is seen as minor. But these other nations still exist, and in extreme cases, war can begin.
Thus, there is no overarching right to anything. There is simply an ideology. For millenia to most civilizations, the citizen body had no rights at all. When the ideology shifted, so did the rights of the citizens. And now, the ideology is shared to the point at which it overrides the government. That is "natural right," nothing more.
This scale, however, varies with ideology. There are cultures in the past that would have placed this scale at far different places than we do. That is what grants these rights: ideology. The government cannot take them away but to find condemnation at the hands of ideology. If the ideology were otherwise, then the government would not be condemned. This is why personality cults work. They shift the people's ideology, so that what would be seen by those outside the country as a gross violation of rights is seen as minor. But these other nations still exist, and in extreme cases, war can begin.
Thus, there is no overarching right to anything. There is simply an ideology. For millenia to most civilizations, the citizen body had no rights at all. When the ideology shifted, so did the rights of the citizens. And now, the ideology is shared to the point at which it overrides the government. That is "natural right," nothing more.
Topic closed...
Reason: Duplicate topic.
Recommended action:
Please use the search feature to locate a similar topic. If you are unable to find a similar topic, please contact the staff member who closed the topic by clicking the PM button below this post.
Helpful links:
- Simple Search
- Advanced Search
- Starting New Topics
- Survival Guide
- The Rules
- Staff Directory
Note: This is an automated response.
Please join us in the first debate going on here: What Makes a 'Right'?
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.