yguy

Good and evil will always rationalize themselves in ways that appear similar, because both need to appeal to the innate sense of justice in humans. The real question is what the basis is for the rationale. If we're really the bad guys like Hussein said we were, we should back off; but if not, we have to be free to act in our own self-defense, and we can't have that freedom if we constantly second-guess ourselves.

If we can't base our actions on some objective sense of justice, our only alternatives are to be the biggest bully on the block or to be at the mercy of that bully.

As I see it, this is merely an extension of the principle on which the 4th amendment is based, i.e. the right to be secure in one's personal effects, etc. The rationale for legally abridging it temporarily would be on the grounds of national security which if breached to a sufficient degree would endanger the right to life of every citizen.

Let us remeber also that the BOR is not a vehicle for granting rights, but a limitation on government's power to violate them, as evidenced by the 9th and 10th amendments.

Are you backpedalling bigtime here, or am I missing something?

Alas, I can't find a way around the dreaded G-word.

mhc

So you believe that human rights are given by God?
It solves the problem of where they come from, but how could we know what rights God has given us?

CavemanUg

are rights inherent or given to us by society..?

I believe that it is a blend of the two. How is this possible? Well that is simple, as society changes the rights we are born with also change. For example, if you were born black (a genetic trait, or natural) before the 1970's there was little to no chance of equality in society.

Our rights are based, in a large part, by our inherent ablities value in any given society. For example, intellegence is inherent, but, depending on where and when you live that intellegnce could get you varing rights. Take China during the People's Revolution, people of intelligence (teachers, professers, musicians, etc.) were killed. However, in 500bc Athens intellegence was rewarded with wealth and fame.

Also, animals do have rights. They do not have the same rights as humans because they do not have the same needs as humans. Why do I say this, your rights in society are governed by what you can do for the society. The same is true in the Animal kindom, I think it is called "evolution" there though. For example, silver back gorrilas have more rights becuase they are stronger, the head lion in a pack gets to eat first, etc. In nature the creature with the best attribute has the most rights. Humans have dominated all that nature has to offer us, we have more rights than nature, all out our inventions are just a form of evolution, the knife is the equivilant of sharp claws, the wheel- fast legs, clothing- thick hair. People and animals do not exist without a socitey to spawn them, therefore, if you do not (naturally) benefit that society then your rights will be less than that of a person who is a benefit to society.

Clutch

Good, you've made a step, though a tiny one, in the right direction. Of course your initial claim was absurdly simplistic, and now you are recognizing that -- by taking seriously just what would be involved in revoking a legal right. It is (obviously) not "the stroke of a pen"; it is a process that a large politico-judicial system would carry out, or at least be complicit in.

Still, you've missed the more important point, which is that we are not talking about legal rights, but what are often called "natural" rights. That is, rights in the sense that, were the duly elected authorities to carry out the steps you describe, they would thereby ignore one of the rights of children.

It is easy as pie to call rights derivative upon the letter of law, if that's what one means. Calling rights derivative on society, as is the topic of this thread, is a very different claim -- presumably it indexes rights to societal attitudes, to aggregates of behavioural dispositions, to the workings of institutions not part of the 3 branches... to society, in other words, which is rarely more than vaguely represented by votes in the Congress and Senate.

There are many different things that could be meant by claiming that rights are based in a society, and I have no particular motivation to defend any one of them as the canonical thesis. But one thing that it almost certainly does not mean is that rights are strictly legal or constitutional (though there is much to be said in favour of that view as well). If your criticism, that "a stroke of the pen" could make rights wink in and out of existence, is to worth taking seriously, you must first identify an interlocutor -- explain exactly what thesis you intend to engage, and then show exactly why your claim counts as a counterexample to or argument against that thesis.

When both your criticism and your sense of your opposition are as oversimplified and undetailed as they've been, your claims end up having effectively zero rational content.

yguy

Condescension noted.

My position hasn't changed a lick. The point is that what was considered a right yesterday can be considered a crime today; or vice versa, which is exactly what happened with Roe v. Wade. It was not the stroke of anyone's pen that made abortion legal, but it became legal when the final document in the process was signed. Had you not found it convenient to ascribe to my statement the most absurd interpretation possible, you would have either understood this or asked for clarification.

That is irrelevant. They are the executors of the will of the people, if only by the people's acquiescence. The letter of the law is essentially a codification of that collective will. If Congress passes a bill legalizing infanticide and no effective outcry is heard, the people have spoken to the effect that they don't care.

yguy

It isn't.

Clutch

What was the point of educating you about the (familiar, straightforward) distinction between rights as a social construct and rights as a legal construct, if you insist on remaining ignorant of the difference no matter how carefully it is explained?Are you determined to defend your absurd oversimplifications by spouting still more absurd oversimplifications? If you don't intend to take the topic seriously I won't waste any more time. These are difficult questions; it is you, and not the topic, that is simple.

Philosoft

Gentlemen, please refrain from engaging in insults and/or ad hominem commentary. There is plenty of material in the topic itself to hash out. Clutch and yguy, I think you both have the wherewithal to enlighten us about this subject, but I won't hesitate to make my own edits henceforth if I feel it is necessary. Thanks.

~Philosoft, Philosophy moderator

yguy

We know we have the right to life. Logical consequences arising from this include the right to defend our lives and those of our families, the right to economic freedom, the right to speak our minds, and so forth; or so it appears to me.

yguy

The question presumes that you are in a position of sufficiently superior knowledge to be able to educate, an assumption which I have a problem with, especially since you haven't told me anything I didn't know already. All you have done is point out a distinction which you presumably (neglecting the more likely possibility that you are determined to find fault at any cost) deem important, but which I see as a red herring.

Perhaps it is not I who oversimplify, but you who overcomplicate.

I couldn't care less one way or the other.

The mods won't like it, but as far as I'm concerned, you are welcome to keep the ad hominems coming.