From where are rights derived?

[Brickjectivity]

Conceptually, I think part of the problem is that few people really give much thought to rights and how they emerge.

As children we are told we have rights, so we think of rights as baked cookies.

I see rights as a concept that is rooted in the recognition of shared values. When individuals or groups discover that they value the same things, they may seek to codify and protect those values through the creation of laws and other legal mechanisms. This process of codification and protection is what gives rise to rights.

The enforcement of laws that protect rights is not seen as violence or self-interest, but rather as a way to maintain the agreements that people have made about what values they will collectively uphold. In this way, rights are not simply given to individuals by a higher power or by the government. Rather, they are the product of a complex social process that involves the negotiation and agreement of individuals and groups.

Rights come from those who have goodwill towards others. Its those people who briefly gush feelings like "I want everyone to be happy!" That is the true source of rights. Rights do not proceed from simple transactional relationships. I can get everything I want and make lots of other people miserable in the process. Goodwill is the source and evidence of rights. Without it everything is transactional, and from there arises confusion about rights.

I understand what your saying. Humans aren't perfect and as a whole historically strive to be better. That said attaining the ideal, as you put it, would be fantastic, but given the irrational nature of humans we're unlikely to achieve the ideals presented in works of fiction, like Star Trek.

But that's just it, do we have rights? I think we want rights and we create systems to actualize them. Kind of like a system of measurement. Distances between objects exist in reality, by recognizing the value of a system of measurement, agreeing to a standard, codifying the system and then sharing that system and ultimately enforcing it.

Returning to the idea of pursuit of rights: it is impossible to make everyone happy at all times. The law is always either too much or too little for someone, so it changes over time like an insect seeks its path. It goes too far right, then corrects the other way, then goes too far left. I'm not speaking about progressive/conservative left right but simply about excesses and that people are not all the same; and we compete for resources. We even compete for air.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

1) Why consider those to be rights?
2) I take it you are mostly thinking of negative rights, but what about positive rights?

No, I am trying to make the case that "freedom" means that I have the right to do -- or not to do -- anything I feel like. This, of course, could lead to considerable grief, and so the idea is then to slowly pare away the freedom to do things that harm individuals or the community.

Go ahead, try it. Make a case for why one should not be allowed to masturbate in the privacy of one's home. Then make a case for why one should not be permitted to throw heavy objects off an un urban balconey.

See once upon a time we had such things as sumptuary laws. These made it illegal, for example to dress or eat "above one's station." We don't have those anymore because you can't adequately justify them. So if I feel like wearing an ermine cape down the street on a cold winter's day, I can damn well do so. An Elizabethan merchant, no matter how wealthy, could not.

 

[Koldo]

No, I am trying to make the case that "freedom" means that I have the right to do -- or not to do -- anything I feel like. This, of course, could lead to considerable grief, and so the idea is then to slowly pare away the freedom to do things that harm individuals or the community.

Go ahead, try it. Make a case for why one should not be allowed to masturbate in the privacy of one's home. Then make a case for why one should not be permitted to throw heavy objects off an un urban balconey.

See once upon a time we had such things as sumptuary laws. These made it illegal, for example to dress or eat "above one's station." We don't have those anymore because you can't adequately justify them. So if I feel like wearing an ermine cape down the street on a cold winter's day, I can damn well do so. An Elizabethan merchant, no matter how wealthy, could not.

But what I still don't get is what is grounding your view.

Let me put it this way: Let's say I agree that one should be able to freely masturbate in the privacy of one's own home. That still doesn't mean that I accept that people have the right to do that.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

But what I still don't get is what is grounding your view.

Let me put it this way: Let's say I agree that one should be able to freely masturbate in the privacy of one's own home. That still doesn't mean that I accept that people have the right to do that.

Then answer this: what is the difference that you see between "be able to freely" and "have the right to?" What differentiates those in your mind?

 

[Koldo]

As I said in my post above, I believe that rights emerge from a consensus of shared values.

The more interesting thing is that groups of people can value things that don't promote the kinds of things that are shared by larger communities.

Hitler and the Nazis being the go-to example.

I agree. Or at least, I agree that is generally the case.

But there are plenty of others. I think that lack of knowledge and understanding can be a barrier to achieving the goals a person and community set for themselves.

Personally, I don't think there is an objective standard. It's like trying to play a game before you've established the rules. The rules are always subjective, but subjective does not mean arbitrary. Subjective means we make choices and those choices are often in the confines or boundaries of some sort of goal or desire.

Why are there 3 strikes in baseball and not 50? Why does a foot measure the distance in space that it measures? Because it's useful and achieves some sort of goal or desire.

Sometimes a right exists in a given way just because it is more convenient to a given group that has achieved a certain degree of power and influence.

The Constitution says "all men are created equal" in a time when clearly all men weren't equal. Today, we're doing better, so what changed? It wasn't the Constitution. It wasn't the government. It was our shared values, knowledge and understanding. Of course there are conflicts, our beliefs can be barriers to understanding and achieving the goals most people might agree are goals we'd like to achive.

That said there is more. As rights are also a function of environment. How would a person the describe the rights of a person who becomes paralyzed in a hunter gather society, where moving is required to survive?

Government's are created to codify, and enforce our rights and give them legitimacy to those subject to them.

I would go as far as saying that turning them into law is what makes them rights in the first place. (Presuming they weren't being enforced beforehand)

 

[Heyo]

Makes sense.

What doesn't is the idea that having destroyed the democratic (small d) framework that elections rest on that everyone would then turn round and accept his "revised" election and tamely treat him as a legitimate president.

It almost worked. How many people believed (and still believe) that the election was "stolen"? With a little help from his friends (MAGA judges, election officials, governors) it could have worked. He overestimated the loyalty of the republicans to him in favour of their integrity.
And it may not have been the first time. There is still doubt about Bush jr. vs. Gore in 2000.

 

[Alien826]

It almost worked. How many people believed (and still believe) that the election was "stolen"? With a little help from his friends (MAGA judges, election officials, governors) it could have worked. He overestimated the loyalty of the republicans to him in favour of their integrity.
And it may not have been the first time. There is still doubt about Bush jr. vs. Gore in 2000.

He also underestimated the integrity of Republican election officials, who put their dedication to doing their job honestly above any affiliation to him.

That, and Gen Milley's (it was him?) being prepared to disobey crazy orders from Trump in the last days of the presidency. Putting the two together has strengthened my faith in the resilience of our system of government. With luck, and another Democratic presidency, we may weather this storm.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

But what I still don't get is what is grounding your view.

Let me put it this way: Let's say I agree that one should be able to freely masturbate in the privacy of one's own home. That still doesn't mean that I accept that people have the right to do that.

Then answer this: what is the difference that you see between "be able to freely" and "have the right to?" What differentiates those in your mind?

I'd like to expand on this, if I may, before you answer, @Koldo.

You say, "that still doesn't mean that I accept that people have the right to do that," so how does it become up to you to deny them the right? Where does that come from? Aren't you just a person, like everybody else? Why should your notion of rights take such precedence?

When Pope Leo III (a pretty feeble Pope, by the way) crowned Charlemagne in 800CE, it served two purposes -- it gave Charlemagne the imprimatur of God Himself to make whatever rules he saw fit over people's daily lives, but it also established the power of the Church to make all the rules around their faiths -- what and how they were to believe. A nice, and very convenient fiction. And it is a fiction, because it's only "true" because Leo and Charlemagne said it was.

And we humans have been struggling with this business of control over the lives of our fellows since humans banded together in groups larger than just a couple of families -- so basically for all of our known history. So, for example, 8 centuries after Charlie and Leo's little fiction, Giordano Bruno was burned to death for having ideas of his own about the movement of planets, and some thoughts on the Trinity, among other wrongful notions.

So, yes, it is true that power can take away people's "rights," (as the US Supreme Court actually did just last year in Dodd's), but rights are not "conferred" by anyone -- they are simply assumed until some power denies them. And much of the civilized world has, over the last century, been busilly abandoning those denials of rights. Thus, they have not been conferring rights at all -- they have been removing the unwarrented denials of rights that should merely be recognized.

 

[Nakosis]

Fundamentally, from where do you believe that rights come from??

Rights are generally derive from culture.
Whatever the cultural ideas society is willing to enforce.
As culture changes so do rights.

 

[EconGuy]

As children we are told we have rights, so we think of rights as baked cookies.

If I said I knew what that meant I'd be afraid it was what I think you mean rather than what you actually mean.

Rights come from those who have goodwill towards others. Its those people who briefly gush feelings like "I want everyone to be happy!" That is the true source of rights. Rights do not proceed from simple transactional relationships. I can get everything I want and make lots of other people miserable in the process. Goodwill is the source and evidence of rights. Without it everything is transactional, and from there arises confusion about rights.

I could be convinced that the best groups are groups that base their rights on goodwill, but I don't think it has to be that way.

Returning to the idea of pursuit of rights: it is impossible to make everyone happy at all times. The law is always either too much or too little for someone, so it changes over time like an insect seeks its path. It goes too far right, then corrects the other way, then goes too far left. I'm not speaking about progressive/conservative left right but simply about excesses and that people are not all the same; and we compete for resources. We even compete for air.

Well, it really depends. I think the founders understood that institutionalizing ideals like free speech was the best way to ensure a marketplace of ideas. I think Madison recognized that some people are, to put it simply, off their rocker, but understood that they would be the exception and not the rule. Those people would be separated by distance and geography. The internet has undone that protection so now anyone with a stupid idea can find others that share their dumb ideas. At first we pointed fingers and made fun of them, now they are ascending to the highest levels of our government. But I digress.

 

[EconGuy]

Sometimes a right exists in a given way just because it is more convenient to a given group that has achieved a certain degree of power and influence.

Not disagreeing, but would you be so kind as to give an example?

I would go as far as saying that turning them into law is what makes them rights in the first place. (Presuming they weren't being enforced beforehand)

I would say that generally I agree. That said, it doesn't have to be government, but yes, an organization with rules that enough people have faith in. For example. Any one of the major sports leagues creates rules and codified the rules for everyone to follow. If the organizations abuse the trust given, or worse, the trust is undermined from the outside, the system will break down and may fail.

 

[EconGuy]

If forgiveness applies to past sins, then I am still going to continue to sin in heaven.

Ostensibly, heaven, the most boring place I could possibly imagine, would be a place free of sin, or so we're told.

 

[EconGuy]

Nevertheless, there are legal limitations on speech.

Not sure how that addresses my response to you.

You asked where a rule ends and a right begins.

I said, the punishment for breaking it (a rule vs a law). For example, if I trip in hockey I've broken a rule and I go to the penalty box. If on the other hand if I drink and drive and get caught, I'm going to jail. Referees, enforce rules, not laws, police enforce laws and sometimes rules.

The fat that there are exceptions to laws doesn't invalidate them, it recognizes that rules and laws are created to accomplish some desired state of affairs, laws against drinking and driving exist because we don't want people to drive drunk. But if a person was at a party drinking and someone started shooting and the only way to escape was to drive drunk, we'd probably forgive that given the circumstances.

There are good reasons to abridge the freedoms you enumerated.

 

[Revoltingest]

I wonder if our resident Libertarian, @Revoltingest, would buy into that little foray into sophistry.

It's all still consensus.
When government represents the populace,
the latter's consensus determines rights.
When government represents itself only,
then its officials create the consensus.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

It's all still consensus.
When government represents the populace,
the latter's consensus determines rights.
When government represents itself only,
then its officials create the consensus.

I understand that, but I was trying to suggest a philosophical perspective. What do you, as a Libertarian, think of my notion that humans should all be considered to have the right to do as they choose, so long as they don't harm one another, unless those who would restrict a right can demonstrate a compelling case for doing so?

For the record, that has always been my perspective -- that I ought to be free to do as I please, so long as what I please is not otherwise prohibited by law. And that includes, by the way, not giving to charity if my present finances don't permit -- meaning that I am free not to do things I don't wish to, so long as they are not prescribed by law (such as paying my taxes).

 

[vulcanlogician]

Since I'm interested in discussion with you, given your comments, I'll respond to the link you posted. Thanks!

Any time.

It's one of my favorite subjects. If you wanna respond in that thread, go for it. But if you make a new thread, be sure to tag me in the OP. I don't get on every day, and I might miss your post otherwise.

 

[Revoltingest]

I understand that, but I was trying to suggest a philosophical perspective. What do you, as a Libertarian, think of my notion that humans should all be considered to have the right to do as they choose, so long as they don't harm one another, unless those who would restrict a right can demonstrate a compelling case for doing so?

I concur.

For the record, that has always been my perspective -- that I ought to be free to do as I please, so long as what I please is not otherwise prohibited by law. And that includes, by the way, not giving to charity if my present finances don't permit -- meaning that I am free not to do things I don't wish to, so long as they are not prescribed by law (such as paying my taxes).

Of course, there's the issue of personally finding
that the law requires doing something immoral.
We might not be able to discuss that on RF.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I concur.


Of course, there's the issue of personally finding
that the law requires doing something immoral.
We might not be able to discuss that on RF.

I suppose the draft might be one of those -- being forced to go and (possibly) kill against your beliefs. But we haven't had a draft in Canada for a long time. Canada had conscription in 1917-18, but only about 125,000 were conscripted, and only 24,000 sent to fight. And for a couple of years during WWII, we again had conscription, but in the end, only around 13,000 soldiers went abroad, and fewer than 2,500 reached the front lines.

 

[InChrist]

The Holocaust. The Maternity/Children's hospital in Mariupol, Ukraine. Boxing Day tidal wave that killed over 1/4 million people in 14 countries. Nearly 70,000 people killed in Turkey and Syria just this year by an earthquake. The endless slaughter of children in their schools.

Now, you can claim that all this will be made better in heaven somehow, but that's just a claim, nothing more. But down here, on earth, where all that dying and misery has happened and is happening -- sorry, but heaven remains silent on all that.

No, heaven is not silent. The misery you have highlighted is screaming that humanity is in desperate need of a Savior and to be reconciled with our Creator. Humans have made a horrible mess by ignoring God and believing we can run things without listening to and heeding His wisdom and guidance.

Yes, everything will be made right for eternity in the new heaven and earth, free of sin and suffering. This is a temporary world system tainted by sin and its destructive consequences, yet millions upon millions have come to the realization of their need of God, to be delivered and saved by Christ. God is patiently waiting for the final number of those to be complete.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

No, heaven is not silent. The misery you have highlighted is screaming that humanity is in desperate need of a Savior and to be reconciled with our Creator. Humans have made a horrible mess by ignoring God and believing we can run things without listening to and heeding His wisdom and guidance.

Yes, everything will be made right for eternity in the new heaven and earth, free of sin and suffering. This is a temporary world system tainted by sin and its destructive consequences, yet millions upon millions have come to the realization of their need of God, to be delivered and saved by Christ. God is patiently waiting for the final number of those to be complete.

Excuse me, but you seem to be forgetting -- by your own belief, we've already had a Saviour. So how the heck can we still be in desperate need? Did the first one fail?