From where are rights derived?

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I, as well as you, have can have access to God and His revealed Word in the biblical scriptures. Otherwise, we would all be clueless about God’s wants or will.

I have access to Rowling's Harry Potter books, too -- and so do you. If you read them, you'll know she mentions a lot of things that are quite real. King's Cross Station, for example, is a real place. I've been there. So why should I not accept that she was right about Platform 9 3/4? Same with Homer, the Odyssey and Iliad. Homer was dead right about Troy, after all, and until Schliemann, nobody believed him, thought it was all myth. If Homer got Troy right, why not Helen and Paris?

And there is a lot of biblical scripture that is just as much nonsense as Rowlings Dementors or Homer's Cyclops. So why do you accept the nonsense of the Bible and reject Rowling and Homer? Because you are conditioned to, that's why. And I am not.

It's also true that much of the Bible is much older than any of your notions of God. Job was likely written at least 400 years before Genesis. (so Job was before the beginning of the world? Yikes!) And the Epic of Gilgamesh, which contains the story of the flood and Noah (called Utnapushtim, in the Epic) was written at least 600 years before the first word of the Bible was set down. Now, the Epic of Gilgamesh is Sumerian, and older even than Gilgamesh are the Sumerian “Kesh Temple Hymn” and the “Instructions of Shuruppak,” both of which exist in written versions dating to around 2500 B.C. The former is an ancient ode to the Kesh temple and the deities that inhabited it, while the latter is a piece of “wisdom literature” that takes the form of sagely advice supposedly handed down from the Sumerian king Shuruppak to his son, Ziusudra. One of Shuruppak’s proverbs warns the boy not to “pass judgment when you drink beer.” Another counsels that “a loving heart maintains a family; a hateful heart destroys a family.” So clearly, God wasn't even around to reveal Himself to the Sumerians (or perhaps He couldn't be bothered) -- and yet they figured out the power of love all by themselves. Amazing!

You see, your scripture (which merely means "writing") means no more to me than anybody else's writing. And much of it isn't even nearly as good as a lot of writing that's available to us. But whether it's well-written or not-so-well-written, it is all the writing of mere, mortal, human critters -- trying to figure the world out long ago, long before they had the tools of science to help them make sense of much of anything.

 

[Revoltingest]

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.

Oddity...
It's illegal to evade the draft.
But the draft is illegal under the 13th Amendment.
So is it within the rules to speak of violating an illegal law?
It appears to be thus......so far.

 

[Koldo]

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?

Considering the context of our conversation: If I am freely able to do something, it means the one in power (generally the government) is not prohibiting me from doing it. In other words, me doing that something is not illegal.

If I have the negative right to do something though, it means the one in power is both not prohibiting me from doing it and not allowing others to use force (and sometimes not just force) to stop me from doing it.

Nevertheless, this is specific to negative rights... Because positive rights don't even have anything to do with making an activity illegal. I don't know if you are aware of the concept of positive rights, but here is a quick explanation: Positive rights are demands you can make that must be complied. Here in Brazil, we have many positive rights, such as right to health, meaning the State must provide health services for free.

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?

I am not denying anyone anything. I am just taking a very practical approach: If someone is both claiming that you have a right to something and effectively threatening others into acting in accordance to that claim, then you do have that right. If not, then you don't. Rights are created through the effective force of law.

 

[Koldo]

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

Right to private property (as per marxist definition).

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.

Sure. We agree.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

where do you believe that rights come from??

I'm with the majority here. Rights come from whomever enumerates and enforces them, which is usually government. It's only meaningful to say that only I have a right to park in my driveway if I can legally call a tow truck if necessary and have an offending vehicle moved and the owner billed for the tow. I have a right to my assigned airline seat if the airline enforces it for me if I need them to. Otherwise, absent the ability to enforce one's right, in each of these cases, claiming a right is meaningless.

I'm an American living in Mexico, where the government is small (weak) and corrupt at the lowest levels. Laws are often not enforced, which can be a problem for somebody used to clamoring about rights. One of my former neighbors tried to get a granite cutting and sanding business moved away from across the street from his home with a progressive series of threats under the assumption that since there were zoning laws being broken, he could enforce his will. The police told him that if they enforced the law this time, they'd have to do it all of the time, whatever that means, but it was clear that they wouldn't help him. Then the lawyers. Still no satisfaction. Eventually, he had to move in self-defense after alienating his neighbors, and he had no rights there, either, because government didn't support him. He never had those rights he assumed and claimed for himself.

Everyone must submit to the governing authorities. For no authority exists except by God, and the authorities that do exist have been established by God.
Romans 13:1. I brought up the Declaration of Independence because that document was foundational for establishing the new US government in acknowledging that human rights come from God, not a king (or government).

I didn't see a mention of "God" in either the Declaration or the Constitution, and we know that many of the Founders were deists.

That scripture, in my opinion, is why the Founders made references to rights coming from a creator. Actually, there at least two instructing Christians to submit to the authority of the king:

• "Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves."- Romans 13:1-2
• "Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient" - Titus 3:1

So how do you convince people to take arms against the divinely-appointed king? By telling them that their creator grants them the right to rebel, which contradicts scripture if by creator one means the Christian god. You don't see creators mentioned in any other context but the Declaration when justifying rebellion against a king.

How do you know what God is or isn’t accomplishing?

It's pretty easy to see what isn't being done by a god or anybody else, and there is insufficient reason to think that what does happen was caused by a god.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Rights are created through the effective force of law.

And here I disagree. Rights are inherent in our nature as social creatures with individual needs and desires. The force of law may DENY those rights, but it does not create them -- and often enough, denial of rights creates unjust harm to some individuals.

Here in Brazil, we have many positive rights, such as right to health, meaning the State must provide health services for free.

Such a right (as "right to health") is beyond the capacity of the state to grant. Healthcare, while the state can mandate that, cannot guarantee health. We still can't cure everything that might kill us, and therefore we will all still die. (Alexander had Hephaestion's doctor killed for "lack of care" after the latter's death. It didn't do a thing for Hephaestion.)

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I didn't see a mention of "God" in either the Declaration or the Constitution, and we know that many of the Founders were deists.

Being deists means that they believed (in some fashion or other) in a creation, but that the creator thereafter took a hands-off approach. Thus, when saying that they are "endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights," they are saying much the same thing as I am -- not the God is defending anybody's rights, only that it is wrong to deny them. That is why the Constitutional amendments go so far as to guarantee the right to peacefully protest and seek redress -- in the very first amendment of the Bill of Rights.

I cannot help but view that, not as lawmakers granting rights, but rather recognizing them AS rights, and declaring it misuse of governmental power to attempt to deny them.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I cannot help but view that, not as lawmakers granting rights, but rather recognizing them AS rights, and declaring it misuse of governmental power to attempt to deny them.

You probably know that I view it differently. Rights come from man. But by that, I mean recognized and enforceable rights. Unenforced claims to a right are a different matter. That's a different word spelled and pronounced the same, but with a distinct definition. One might say that children have a right to be sheltered from religious indoctrination until they develop some defense (critical thought), but that would be this second word, the unenforceable right, not the first word, which refers to rights you can assert and expect satisfaction if you need to.

And I know that YOU don't see rights as coming from gods, but for those that do, I would add that it's not a coincidence that those rights were enumerated in the American Constitution AFTER the end of the Age of Faith and the rise of humanism (Age of Reason, Enlightenment). We'd still be waiting for that god if we hadn't stepped in and taken control of the matter ourselves. These rights are enumerated and enforced by humans, because who else is going to do it?

 

[Alien826]

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

So we are told. My point is that importing a lot of forgiven sinners into heaven isn't going to maintain its sin free status. It would be like pardoning everyone in prison and setting them free, then assuming we have solved the problem of crime. The only way to do that would be by force, either by making it impossible to sin (if I try to hit you I'm afflicted by a mysterious paralysis of the arm) or changing me so that I am unable to form the concept of hitting you. In the first case, what happened to free will that is apparently so important, and in the second case would that still be me?

I totally agree about the boring part, btw.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Being deists means that they believed (in some fashion or other) in a creation, but that the creator thereafter took a hands-off approach. Thus, when saying that they are "endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights," they are saying much the same thing as I am -- not the God is defending anybody's rights, only that it is wrong to deny them. That is why the Constitutional amendments go so far as to guarantee the right to peacefully protest and seek redress -- in the very first amendment of the Bill of Rights.

I cannot help but view that, not as lawmakers granting rights, but rather recognizing them AS rights, and declaring it misuse of governmental power to attempt to deny them.

It is interesting to compare this to the story, within T.H. White's The Once and Future King, of The Wart (King Arthur) being turned into an ant in one of Merlyn's "lessons" (Chapter 13). Over the entrance to one ant colony is a sign reading "Everything Not Forbidden is Compulsory." In this, I think that White is making a powerful statement on how societies run the risk of becoming overly rigid and uniform by ignoring members' uniquenesses. Humans and ants are eusocial species, indeed, but humans differ hugely in that we also operate very effectively as individuals, with our own individual natures. And it is only in being free to do so that we can truly engage in "the pursuit of happiness."

 

[Alien826]

Not sure how that addresses my response to you.

I was offering an alternative answer, not necessarily disagreeing.

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.

I don't see how "rule" and "law" are different in principle in those case. The referee has power to enforce the rule, just as the policeman does, and there is punishment involved in both cases. The scope of that power is very different of course.

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.

I agree. That wasn't my point though. I was trying to decide where the words "right" and "law" were appropriate to use.

As an example, I have the right to travel. If I get into a car to do so, I am constrained by certain laws.

 

[Koldo]

And here I disagree. Rights are inherent in our nature as social creatures with individual needs and desires. The force of law may DENY those rights, but it does not create them -- and often enough, denial of rights creates unjust harm to some individuals.

But how do you show that rights exist as inherent in our nature? Where's the evidence or a priori argument? This is the biggest flaw in arguing in favor of natural rights ever since... ever. It is just wishful thinking.

Such a right (as "right to health") is beyond the capacity of the state to grant. Healthcare, while the state can mandate that, cannot guarantee health. We still can't cure everything that might kill us, and therefore we will all still die. (Alexander had Hephaestion's doctor killed for "lack of care" after the latter's death. It didn't do a thing for Hephaestion.)

Do you mean we don't have a right unless the State can always ensure it?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

But how do you show that rights exist as inherent in our nature? Where's the evidence or a priori argument? This is the biggest flaw in arguing in favor of natural rights ever since... ever. It is just wishful thinking.



Do you mean we don't have a right unless the State can always ensure it?

Well, if you don't think there is such a thing as a "natural right," you must therefore presume that it must be somehow granted to you -- obviously by someone who (for some reason you don't explain) has the natural right to do so! I'm curious why you would suppose that your rights have to be given by somebody else, why you suppose somebody else has the right to give them to you ------ or not!

Picture yourself an early human, very early in our species. There you are, alone somewhere in the rift valley, and you decide you want to go somewhere. You might go forward, left, right, backward. Do you have the right to do so? Who's going to stop you. Say you now decide you want to eat some berries off that bush over there. Where does the rule come from that says you may or may not? Now, you need to take a leak. Can you? Why or why not?

It is only when other humans come along that you even need consider these things. So, along comes another human and says, "you may not eat those berries -- I've decided." By what right do you imagine he does so? The berries grew by themselves -- nobody planted them, because nobody knows anything about agriculture. Now, he may be bigger than you, and you may decide to back down -- but in that case, you have been denied your right by external threat, and that denial is, as far as I can see, unjust.

And no, the state has nothing to do with "ensuring" your right. In the case of your health, I'm sorry to say it is natural for all creatures to die, and therefore you will. Your right to "life" extends only so long as nature itself allows. If a comet crashes down on you, back there in the rift valley in Africa, your right to life is ended.

 

[Koldo]

Well, if you don't think there is such a thing as a "natural right," you must therefore presume that it must be somehow granted to you -- obviously by someone who (for some reason you don't explain) has the natural right to do so!

I have absolutely no idea why you assume this. I consider no one has natural rights.

I'm curious why you would suppose that your rights have to be given by somebody else, why you suppose somebody else has the right to give them to you ------ or not!

Rights are an expression of power. If you are powerful enough to ensure them, you can create them yourself.

Picture yourself an early human, very early in our species. There you are, alone somewhere in the rift valley, and you decide you want to go somewhere. You might go forward, left, right, backward. Do you have the right to do so? Who's going to stop you. Say you now decide you want to eat some berries off that bush over there. Where does the rule come from that says you may or may not? Now, you need to take a leak. Can you? Why or why not?

It is only when other humans come along that you even need consider these things. So, along comes another human and says, "you may not eat those berries -- I've decided." By what right do you imagine he does so? The berries grew by themselves -- nobody planted them, because nobody knows anything about agriculture. Now, he may be bigger than you, and you may decide to back down -- but in that case, you have been denied your right by external threat, and that denial is, as far as I can see, unjust.

This relates to the distinction I have made between having a right and being free to do something, I have nothing else to add until you address that.

And no, the state has nothing to do with "ensuring" your right. In the case of your health, I'm sorry to say it is natural for all creatures to die, and therefore you will. Your right to "life" extends only so long as nature itself allows. If a comet crashes down on you, back there in the rift valley in Africa, your right to life is ended.

That works for negative rights too. Having your life, property and freedom of speech taken away from you, be it because of a natural event or an animal (including another human), is natural too.

And you didn't answer my questions. Must the State always ensure your right to property for you to say you have a right to property?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I have absolutely no idea why you assume this. I consider no one has natural rights.

Do you indeed? Well, you''ve just solved the abortion problem, then -- simply wait until the child is born and then smother it to death. That child has, as you say, no natural right to breathe, so nobody can be guilty for depriving them of it.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

And you didn't answer my questions. Must the State always ensure your right to property for you to say you have a right to property?

I did answer your question -- the problem is that you, not I, brought up the state. You said the state guarantees your right to health. I said it cannot. Providing health care is not the same thing as providing health. Sometimes, after all, health care is merely palliative -- addressing comfort instead of health.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

This relates to the distinction I have made between having a right and being free to do something, I have nothing else to add until you address that.

Because in the end, I think the difference is trivial. Do I have a right to insult you to your face? Am I free to? (Well, not on RF, of course, but let's pretend we're just sitting on a bench in the park.) The fact is, not only am a free to, but I do have a right to. Now, you may take offense, and decide to hit me with a brick -- but guess what, when we get to court, I will win, every time. In this case, my freedom is quite equivalent to my right.

Now, do I have the right, or freedom, to jay-walk? In fact, I'm always free to do so. But as it happens, if I do it when there is a cop around, I could wind up paying a fine -- simply because society has made (democratically) a decision that we agree pedestrians should cross at corners or at designated crossings. We have decided to give up the right to cross wherever we please.

 

[Koldo]

Do you indeed? Well, you''ve just solved the abortion problem, then -- simply wait until the child is born and then smother it to death. That child has, as you say, no natural right to breathe, so nobody can be guilty for depriving them of it.

I am not sure I follow? Natural rights not existing doesn't mean I want to live in a country where no rights exist.

I did answer your question -- the problem is that you, not I, brought up the state. You said the state guarantees your right to health. I said it cannot. Providing health care is not the same thing as providing health. Sometimes, after all, health care is merely palliative -- addressing comfort instead of health.

You still didn't answer my question.

Because in the end, I think the difference is trivial. Do I have a right to insult you to your face? Am I free to? (Well, not on RF, of course, but let's pretend we're just sitting on a bench in the park.) The fact is, not only am a free to, but I do have a right to. Now, you may take offense, and decide to hit me with a brick -- but guess what, when we get to court, I will win, every time. In this case, my freedom is quite equivalent to my right.

Excellent question. No, you don't have the right to insult me in my face, nor behind my back here in Brazil. It constitutes a crime called 'injúria' (and it might even also be 'difamação'). This just goes to show how the concept of rights is going to depend on where you live.

Now, do I have the right, or freedom, to jay-walk? In fact, I'm always free to do so. But as it happens, if I do it when there is a cop around, I could wind up paying a fine -- simply because society has made (democratically) a decision that we agree pedestrians should cross at corners or at designated crossings. We have decided to give up the right to cross wherever we please.

Jaywalking is not a crime in Brazil.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

You still didn't answer my question.

You are ridiculously hard to please, or you're not seeing what I'm trying to convey. Look at the "inalienable rights" enshrined in the US Constitution, which includes the right to "life." Now, suppose you murder me? What happened to my right? Oh, the state may come after you, they may imprison you -- or they may never find you, in which case you get away with it. But the plain, undeniable fact is the state, in this case, could not guarantee that right that it claims to have granted me. It has been unjustly denied me -- but the fact that it was unjust doesn't give me my life back.

Therefore, why would you even suppose that a right depends on the state's "guarantee?"

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Jaywalking is not a crime in Brazil.

I'm not writing in Brazil.