-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Where do rights come from?
- Thread starter Rival
- Start date
Happens all the time! We live in a republic; not a democracy. Had we waited for a majority to agree before passing laws, Roe vs Wade probably wouldn't have gotten off the ground in the first place; heck women still probably wouldn't be allowed to vote!
So who was the fittest and strongest that ended slavery and allowed women the right to vote?
How does this put the nation at risk?
Your comments have me thinking about the phrase "inalienable rights". As I think about that phrase it strikes me as a complete fiction. There is no such thing. And certainly there is no "right" that is unencumbered by some caveat or other. Perhaps the concept of rights is equivalent to the concept of ideals. One strives for them but they are never fully realized.
vulcanlogician
Well-Known Member
I don't see how a things being conditional precludes us from enjoying or arguing the goodness of rights. We can have an idea of "inalienable rights."
I agree that all rights are (and ought to be) accompanied by some caveat. The pythagorean theorem is true, we can all agree. But it is accompanied by the caveat that we are speaking of Euclidean space. That caveat doesn't interfere with the truth-value of the pythagorean theorem. It merely lays out the necessary conditions in which Pythagoras was right or wrong. When we start considering non-Euclidean space, the pythagorean theorem might not apply.
But when we are talking about Euclidean space, the Pythagorean theorem is true each and every time. And since the space we live in and know (whether it is perfectly Euclidean or not) nonetheless expresses some truth about some kind of Euclidean space that (more or less) exists.
Humans think about things in the space of politics and morality. And they are able to say things like "If x, then Y." You assume that Euclidean (or non-Euclidean) space is real or it is not real. Once you consider one possibility or the other, you see that certain conclusions follow from what we can learn about that kind of space. The moral topology works the same way. All you have to do is assume one basic moral premise and then BOOM. A ton of logical and accurate moral conclusions may follow.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
The collective and BTW, slavery did not end.
Certainly, if the space is there to do that. Thinking about or have an "idea" about inalienable rights is a far cry from actually possessing or experiencing them. The reality is that any right that may be imagined is vulnerable. Vulnerability would preclude a designation of inalienability in my view.
In the United States specifically or did not end on this planet? If there is slavery in the US, where and in what manner?
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
The 13th amendment. Slavery is still allowed via an exception clause.
Unfettered
A striving disciple of Jesus Christ
I think Thomas Jefferson got it right: They exist on a "self-evident" basis.
But what does that mean?
I understand that to mean that if what people want is to live in civilized societies, then recognizing the reality of natural rights and holding them inviolate—by default, and as the default—is the only viable course. IE, it is self-evident that we have such rights. IE, if we want civilization, rights exist and we must secure that reality with actual practice; if we don't want civilization, rights don't exist and we can all do whatever we can get away with.
That's what I understand is being asserted when it is said that it is "self-evident" that we are endowed with certain rights, etc. And as Revoltingest points out, rights result only when there is accord, and on no other basis are they ever realized (initially).
Last edited:
That's only problematic if you reject that western/american law, and specifically human rights law, has a philosophical foundation. Moreover, the highest written law in America specifically notes that rights exist outside of its enumeration.
All that is done by saying human rights are socially created is making the term meaningless by including its negation in the definition. If you argue that human rights are socially derived, you're at the same place as before the discourse on human rights existed.
Augustus
…
I mean their basis is in one form of myth or another.
Religious myths or secular myths - narratives that explain why others should accept these values as true.
All men are created equal, his gave us 10 commandments, we have a duty to all of humanity etc.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Rights (glorified privileges, as George Carlin called them) ultimately come from the state, who can grant rights and take them away just as well.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Yup. Not enough people realize that Amendment does allow it as a punishment. Add in modern American policing is based on slave hunting and privitized prisons and suddenly it's a lucrative business to have people locked up.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
The problem is that if I say rights don't exist, someone else will come along and say that rights obviously exist since I would only need to look at most countries' legal systems. Thus, putting the philosophical and legal application of the term into the same basket.
I say that rights are socially created because as far as the legal term goes, they are socially created. Here in Brazil we have a positive right to health, meaning we can sue the State to provide expensive medication (for free). An american might say this is not a proper right, but in Brazil it is, as far as the legal term goes.
More than that, without legal recognition, or at least mutual recognition, rights have absolutely no relevancy. They are just empty claims.
Alien826
No religious beliefs
I have observed that many (I haven't enough data to say "most", but I suspect it is true) dramatic changes are pushed through by a minority, as the most people resist change. However the change then either survives or doesn't based on how the majority experiences and values it. I believe universal heath care in Canada was very controversial at first, but now it seems to be accepted by the majority. I think we will see "Dobbs" fade away over the years as most people oppose it, but time will tell.
Alien826
No religious beliefs
I would add that a right is equally ineffective if it is not enforced (even if legally defined). During the time of "Jim Crow" black men had the legal right to vote, but were not able to exercise that right in certain areas of the country.
Whether that is or is not a problem, it does not address the problem of contradiction in saying human rights exist as social constructs.
How do you approach the law itself saying that is not the case?
Koldo
Outstanding Member
Legal rights are social constructs, but jusnaturalism rights are not. I say that rights are social contructs because I don't believe in the existence of jusnaturalism rights.
Just like I approach the preamble of Brazil's constitution when it states the constitution was promulgated under God's protection: It is frill.