ARE WE ENDOWED WITH CERTAIN UNALIENABLE RIGHTS?

You are starting to come around. You are using legally granted rights in your examples.

0 Replies

I have started a new forum to run concurrently with this one.

DOES OUR GOVERNMENT ADEQUATELY "SUPPORT" OUR CONSTITUTION AS AMENDED AND, THEREBY, ADEQUATELY SECURE OUR INTRINSIC AND INHERENT RIGHTS TO LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS?

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=331493#331493

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

You are starting to come around. You are using legally granted rights in your examples.

You miss my point altogether.

Since lawful rights are not alienated when one is deprived of their enjoyment, why must intrinsic and inherent rights be alienated when one is deprived of the enjoyment of one of them?

Hmmmmmmmm? Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

ican I missed it on purpose because it was pointless. You continue to assert that the rights are intristic yet at the same time declare that any can declare rights for all.

If they are declared they are a choice.

Your arguments contradict themselves. I chose to avoid the tedium and let you stick to your guns.

0 Replies

Since Ican did not supply a link to his new thread, I thought I would do it.

As I see it, the new thread is the conservative screed I said was coming.

You be the judge.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=11111&highlight=

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Since Ican did not supply a link to his new thread, I thought I would do it.

As I see it, the new thread is the conservative screed I said was coming.

You be the judge.

Check again, sport!

DOES OUR GOVERNMENT ADEQUATELY "SUPPORT" OUR CONSTITUTION?
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=331493#331493

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Since Ican did not supply a link to his new thread, I thought I would do it.

As I see it, the new thread is the conservative screed I said was coming.

You be the judge.

Check again, sport!

DOES OUR GOVERNMENT ADEQUATELY "SUPPORT" OUR CONSTITUTION?
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=331493#331493

Christ, even you shouldn't stoop to that kind of nonsense. Your post was edited. When I posted my comment -- you didn't have the link in there. And according to the edited information -- you edited 8 minutes after I posted the link in my posting.

Instead of trying to bullshit people, a simple "Thank you, Frank" would have been sufficient.

0 Replies

truth
I hope everyone (or anyone), whether or not he agrees or disagrees with Ican, appreciates Ican's intellectual energy, resilience, and creativity. He should be a lawyer.

0 Replies

I think Ican's original question is an interesting one, one worth discussing, one which is very revealing. But I think he's corrupted his question with his responses: dismissing the social construct as insignificant rather than a piece of good fortune which sustained him. There is a balance here if one relies (he has) on the benefits of society. We can't be frontiersmen our whole lives. We have, however, handed over too much of our independence. If we could just stop with the political rhetoric, redolent of late night talk shows, and get back to the discussion of "rights" -- fair claims -- I think this is worth pursuing.

0 Replies

Tartarin wrote:

I think Ican's original question is an interesting one, one worth discussing, one which is very revealing. But I think he's corrupted his question with his responses: dismissing the social construct as insignificant rather than a piece of good fortune which sustained him. There is a balance here if one relies (he has) on the benefits of society. We can't be frontiersmen our whole lives. We have, however, handed over too much of our independence. If we could just stop with the political rhetoric, redolent of late night talk shows, and get back to the discussion of "rights" -- fair claims -- I think this is worth pursuing.

I wholeheartedly agree. The proposition that people are endowed with inherent rights is much more robust than the rather feeble defense offered by ican makes it appear. So let me offer a hypothetical to which the opponents of inherent rights can respond:

Let us suppose that the right to life is one of the rights (not as an inherent right, but rather based on a foundation of social agreement -- of whatever kind you may decide) recognized by a certain society. The "right to life" may be defined thus: the right, against all society, not to be unjustly deprived of life. And in that definition, "unjustly" is defined as: without the legal process accorded to all other members of society. We can furthermore assume that this society provides a level of legal process to all citizens that is universally regarded as satisfactory and consistent with the ends of justice.

Now, suppose this society decides (in whatever fashion that is consistent with previous decisions taken by this society with regard to rights) that profoundly retarded persons will no longer have the same right to life as other members of society. Instead, profoundly retarded persons will have no right to life -- meaning, in effect, that anyone in society could kill a profoundly retarded person without either suffering legal consequences or indeed depriving the victim of any meaningful "right."

Given this scenario, what are the answers to the following:

1. Could a society rightfully do this? In other words, could a society -- which is, after all, the source of all rights -- take away the right to life of a certain identifiable segment of that society? If so, how? If not, why?

2. If the right to life is taken away from this segment of the population, is there any recourse for those persons? In other words, if the society follows the proper procedures for changing rights, can those profoundly retarded persons in any meaningful sense be aggrieved, or should they simply be satisfied that the proper procedures have been followed and society has made its will known?

Note: purely practical problems with this scenario are not sufficient objections. Saying "this would never happen" or "people would never do this" is simply irrelevant. Not only are such practical difficulties easily surmountable (this is, after all, a hypothetical -- there is no such thing as an insurmountable practical obstacle), but there is also no guarantee that some society wouldn't act in this kind of fashion at some point in the future (Germany in the 1930s, e.g., did something close to this).

0 Replies

To push Joefromchicago's case even further: When the government of Germany arbitrarily decided that Jews, homosexuals, Gypsies and handicapped people no longer have a right to live, did it have the right to do this? And did the allied judges in the Nuremberg trials have nothing but the right of the victor on their side when they convicted the responsible people to prison and death?

If not, how do you justify your opinion without recurring to a statement like 'All individuals have a natural right to live, and societies can't take this life away from them no matter how much they want to'?

0 Replies

Joe

As you know by now, I am of the school that says rights are not inherent or unalienable. I'd like to discuss your hypothetical from that position.

I'm going to disagree with several of the things you've mentioned so far.

Quote:

But I think he's corrupted his question with his responses: dismissing the social construct as insignificant rather than a piece of good fortune which sustained him.

I do not see how the "social construct" can possibly help sustain the notion that our rights are endowed upon us - which apparently is an essential to Ican's thesis.

Quote:

There is a balance here if one relies (he has) on the benefits of society. We can't be frontiersmen our whole lives. We have, however, handed over too much of our independence.

I seriously doubt that modern society can exist without a great deal of "handing over of our independence." I'm not really sure what you mean by "too much" - but I rather suspect that we Americans have retained more of our independence than almost any other group during the history of civilization (ancient Greece included!) - so the notion of "too much" in this context seems more like hyperbole than reality.

I'd love to hear more about what you mean here - and perhaps I can gain a better appreciation for your take on this aspect of the issue.

Quote:

So let me offer a hypothetical to which the opponents of inherent rights can respond:

Let us suppose that the right to life is one of the rights (not as an inherent right, but rather based on a foundation of social agreement -- of whatever kind you may decide) recognized by a certain society. The "right to life" may be defined thus: the right, against all society, not to be unjustly deprived of life. And in that definition, "unjustly" is defined as: without the legal process accorded to all other members of society. We can furthermore assume that this society provides a level of legal process to all citizens that is universally regarded as satisfactory and consistent with the ends of justice.

Now, suppose this society decides (in whatever fashion that is consistent with previous decisions taken by this society with regard to rights) that profoundly retarded persons will no longer have the same right to life as other members of society. Instead, profoundly retarded persons will have no right to life -- meaning, in effect, that anyone in society could kill a profoundly retarded person without either suffering legal consequences or indeed depriving the victim of any meaningful "right."

Given this scenario, what are the answers to the following:

1. Could a society rightfully do this? In other words, could a society -- which is, after all, the source of all rights -- take away the right to life of a certain identifiable segment of that society? If so, how? If not, why?

Interesting phrase "which is, after all, the source of all rights"

Almost makes defending my side of this issue too easy.

In any case, YES - a society could rightfully do this?

A society can decide for itself if this is "moral" or "ethical."

It can do it by reaching a consensus in whatever ways consensuses are reached in the society - and then making laws that codify it.

I wouldn't feel particularly comfortable in such a society - I am a big-mouth who often defends positions that are extremely unpopular - and I recognize that if this hypothetical society could rightfully take away the "right" to life of retarded individuals - it could also take away the "right" to life of big-mouths.

Quote:

2. If the right to life is taken away from this segment of the population, is there any recourse for those persons? In other words, if the society follows the proper procedures for changing rights, can those profoundly retarded persons in any meaningful sense be aggrieved, or should they simply be satisfied that the proper procedures have been followed and society has made its will known?

Well I imagine if there were in place means for arriving at a consensus - such as mentioned in my earlier answer - people who disagree, although a minority - could organize and attempt a repeal of the law. (Like prohibition and repeal)

At no point do I think people in a reasonable society will simply sit back and assume society has made its will know - and that is that!

I'm interested to see where this goes.

0 Replies

A society could legally take away the rights of profoundly retarded people to life, if due legal process were folowed. The only legal challenge which could be mounted would be if that country had a constitution granting its people the right to life (though quibbles about the meaning of "people" might be raised by determined defenders), or if it had signed on as an adherent to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, or somesuch.

I could mount a perfectly reasonable case for the foolishness of their deciding to kill the profoundly retarded - based on enlightened self-interest, for example - for the very reason Frank, in this comment, gives:

" I am a big-mouth who often defends positions that are extremely unpopular ? and I recognize that if this hypothetical society could rightfully take away the "right" to life of retarded individuals ? it could also take away the "right" to life of big-mouths. "

People would also argue, on various ethical or religious grounds, that the law was not right.

As I said way back when, I agree with human rights, and I believe a sensible and overwhelming case can be made for them, I just do not see them as inalienable or endowed at birth by nature, or nature's god - or whatever else would make them unable to be alienated...

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

A society could legally take away the rights of profoundly retarded people to life, if due legal process were folowed.

... which the Nazis arguably did in Germany. Under the constitution of the Weimar Republic, it was perfectly legal for the Reichstag (the German parliament) to give Adolf Hitler dictatorial power and allow him to repeal human rights for millions of people. If I understand your argument correctly, it follows that Hitler was justified in what he did to the Jews because he followed due process.

Based on this understanding of your argument, I strongly disagree with it.

0 Replies

Yes, I think it's important to get down to cases here. Which rights? Exerted by whom? Suppressed by whom?

Thanks, Joe, for taking this issue into the light of day!

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

I'm going to disagree with several of the things you've mentioned so far.

Well, to be fair, I didn't say those things. I was simply quoting Tartarin's earlier post. And I suppose I should have made it clearer that I was endorsing Tartarin's premise (that there is a stronger case to be made for inherent rights than had been made by ican so far) and conclusion (that this topic deserves further debate). As for some of the things between the premise and conclusion -- well, I'm not clear on the "frontiersmen" comment either. Perhaps Tartarin could explain?

Frank Apisa wrote:

Interesting phrase "which is, after all, the source of all rights" Almost makes defending my side of this issue too easy.

Well, let me make it clear: I am not suggesting that I necessarily endorse that view. For the purposes of the hypothetical, however, I think it is necessary that the society in question views rights in this fashion.

Frank Apisa wrote:

I wouldn't feel particularly comfortable in such a society - I am a big-mouth who often defends positions that are extremely unpopular - and I recognize that if this hypothetical society could rightfully take away the "right" to life of retarded individuals - it could also take away the "right" to life of big-mouths.

Why wouldn't you feel comfortable in such a society? After all, you claim to live in such a society right now. Look at it this way: if all rights are societal (as you have held), then every society based on this foundation must have some means by which those rights can be changed -- if there was no mechanism for change, that would be as much as conceding that some rights are unchangeable, and there would then either have to be some recognition of inherent rights or some other basis for justifying the immutability of certain rights.

Granted, the society in which you live right now is not embarking on the course outlined in my hypothetical, but it always could, according to your position. Shouldn't that make you feel uncomfortable as well?

Frank Apisa wrote:

At no point do I think people in a reasonable society will simply sit back and assume society has made its will know - and that is that!

An impermissible practical objection. Sure, we can imagine that people will complain, protest, immolate themselves in the middle of intersections, etc. -- but we can also just as easily imagine that no one will protest at all. If we can analogize society's decision to alter rights to an election, and if the loser of a fair, free, and decisive election is, in no sense, wronged by the election result, then we can also say that people who are deprived of their rights in such a fair, free, and decisive manner also have no right to complain about the results.

0 Replies

Frontiersman: My impression of Ican, through his argument, is that we are unbound in nature, set loose... (there's a word here I'm searching for and can't find). The impression is one of the frontiersman, answerable, in effect, to no one.

And then there's another aspect: fear of the majority (see Joe's last paragraph). But I gotta run. Back later.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

A society could legally take away the rights of profoundly retarded people to life, if due legal process were folowed. The only legal challenge which could be mounted would be if that country had a constitution granting its people the right to life (though quibbles about the meaning of "people" might be raised by determined defenders), or if it had signed on as an adherent to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, or somesuch.

No, the quibbles wouldn't be over any meaning of "people," or any other definitional issue. If we have a society where all rights are derived from society, then that society's constitution is likewise based on the same societal foundation. It is no objection to say that society can change some rights as long as it conforms to the constitution, for the simple reason that society can change the constitution. What you are putting forward, then, boils down to an impermissible practical difficulty, not a logical obstacle.

If, on the other hand, dlowan, you're suggesting that some rights enshrined in the constitution are somehow unchangeable, you have to provide a basis for that position -- and you cannot rely upon the notion that all rights are societal rights (since, as has already been pointed out, all societal rights are subject to society's sanction).

Similarly, in a society where all rights are societal in nature, no adhesion to an international treaty would bind that society as to the rights that it recognizes. The only way that a society could bind itself to such a treaty, and thus pledge itself to respect the rights contained in that treaty, is if that society made "adhesion to treaties" or "keeping promises" a fundamental premise of rights. In other words, there would be something about those rights, guaranteed by a treaty, that places them outside the normal scope of societal rights. But that "something" would, in turn, need to be justified by something else. And that "something else" can't be subject to society's ability to change it in the same way that it could change rights. In effect, that "something else" would have to be "inherent and immutable." What is it, dlowan?

dlowan wrote:

People would also argue, on various ethical or religious grounds, that the law was not right.

So what? That's an irrelevant practical consideration.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
I wouldn't feel particularly comfortable in such a society - I am a big-mouth who often defends positions that are extremely unpopular - and I recognize that if this hypothetical society could rightfully take away the "right" to life of retarded individuals - it could also take away the "right" to life of big-mouths.

Why wouldn't you feel comfortable in such a society? After all, you claim to live in such a society right now. Look at it this way: if all rights are societal (as you have held), then every society based on this foundation must have some means by which those rights can be changed -- if there was no mechanism for change, that would be as much as conceding that some rights are unchangeable, and there would then either have to be some recognition of inherent rights or some other basis for justifying the immutability of certain rights.

Perhaps poor wording on my part, Joe. But perhaps also an acknowledgement that I am living in a society that CAN INDEED take away rights from me as they choose.

The "rights" we enjoy, we enjoy only because cercumstances allow them to exist at the moment -- but we have to recognize that things could change very, very radically without a lot of difficulty for the people who might want such change.

In my opinion, there are no "rights" that are immutable, unalienable, inalienable, inherent, or anything else of that sort.

All of our "rights" -- as nearly as I can tell -- are transitory.

As for my "perhaps poor wording" comment -- I said that becasuse my intention when I wrote that sentence was to communicate the idea that I would be MORE worried about my "rights" to speak as freely as I do -- if I lived in a society that had already made the kind of radical decision your hypothetical hypothicated.

Quote:

Granted, the society in which you live right now is not embarking on the course outlined in my hypothetical, but it always could, according to your position. Shouldn't that make you feel uncomfortable as well?

Difinitely -- and especially right now where I see some of the "rights" we currently enjoy being eroded by what I consider a bunch of buffoons at the helm of the ship of state.

I do understand Ican's concerns about the possible erosion of his "right" to own guns.

But whether because I understand Ican's position or because I would not want my "right" to speak freely be eroded, I cannot argue that these "rights" are inherent or God given or permanent.

Quote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
At no point do I think people in a reasonable society will simply sit back and assume society has made its will know - and that is that!

An impermissible practical objection. Sure, we can imagine that people will complain, protest, immolate themselves in the middle of intersections, etc. -- but we can also just as easily imagine that no one will protest at all. If we can analogize society's decision to alter rights to an election, and if the loser of a fair, free, and decisive election is, in no sense, wronged by the election result, then we can also say that people who are deprived of their rights in such a fair, free, and decisive manner also have no right to complain about the results.

When I wrote those words initially, I removed them from the posting (out of deference to your rules) -- and then added them back in. I figured if you commented the way you did -- I'd invoke my "right" to tell you that I arbitrarily changed the rule.

I was having a bit of fun. Please disregard the comment.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Instead of trying to bullshit people, a simple "Thank you, Frank" would have been sufficient.

THANK YOU FRANK!

I apologize for the tease. I was in the middle of posting links in both directions when you posted your comment. I did have to make several corrections of my corrections to get it right.

SORRY ABOUT THAT.

0 Replies

ARE WE ENDOWED WITH CERTAIN UNALIENABLE RIGHTS?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know