Fundamental rights

@Mr Fight the Power,

Only one fundamental ethic is necessary. Everyone is free to do as they wish as long as they don't not limit another individual the right to do the same. In other words, one's freedom ends where another's begins.

I think the hyper individualism that dominates society today fails to understand that in order for freedom to exist there are necessary limits--especially respect for the other.

1 Reply

@Theaetetus,

Theaetetus - I wish human beings were capable of maintaining that standard.
We cant seem to manage this sort of respect in any area - from government to personal relationships.

The notion of 'rights' seems to come from hyper individualism. We began to think about what I deserve rather than what I should do. The maxim you quote is a restatement of the ethic of reciprocity with a reminder that we have free will.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

Theaetetus - I wish human beings were capable of maintaining that standard.
We cant seem to manage this sort of respect in any area - from government to personal relationships.

The notion of 'rights' seems to come from hyper individualism. We began to think about what I deserve rather than what I should do. The maxim you quote is a restatement of the ethic of reciprocity with a reminder that we have free will.

I wish humans were capable of maintaining that standard as well. It seems that institutional dogma has become too dominant a force for it to ever be a reality. It seems that it can be upheld in some respects, but the maxim is broken whenever convenient. At least there is hope and the future.

0 Replies

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

So what? People can claim to have a right to go to the moon just as easily as they can claim a right to healthcare, or anything else. Doesn't mean they have that right -doesn't even mean they should have that right.

Of course, I never said that it does.

Quote:

And that's what these rights amount to - what people want. What they think they can safely demand. 10,000 years ago the whole notion of rights would have been insane, but today, we can claim some rights and be reasonably satisfied with the response to our claim by government.

You keep making the same mistake. Normative rights are a matter of morality, and morality must be metaphysical thus transcending what people have, claim, or can get. If there are fundamental rights, they stem from ontology of people and mind.

1 Reply

@Mr Fight the Power,

And you're making the wrong assumption of saying that morality is metaphysical

2 Replies

@Holiday20310401,

Morality is relational and emotional if properly applied. Metaphysics has nothing to do with morality unless you really think that an invisible man will judge you upon death.

1 Reply

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401 wrote:

And you're making the wrong assumption of saying that morality is metaphysical

It is not an assumption. Morality necessitates human behavior that transcends natural causation and scientific inquiry. It requires that the actor be their own cause, a free will, and thus can never be categorized outside the realm of the metaphysical.

0 Replies

@Theaetetus,

Theaetetus wrote:

Morality is relational and emotional if properly applied. Metaphysics has nothing to do with morality unless you really think that an invisible man will judge you upon death.

No, metaphysics has everything to do with morality unless you hold the unfortunate position of the compatibilist. The natural causal determinism of the empirical sciences does not afford room to real choice, a necessary component of morality. A moral actor must transcend determinism and become a causa sui and this is certainly a matter of metaphysics.

1 Reply

@Mr Fight the Power,

Quote:

You keep making the same mistake. Normative rights are a matter of morality, and morality must be metaphysical thus transcending what people have, claim, or can get. If there are fundamental rights, they stem from ontology of people and mind.

Where is the mistake? I said, "The only rights you have are the ones you refuse to give up."
And that's true. We can talk about metaphysics and morality all day long, and conclude that we have some right - but that doesn't mean we actually have the right, that we can exercise the right. The speculation is idealization. Not much room for ideals in politics and law.

If your objection is that we should have this or that right for moral/metaphysical reasons, chances are I agree with you.

Quote:

The natural causal determinism of the empirical sciences does not afford room to real choice, a necessary component of morality.

You might be interested in Daniel Dennet's Freedom Evolves. Interesting book.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

Where is the mistake? I said, "The only rights you have are the ones you refuse to give up."
And that's true. We can talk about metaphysics and morality all day long, and conclude that we have some right - but that doesn't mean we actually have the right, that we can exercise the right. The speculation is idealization. Not much room for ideals in politics and law.

If your objection is that we should have this or that right for moral/metaphysical reasons, chances are I agree with you.

The mistake that I thought you were making was dismissing the discussion of fundamental rights on the basis of their lack of material feasibility.

It is still an important discussion even if we can guarantee that our arguments will be heard by the powers that be. In the end, even a skeptic like me admits that we must have an idea of what should be to know how to organize what is.

Ironically, we probably wouldn't agree on the foundation of rights as I condemn (probably inconsistently) moral realism as rubbish. I just wanted to play devil's advocate and try to frame this discussion correctly.

Quote:

You might be interested in Daniel Dennet's Freedom Evolves. Interesting book.

I've read it. It is a very interesting book, but I cannot help but feel he fails to save compatibilism and free will.

1 Reply

@Mr Fight the Power,

Quote:

The mistake that I thought you were making was dismissing the discussion of fundamental rights on the basis of their lack of material feasibility.

Ah, I see where you're going. I don't dismiss them as infeasible; maybe I'm just too optimistic about that. I see the issue as being two fold - we should have certain rights, but the only way to keep those rights is by self-control. It's up to us, government or not.

Quote:

It is still an important discussion even if we can guarantee that our arguments will be heard by the powers that be. In the end, even a skeptic like me admits that we must have an idea of what should be to know how to organize what is.

Right - and I have no problem talking about what rights we should have, my list is a long one.

Quote:

Ironically, we probably wouldn't agree on the foundation of rights as I condemn (probably inconsistently) moral realism as rubbish. I just wanted to play devil's advocate and try to frame this discussion correctly.

Maybe. What do you see as the foundation of rights?

Quote:

I've read it. It is a very interesting book, but I cannot help but feel he fails to save compatibilism and free will.

Yeah, I don't buy into Dennet's arguments whole sale, but he does open the door. It's a little like reading Nietzsche as a theist or altruist - you disagree, but the material gives a great deal to be considered, and informs your own perspective.

1 Reply

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401 wrote:

So religion is really diminishing the connection there should be between morality and rights.

It is supposable that religion incites critical thinking in an ethical context in those people who might not consider the ethics of begging for example. But on the other hand there's millions of followers traveling on their knees to pay the church some cash; apparently they consider it's a good thing to do, but maybe such aggrandizement of the church helps people to recognize the possibility for situations or events of greater import than the ego and the individual's desires. Ho hum.

Religion has corrupted the process of morality; a great example is 'evil' - why have 'evil' when 'bad' will suffice? Surely 'bad' is the opposite of 'good', so where or why does 'evil' fit into such a pretentious dichotomy? Surely the addition of a second general 'bad' concept leads to the belief that there is more bad than good. Although some (including myself) would say that evil is not all bad, and that the real honey-trap is the use of 'good' and 'bad' in discussions or debates. I wrote elsewhere a few hours ago that it might be preferable to replace 'good' with 'acceptable', and 'bad' with 'rejection'; this way there's no callous sense of defining in an absolute sense any concept or thing or piece of string.

1 Reply

@Doobah47,

Doobah47 wrote:

Religion has corrupted the process of morality; a great example is 'evil' - why have 'evil' when 'bad' will suffice? Surely 'bad' is the opposite of 'good', so where or why does 'evil' fit into such a pretentious dichotomy?

Evil and bad are not identical conceptions. "Bad" does not necessarily imply connote anything about intentions, while "evil" nearly always does. I think this distinction is very relevant to categorizing actions and their results to moral categories.

If you are hit by a meteor that is bad, if someone throws a rock at your head that's (sometimes) evil.

As for "rights" they are legal constructs. The only thing that separates a "right" from an ordinary law is the belief that they are more important than normal law.

I have yet to hear a compelling argument for the Metaphysical existence of any "human right." There are certainly strong pragmatic reasons to accept certain "human rights" however. (Well if you are human that is)

Very often things claimed by someone as rights are in my opinion evils, simple power seeking in moralistic guise.

0 Replies

@Jazzman phil,

Jazzman wrote:

This term suggests that there are some basic rights which are undeniable and which all other rights can be deduced from. But is that an objective truth or just an ideology to save the peaceful coexistence? What is a right and are there really some particular rights which are inextricably linked with the idea of rights? Was Thomas Hobbes right when he thought of rights as general claims which nobody questions? That would mean that there are no fundamental rights as long as there are people who contravene them.

This is the main duality of rules.

1. A rule that gives another the right to do "something".
2. A rule that takes another's the right to do "something".

The problem with sharing rules and fundamental rights is

1. Why dose this rule or fundamental right apply to I.
2. Why dose this rule or fundamental right not apply to I.
_________________________________________________
It's not an ideology to save the peaceful coexistence... It's a factual necessity for a system to peaceful co-existence with another peaceful system...

Rule's are needed to keep order, without rule's that apply to everyone equally chaos and conflicts will exist...

That's also why the rule's of nature's operation's are absolute and are always followed....

0 Replies

@Jazzman phil,

Sorry I haven't taken the time to read the whole thread but I wanted to respond to the OP.

Jazzman wrote:

This term suggests that there are some basic rights which are undeniable and which all other rights can be deduced from. But is that an objective truth or just an ideology to save the peaceful coexistence? What is a right and are there really some particular rights which are inextricably linked with the idea of rights? Was Thomas Hobbes right when he thought of rights as general claims which nobody questions? That would mean that there are no fundamental rights as long as there are people who contravene them.

I go with "an ideology to save the peaceful coexistence". I find Hobbes to have been a pretty smart guy who had a solid undertanding of human nature, so in essense, I agree with him as I do on many points.
I've yet to hear an entirely convincing argument that human rights are an objective truth. If one accepts certain religious beliefs then the objectivity of rights can be derived from those beliefs, however, this means one has to accept unverifiable religious claims to base an epistemology upon, which I personally find intellectually dishonest. Yet I do find it possible that to a certain degree through evolutionary processes, humans have developed a sense that other members of the same species deserve a certain minimum of respect. With the development of culture this could turn into the acceptance of certain rights. The root of the idea could be an evolved part of our nature. But it takes some stretching imo, to say that something like this would make rights an entirely objective truth. It's something that has happened to work for us, and I'm not sure you can read more into it than that.

0 Replies

@Jazzman phil,

Jazzman wrote:

This term suggests that there are some basic rights which are undeniable and which all other rights can be deduced from. But is that an objective truth or just an ideology to save the peaceful coexistence? What is a right and are there really some particular rights which are inextricably linked with the idea of rights? Was Thomas Hobbes right when he thought of rights as general claims which nobody questions? That would mean that there are no fundamental rights as long as there are people who contravene them.

If one approaches the question of rights logically, then one can determine that rights do exist a priori.

If there are no rights, then there is no right to say there are no rights.

If there are no rights, then there is no right to have or establish any government.

Hobbes was partially correct. He did correctly establish some natural rights, but he took his premises too far by allowing them to contradict each other. John Locke's reasoning avoided that problem.

0 Replies

@Jazzman phil,

Jazzman;17826 wrote:

This term suggests that there are some basic rights which are undeniable and which all other rights can be deduced from. But is that an objective truth or just an ideology to save the peaceful coexistence? What is a right and are there really some particular rights which are inextricably linked with the idea of rights? Was Thomas Hobbes right when he thought of rights as general claims which nobody questions? That would mean that there are no fundamental rights as long as there are people who contravene them.

Rights are restrictions (socially speaking, of course).
Your 'rights' are my restrictions.
If I have no fundamental 'restrictions', you have no fundamental 'rights'.
The only possible 'right' that you might have, if you want to call it that, is the 'right' to remain silent. Other than that bit of nonsense, you have no rights that cannot be taken from you. Only 'priveleges' can be taken. Your 'right' to silence cannot be taken.
Perhaps it is the ego that redefines a societal 'privelege' as a 'right'?

1 Reply

@nameless,

I haven't read all replies in this thread; apoligies in advance if this constitutes back-tracking

A "right" is something to which, "... someone has a just claim" (definition).

Whether or not someone has that just claim would necessarily depend, of course, on what basis we use. One could easily assume the mindset that says, '... there is no justice; justice is subjective and ambiguous, therefore there are no rights'. So the term is dependent upon a system for what constitutes 'it'. What is a right holds the key to what are those rights.

And it is illogical to say: If something can be taken away, it is therefore not a 'right'. You can't force me to dance the Charleston, therefore that is my one right. :nonooo:

Thanks

1 Reply

@Khethil,

Khethil wrote:

I haven't read all replies in this thread; apoligies in advance if this constitutes back-tracking

A "right" is something to which, "... someone has a just claim" (definition).

Whether or not someone has that just claim would necessarily depend, of course, on what basis we use. One could easily assume the mindset that says, '... there is no justice; justice is subjective and ambiguous, therefore there are no rights'. So the term is dependent upon a system for what constitutes 'it'. What is a right holds the key to what are those rights.

And it is illogical to say: If something can be taken away, it is therefore not a 'right'. You can't force me to dance the Charleston, therefore that is my one right. :nonooo:

Thanks

:a-ok:

You are on the right track. By applying principles of logic (i.e., RAA), we can see that rights are quite true, logically speaking.

Using your example of assuming there is no justice and hence no rights.

If there are no rights, then everyone is equal with regard to rights. If everyone is equal with regard to rights, then everyone is entitled to be treated equally in equal circumstances. If everyone is entitled to be treated equally in equal circumstances, then everyone has a claim on being treated equally. If everyone has a claim on being treated equally, then everyone has a right to justice. If everyone has a right to justice, then there are rights.

As we see from this application of RAA, the assumption or premise of no rights leads to a contradiction. The assumption or premise of no rights is false.

Truth values:

Rights exist = 1
No rights exist = 0

0 Replies

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

Ah, I see where you're going. I don't dismiss them as infeasible; maybe I'm just too optimistic about that. I see the issue as being two fold - we should have certain rights, but the only way to keep those rights is by self-control. It's up to us, government or not.

We are in agreement for the most part then.

It is simply the nature of moral rights that you have them by way of your moral standing as a person (typically in the Kantian sense of being your own end). You always possess these moral rights, and their violators are always at blame, even if they are not always at justice.

Quote:

Right - and I have no problem talking about what rights we should have, my list is a long one.

My list of rights is not long, but their implications could fill volumes.

Quote:

Maybe. What do you see as the foundation of rights?

I don't believe there are real moral rights, but I do believe rights can be founded in common human understanding. I think there are common rules of reason and argumentation that lead to unassailable moral positions an rules. It is sort of a under-formulated combination of Discourse Ethics and Moral Quasi-Realism.

Quote:

Yeah, I don't buy into Dennet's arguments whole sale, but he does open the door. It's a little like reading Nietzsche as a theist or altruist - you disagree, but the material gives a great deal to be considered, and informs your own perspective.

Yeah, I just don't understand how he gets to the conclusions he does. I am also a naturalist, and many of the arguments he uses for free will are exactly the same as most naturalistic determinists would use against it.

0 Replies

Fundamental rights

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know