do we have rights?

[surfdubs]

me and my room mate were having a debate over ethics, and he believes that rights don't exist. i know the christian responce might be something like god created us equally, and gave us all rights. what about a humanist responce? i'm not even sure how to approach the question of people not having rights, other than i disagree with it. im not all that great with ethics


THIS IS NOT A RELIGIOUS DEBATE, IT IS AN ETHICAL ONE. lets keep it that way so that it doesn't get deleted.

[Ian]

YouTube - George Carlin - Rights

[big_loaf]

^ That pretty much says it all really. How do you top George anyways?








Speaking of that; 13, and you've heard of George Carlin, and know his material well enough to post the perfect clip? Impressive.

[D-Man]

You have the inherent right to do whatever you want as long as you don't stop other people from doing what they want. Limits on rights and the concept of privileges are a component of society and government within the society.

Kant would say it is implicit of rational beings to act in such a manner as to expect to be acted upon similarly; but that's just logical consistency.

Do some research on John Locke and Ayn Rand, they tend to explain their, and largely America's, concept of rights well.

[Landy's_for_Life]

first off, Carlin ftw!.....anyways, as i see it, we don't have rights. big picture: one group of people trying to control another group(s). if we had rights, we would be doing whatever we wanted. for example, you have to be 21 to drink alcohol. if we had rights there would be no age limit, no rules, and nothing preventing people from drinking. also, curfew is at 10pm, until you are 18 years old. if we had rights, there would be no curfew, poeple could be out whenever they wanted. if we had rights, high school would be an option, with no consequence for not attending. we could say whatever we wanted, with no consequences. although, i do think respect, morals, consideration and logic are very important atributes that everyone should have. so thats my 2 cents, go watch fight club

[EBasil]

This is, at its genesis, a philosophical discussion and therefore divorced from the simple and general use of terms. So, the simple answer, that there are of course "rights" and you can look them up, doesn't apply: the philosophers want to consider whether the rights exist even if they're not written down or honored. At the most simplistic level, one might ask, "can I touch it?" and presume that, if the answer is no, then the thing does not exist. Extension without discipline leads to absurdity.

Can you touch an idea, a scent, heat or cold?

George Carlin approaches the issue from a political humorist's perspective: do rights "exist" if someone else can violate them? Does Carlin compromise his outrage at the excesses he exemplifies with Executive Order 9066 by concession? Does he agree now that the "rights" he outraged over the violation of, don't actually exist? Why's he outraged then? In fact, he reveals that he thinks rights DO exist and that was the point of his piece, anyway: to make us think about it.

On another level, there is the longstanding belief that, although one might not be able to touch them, "rights" do exist, either innately or by divine grant. This idea was revolutionary and subversive at one point, not really even that long ago...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Check out that first line, written by Left Wing Liberals of the day.

[CRASS]

i just heard a guy say that he doesnt belive in capital punishment but does belive in witches..

i think people abuse the right to be an assclown.

[inertiatic515]

You have the inherent right to do whatever you want as long as you don't stop other people from doing what they want. Limits on rights and the concept of privileges are a component of society and government within the society.

Kant would say it is implicit of rational beings to act in such a manner as to expect to be acted upon similarly; but that's just logical consistency.

Do some research on John Locke and Ayn Rand, they tend to explain their, and largely America's, concept of rights well.

Locke? Kant? AHHHHHHHH * 2nd year political theory overwhelming brain*




Seriously though... IMO I don't think that "rights" exist in reality. They're just societal norms and mores created by humans to give themselves in order to justify their own actions (ie. Freedom of speech as a human right).

I believe that the only TRUE "rights" people have are the access to things that are essential to continuing as a species: food, water, shelter.

Not to say that I don't appreciate freedom of speech or any other rights, but I don't believe that they're inherent to existence.

[TM_Cruzer]

the only rights we have are what the majority of our peers allow us to have.

[/thread]

[inertiatic515]

the only rights we have are what the majority of our peers allow us to have.

[/thread]

Only because they want those rights themselves.

[TM_Cruzer]

the only rights we have are what the majority of our peers allow us to have.

[/thread]

Only because they want those rights themselves.

pwnt

[/thread (really)]

jk

[Ibanez450dx]

Peoples rights go until they step into other people's rights. As in, we can do whatever until it interferes with another's rights. In example, not drinking until 21, it seems kind of stupid at first that theres a limit, but really if you give a 16 year old beer, and they go drive, its bad news for other people. Thats what i think, other than george's words haha.

[TM_Cruzer]

they go drive, its bad news for other people..

same as any age...

[Ibanez450dx]

same as any age...

Very true... I guess i'm just saying that younger teenagers dont have very good judgement skills... (i can talk, im 15 lol)

[TM_Cruzer]

Very true... I guess i'm just saying that younger teenagers dont have very good judgement skills... (i can talk, im 15 lol)

Meh, i know many teenagers with better judgment than many of my friends older than 20...
I'm 18.

[mc99david]

life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.. thats my opinion..

[D-Man]

Locke? Kant? AHHHHHHHH * 2nd year political theory overwhelming brain*




Seriously though... IMO I don't think that "rights" exist in reality. They're just societal norms and mores created by humans to give themselves in order to justify their own actions (ie. Freedom of speech as a human right).

I believe that the only TRUE "rights" people have are the access to things that are essential to continuing as a species: food, water, shelter.

Not to say that I don't appreciate freedom of speech or any other rights, but I don't believe that they're inherent to existence.

YOu seem to contend that rights are granted to us. I maintain that they are inherent to our being alive.

The absence of legislation (of any caliber) specifically limiting our freedoms does not necessarily mean they are not infringed upon. Like you said, we have certain societal customs are mores which define what we perceive as right or just, and the limitations in themselves impede upon our total freedom.

i dont get the 2nd year political theory comment...

I like your idea of "essential to living" but my ideas kinda of expand on that by taking the reciprocation factor into consideration. for example: hatred speech logically begets hatred speech, not something like murder. because others have the ability to defend/exercise their right when threatened, it is inherent to us.