Discussion of rights — natural, societal, etc. (1 Viewer)

[V Chip]

This deserves its own thread. If other posts can be moved here or copied here that would be helpful.

Are there such things as “natural” or “god-given” rights? Which rights would qualify? Which rights that are very common wouldn't? Who/what grants or enforces such rights?

 

[coldseat]

I hear you but it is not my job to feed or cure the illness of others. I will do that on a voluntary basis and not under coercion. Any "so-called right" that requires me to work for the well bing of someone else is not a right. Don't get me wrong I think that as an advanced society we should help others, but that need should not a burden on my life.

The right to free speech, which you consider intrinsic/inalienable, very much requires "others" to work for our well being so that we can have it. None of us are born with the ability to talk or communicate with others except in the most rudimentary of forms. For us to be able to talk and communicate, which is required for us to even have a right to free speech, it requires a very real monetary investment in education and effort by others to educate us for our well being (and societies well being). Moreover, for our voice to be amplified beyond a one on one interaction requires modes for us to do so, none of which is "free".

While it can be couched in flowery language, when considered from that perspective, the right to free speech is no different than a right to healthcare.

 

[Paul]

There is a difference but I don't think the distinction you are drawing is a particularly compelling one because they are all social constructs. It's what people decide they want to guarantee. That one is more 'affirmative' and requires government funding while the other is more 'passive' isn't that important for any purpose other than the sake of categorizing them.

I fully agree.

I think the discussion of whether it's more valuable to a society to ensure a minimum of healthcare or ensure unlimited access to firearms is the more substantive and relevant debate than whether a society should have rights that require funding versus rights that don't.

I do not disagree with goals you mention above. However, from a philosophical point of view what you want is not a right. If I have to cough up money so you can have your so called right then you are infringing on my freedom. OTHO, the other rights do not require that I give up my property or wealth. I see the latter as a desirable benefit and not strictly as a right in the manner the founding fathers framed it.

 

[Paul]

While it can be couched in flowery language, when considered from that perspective, the right to free speech is no different than a right to healthcare.

OK, we will have to agree to disagree. I see health care as a benefit that can ends with there is no cash to supplement the need of others. Meanwhile free speech costs nothing and is always available even if we lose twitter, this forum, or the opportunity to go to school.

 

[SystemShock]

Are you able to have a dialogue in good faith? Or do you want to play gotcha with snarky remarks? It is your choice.

That you think the statements you quoted are snarky and amount to playing gotcha...

Locke wrote that all individuals are equal in the sense that they are born with certain "inalienable" natural rights. That is, rights that are God-given and can never be taken or even given away. Among these fundamental natural rights, Locke said, are "life, liberty, and property."

You honestly don't see the fallacy of Locke's argument?

Could you explain in your own words what is a right?

A jab if you are left handed or a cross if you are right handed.

Come on...

 

[Dragon]

I hear you but it is not my job to feed or cure the illness of others. I will do that on a voluntary basis and not under coercion. Any "so-called right" that requires me to work for the well bing of someone else is not a right. Don't get me wrong I think that as an advanced society we should help others, but that need should not a burden on my life.

What you pay for is your membership fee to society and part of that membership "fee" is an insurrance that promise you that no matter how much hardship you fall on, there will be certain services available, As all "clubs" there is maintenance costs (roads, renovation, construction) and service costs (police, teachers etc.). If you dont want to pay the "fee" you have the freedom to move to another club with lower or no fees but also with less or no services provided.

 

[Paul]

You honestly don't see the fallacy of Locke's argument?

All rights are a social construct. However, the founding fathers thought otherwise

A jab if you are left handed or a cross if you are right handed.

Come on...

Always use a riddle when confronted with a situation that requires a bit of effort. Got it!

 

[Paul]

What you pay for is your membership fee to society and part of that membership "fee" is an insurrance that promise you that no matter how much hardship you fall on, there will be certain services available, As all "clubs" there is maintenance costs (roads, renovation, construction) and service costs (police, teachers etc.). If you dont want to pay the "fee" you have the freedom to move to another club with lower or no fees but also with less or no services provided.

I do not disagree at all with the above. I would expect societies to go that route.

But, the question is philosophical. Is the need of your neighbor a mortgage on your life.?

 

[SystemShock]

All rights are a social construct.

Correct. No such thing as natural rights. You almost got there.

However, the founding fathers thought otherwise

Good for them.

Always use a riddle when confronted with a situation that requires a bit of effort.

How is that a riddle? LOL
Could you explain in your own words what is a riddle?

Got it!

No, you don't.

 

[MT15]

There is no such thing as a natural right. Nature doesn't grant rights.

The "no cost" argument falls apart because it is a stupid argument, completely lacking of the understanding what a right is.

I agree with you, I am trying to figure out what Paul would be talking about. Which are basically societal rights, I think is what he means by natural rights. Just trying to move the discussion along by ignoring him calling them natural rights because I think we bicker back and forth about that phrasing all night.

 

[Paul]

I agree with you, I am trying to figure out what Paul would be talking about. Which are basically societal rights, I think is what he means by natural rights. Just trying to move the discussion along by ignoring him calling them natural rights because I think we bicker back and forth about that phrasing all night.

Gosh, how many times must I say the rights are asocial construct.

 

[MT15]

Gosh, how many times must I say the rights are asocial construct.

Calling them natural rights has led to a lot of confusion, Paul.

 

[Paul]

Calling them natural rights has led to a lot of confusion, Paul.

That is how they are generally described. However, one could also say the right to life may be biological. We are driven to pass DNA to the next generation.

In any event I don't care how the rights are called. What really matters is that many cannot tell the difference between a right and entitlement . Free speech is certainly free. Right to housing or health care is not free.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

That is how they are generally described. However, one could also say the right to life may be biological. We are driven to pass DNA to the next generation.

In any event I don't care how the rights are called. What really matters is that many cannot tell the difference between a right and entitlement . Free speech is certainly free. Right to housing or health care is not free.

This is all a bunch of crap, Paul. You keep going in circles, and now you are conflating different meanings of the word 'free'. You have been shown that free speech is most certainly not free from a financial standpoint. It is free from the standpoint of being unfettered.

Every single conversation with you begins with word salad and quickly devolves into demonstrably incorrect statements that, when you corrected, you claim to agree with the correction. It's ridiculous and unproductive.

 

[Paul]

This is all a bunch of crap, Paul. You keep going in circles, and now you are conflating different meanings of the word 'free'. You have been shown that free speech is most certainly not free from a financial standpoint. It is free from the standpoint of being unfettered.

Every single conversation with you begins with word salad and quickly devolves into demonstrably incorrect statements that, when you corrected, you claim to agree with the correction. It's ridiculous and unproductive.

I do not buy your explanation that free speech costs money. By observation it is quite obvious that opening the mouth to utter a few words is free. Your intention is to equate the right to free speech to the right to health care. They are not the same. Sure, you could amplify your speech with a microphone or put a video in the internet. However, the speech is still free even if you have to purchase a microphone and a video camera.

I give a you a lot of credit for your sophistry, but it is not working.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I do not buy your explanation that free speech costs money. By observation it is quite obvious that opening the mouth to utter a few words is free. Your intention is to equate the right to free speech to the right to health care. They are not the same. Sure, you could amplify your speech with a microphone or put a video in the internet. However, the speech is still free even if you have to purchase a microphone and a video camera.

I give a you a lot of credit for your sophistry, but it is not working.

Your lack of acceptance regarding the argument put forth does not make it wrong, just as you accusing me of engaging in sophism does not make it true. For someone who talks about viewing things from a philosophical perspective, your arguments reflect a point of view that is inflexible, as evidenced by how often you agree with people that point out the inherent flaws in your arguments, only to cling to them instead of adapting them to fit the points with which you claim to agree.

 

[Dragon]

I do not disagree at all with the above. I would expect societies to go that route.

But, the question is philosophical. Is the need of your neighbor a mortgage on your life.?

There is nothing philosofical about this - Why do you continue to think that your neighbor is a burden? He may just be the one who save your life one day or help you in an hour of need! Your whole philosophy in all the threads , makes it sound like you consider everyone around you as possible "burdens". Take a look around you instead. Most people are inherently helpfull and friendly, look at how people come together and help each other when something like IDA strikes.

 

[Paul]

There is nothing philosofical about this - Why do you continue to think that your neighbor is a burden? He may just be the one who save your life one day or help you in an hour of need! Your whole philosophy in all the threads , makes it sound like you consider everyone around you as possible "burdens". Take a look around you instead. Most people are inherently helpfull and friendly, look at how people come together and help each other when something like IDA strikes.

I do not disagree with the above. However, if you have any kind of success in life you will be burdened by those that are unsuccessful and need your cash to survive. I have no issues with the concept of wealth redistribution as it is clearly beneficial. There must be an optimal balance between individualism and collectivism.

Favoring collectivism does not change the nature of the so-called rights. Freedom of speech and assembly happens easily in each system does not cost money. Whereas free health care requires money and collectivism. It is what it is, but at the end of the day the desire to have free food, shelter, and health care is not the same right as free speech.

 

[Paul]

Your lack of acceptance regarding the argument put forth does not make it wrong, just as you accusing me of engaging in sophism does not make it true. For someone who talks about viewing things from a philosophical perspective, your arguments reflect a point of view that is inflexible, as evidenced by how often you agree with people that point out the inherent flaws in your arguments, only to cling to them instead of adapting them to fit the points with which you claim to agree.

I am happy to give massive credit to a good argument and will gladly lose a point if the argument is strong. However, I will also point out weak arguments that are similar to pointing out a grammar error. That in itself does not refute the argument and is cheap sophistry.