Human Rights

[Swift]

Show me an animal that understands rights and when they aree being infringed upon, and not just reacting instinctively, and I will show you an animal with rights.

Bang! thanks FK!

What about people that aren't able to comprehend the concept of rights. People like Terri Schavio or people who have down syndrome - or Karl Marx.

They are still human, right?

 

[Danoff]

They are still human, right?

But Foolkiller was saying that we have rights because we understand them. Karl Marx doesn't understand them - does that mean he doesn't have rights?

Native Americans didn't understand our concept of property - does that mean that they didn't have property rights?

 

[Swift]

Dan, those are great points. But you obviously believe in property rights and other rights. So, why not say what you think.

 

[Dave A]

The difference between humans and animals is we were created with / evolved to have, the ability to understand rights, an ill human is still a human created with the ability to understand his rights, illensses can prevent them from understanding but thats the illness preventing them.

 

[Tedehur]

We do not have intrinsic rights. Someone who would be alone on Earth would have no rights and at the same time he/she would have all possible rights.

Rights only have a meaning when you consider the relationship between 2 or more people. They are a consequence (a cause ?) of the fact that we live in social groups. Therefore our rights depend on the way the social group we live in works, and on a person's position in this social group.
That's why people's rights are different depending on the country you live in, or have been different depending on the century they were living in.

Animals have rights in their own social groups for the same reasons.

Whether you are capable of understanding the community you live in doesn't have any effect on your rights. And Karl Marx having been studying social groups deeply, I think he must have had a pretty interesting opinion on that subject. I'm off to google around for it

 

[Danoff]

Dan, those are great points. But you obviously believe in property rights and other rights. So, why not say what you think.

I think that the reason human beings have rights is because we're self-aware. We have the capacity to understand injustice, and we have to have the capacity to understand our own nature to be able to accomplish that. I think with self-awareness comes a basic understanding of justice - even if communication isn't possible. I think children understand their own nature well enough to understand justice before they're able to communicate - which leaves the possibility for some animals to understand injustice even though they can't tell us in those words.

Most animals are not self-aware - and I think without that you can't have rights, because you can't understand them. You have to be capable of respecting the rights of others in order to have rights (which is why we put criminals in jail). That, effectively, "earns" you your rights.

So what about property rights Swift? Why do we have them?

 

[Danoff]

We do not have intrinsic rights. Someone who would be alone on Earth would have no rights and at the same time he/she would have all possible rights.

Rights only have a meaning when you consider the relationship between 2 or more people. They are a consequence (a cause ?) of the fact that we live in social groups. Therefore our rights depend on the way the social group we live in works, and on a person's position in this social group.
That's why people's rights are different depending on the country you live in, or have been different depending on the century they were living in.

So then rights are inherently "alienable" and can be removed by a vote? If everyone in the country thinks all jewish people should be exterminated then it's just that they be killed?

Human beings have inherent rights - even when there's only 1 person. Their rights just don't make a difference because rights only affect the relationship between two or more people.

Check my signature.

 

[FoolKiller]

What about people that aren't able to comprehend the concept of rights. People like Terri Schavio or perhaps people who have down syndrome (or some other problem) - or Karl Marx.

Wouldn't they fall under the same category as your explanation of newborn babies? As a human we grant them those same rights despite their lack of comprehension, just because. Rights are delivered to the species and not to the individual, even though those rights apply to the individual. Just as laws apply to everyone under that government so do rights to everyone under that species.

In all reality you are talking about an exception and not the rule. You cannot define anything in life without eventually finding an exception.

Karl Marx understands the concept of rights, he just disagrees. That's like saying Chinese sweat shop owners don't understand minimum wage. They do, they just don't agree. Marx shows he understands them by the simple fact that he admits Communism will never work. He would blindly think that it would work if he didn't understand the workings of the alternative. Or you can just say that he is a loon.

 

[Danoff]

That's like saying Chinese sweat shop owners don't understand minimum wage.

Do you think people have a right to a minimum wage?

 

[Swift]

So what about property rights Swift? Why do we have them?

Technically, we don't own a thing. Since we come into this world with nothing and leave with nothing.

I wouldn't consider humans to have "property rights" but rights to property THEY have purchased. Different story.

 

[FoolKiller]

Do you think people have a right to a minimum wage?

Mandatory? No. If it is production based, as in the employer says that as long as a certain task is done everyday they earn it, then yes. That is a business agreement to a minimum wage.

A mandatory minimum wage gives too much leeway for people to slack off while others earning the same amount work that much harder.

It's like the time my wife and I went to dinner at a restaurant on New Year's Eve a couple of years back. Normally I love this restaurant and get great service. Due to it being a holiday they had a mandatory 18% gratuity on all checks. It guaranteed their employees a minimum holiday pay. I saw my waiter a total of three times and had an empty glass for 30 minutes. Normally this would get a 50 cent tip maximum, just enough to let you know I didn't forget. But no, my gratuity was already charged. A complaint just got me an apology from the home office and then a call from a snooty manager. I haven't been back.


What I am saying is that a minimum wage guarantees a pay without a guarantee of services. I don't believe that is a right anyone should have.

 

[Tedehur]

So then rights are inherently "alienable" and can be removed by a vote? If everyone in the country thinks all jewish people should be exterminated then it's just that they be killed?

Sadly that happened a few decades ago.
I'm not saying that it was a good idea, I think personally that the major right is the right to leave in peace, and that all other rights should not interfere with this one.
But I don't know how deep my thinking is affected by the education I had or the society I live in.
What if Hitler's troops had managed to invade Europe, and Japan had managed to invade the US ? Would I be exactly the same person ? Would I be saying the same things ?
I'm not 100% certain of that.

Human beings have inherent rights - even when there's only 1 person. Their rights just don't make a difference because rights only affect the relationship between two or more people.
Check my signature.

If they only affect a relationship between two or more people, then there's no way to know if they still exist with only one person on Earth.
We know that gravity exists by its visible effect on the Earth, Moon, etc.
If only one single point was alone in the universe, gravity wouldn't have any effect and would therefore not exist since there would be no clue that it exists.

I'd really like to know where you think our inherent rights come from, and I'd like if possible an answer that doesn't involve the word 'God'.

 

[FoolKiller]

So then rights are inherently "alienable" and can be removed by a vote? If everyone in the country thinks all jewish people should be exterminated then it's just that they be killed?

Human beings have inherent rights - even when there's only 1 person. Their rights just don't make a difference because rights only affect the relationship between two or more people.

Check my signature.

I'm jumping in here because you did this to me yesterday.

Just because something is a law, a legal mandate, or a legal right it does not necesarily make it just. I can guarantee that Flat-Out does not think that your scenario would be just, but it would be legal in that society.

EDIT:

I'd really like to know where you think our inherent rights come from, and I'd like if possible an answer that doesn't involve the word 'God'.

I'll just pop some popcorn.

 

[Danoff]

If they only affect a relationship between two or more people, then there's no way to know if they still exist with only one person on Earth.
We know that gravity exists by its visible effect on the Earth, Moon, etc.
If only one single point was alone in the universe, gravity wouldn't have any effect and would therefore not exist since there would be no clue that it exists.

If there were only one mass in the universe - it would still have gravity... even in the absense of another planet to act on. Human beings have rights - inherently - but those rights don't get used until another human being is around because (like gravity) it prescribes an intereaction between two entities.

I'd really like to know where you think our inherent rights come from, and I'd like if possible an answer that doesn't involve the word 'God'.

Swift (of all people, considering how religious he is) already did that with some of our rights. Go back and read his first post.

I wouldn't consider humans to have "property rights" but rights to property THEY have purchased. Different story.

Care to elaborate?

Rights are delivered to the species and not to the individual

That doesn't make any sense at all. If there is a reason that rights exist - then in the absense of that reason, they do not exist.

 

[Famine]

If there were only one mass in the universe - it would still have gravity... even in the absense of another planet to act on.

Off-tapioca, I know, but I'd refute that.

The mechanisms behind gravity are, as yet, undefined, but the current thinking is that it acts through an as-yet-undiscovered "graviton" particle (a boson with zero rest mass and a spin of 2, in order that it acts over long distances, doesn't transfer any energy/motion to an object it strikes in the direction of its travel and comes in limitless numbers). Without anything for the particle to be transferred to - or through - one cannot assume that the particle is transferred at all. As we know, anything that has mass in our universe has gravity. This directly infers, with the above theory, that there is exchange of information between bodies with mass through exchange of gravitons. No transfer = no exchange = no gravity.

We can state what would happen if another object was inserted into the one-body-universe system, but then gravitons would have something to be transferred to and so gravity would exist.


*goes for a lie down*


The comparison is sound though - as it would be with any other force or immutable postulate. Although it may or may not exist individually in a completely closed system, as soon as an attempt is made to detect or define its existence it does exist, as it has something to act upon.


I apologise for this post as, though it seems to make sense at the moment, I am exceedingly drunk and it may transpire that I've just typed complete gobbledegook.

 

[Keef]

Well, happy hour in England was only a couple hours ago...

You do keep the slurr to minimum in you stupor, though.

 

[Danoff]

Off-tapioca, I know, but I'd refute that.

The mechanisms behind gravity are, as yet, undefined, but the current thinking is that it acts through an as-yet-undiscovered "graviton" particle (a boson with zero rest mass and a spin of 2, in order that it acts over long distances, doesn't transfer any energy/motion to an object it strikes in the direction of its travel and comes in limitless numbers). Without anything for the particle to be transferred to - or through - one cannot assume that the particle is transferred at all. As we know, anything that has mass in our universe has gravity. This directly infers, with the above theory, that there is exchange of information between bodies with mass through exchange of gravitons. No transfer = no exchange = no gravity.

We can state what would happen if another object was inserted into the one-body-universe system, but then gravitons would have something to be transferred to and so gravity would exist.


*goes for a lie down*


The comparison is sound though - as it would be with any other force or immutable postulate. Although it may or may not exist individually in a completely closed system, as soon as an attempt is made to detect or define its existence it does exist, as it has something to act upon.


I apologise for this post as, though it seems to make sense at the moment, I am exceedingly drunk and it may transpire that I've just typed complete gobbledegook.

Ah well yes, I guess if gravity acts through particles then it would require another body nearby to exist... sortof... and so I would have said that it wasn't a sound comparison. I always think of gravity in the basic relativistic sense that we're taught in school - that the presence of mass warps space-time like a bowling ball on a mattress. If that were the case, space-time would remain warped regardless of the presence of another particle to sense that warpedness.

But I've always been fuzzy on relativity.

 

[Swift]

Care to elaborate?

NO!



It's very simple, you have rights to properties that you own. You DON'T have rights to property you don't own. Any property that has been acquired through a legal transaction comes with certain property rights.

So I wouldn't say that we have property rights. I would say that our property comes with certain rights.

 

[Danoff]

So why is it that we have rights to our property - and what makes it ours?

 

[Swift]

I really don't think humans have property rights. Our government is quite literally loaning it to us. Even in the spirtual viewpoint ALL of our possesions are on loan from God.

So if I said that "humans" have rights to property before I was mistaken.

 

[Danoff]

I really don't think humans have property rights. Our government is quite literally loaning it to us. Even in the spirtual viewpoint ALL of our possesions are on loan from God.

So if I said that "humans" have rights to property before I was mistaken.

Ok I'm lost. Here's what you said

you have rights to properties that you own

So let's say I work hard all day building a chair out of wood. At the end of the day my buddy comes up to me and takes the chair. I tell him that I worked hard on that chair and it belongs to me. He doesn't care and walks off with it.

Is this just? Have my rights been violated? If so, which rights and why do I have them?

 

[Swift]

Well, if it was his wood, then he gets the chair!

It's all about who legally owns(according to the society in question) the property.

 

[Danoff]

Let's pretend there is no society for a moment. What if these two guys were the only ones on the earth. And let's suppose that it was made from wood that neither of them had previously claimed.

 

[Keef]

What if he chopped down a tree that had grown naturally, and hadn't been placed there, for the wood used to build the chair. There was no legal contract made for the wood. And if noone owns the land where the tree was you can't base ownership on that.

EDIT: Looks like danoof (I did that on purpose, just cause) is the quickinator.

 

[FoolKiller]

That doesn't make any sense at all. If there is a reason that rights exist - then in the absense of that reason, they do not exist.

But you are implying that inalienable rights are species wide by the title of this thread. If what you are trying to say is true then the term Human Rights is a complete misnomer and it should be Joe's Rights, Mike's Rights, etc.

This would then hurt the idea of inalienable rights because it would mean that each individual has their own sets of rights.

The whole idea is that we have rights as individuals that are there because we are human.
^This idea isn't completely correct either as it leaves no room for other possible higher intelligences. Which of course goes back to my theory that they must, commonly as a species, recognize that rights even exist.

I hope that makes sense. I think I confused myself along the way.

Let's pretend there is no society for a moment. What if these two guys were the only ones on the earth. And let's suppose that it was made from wood that neither of them had previously claimed.

You are being difficult for difficults sake.

I thought I had kind of answered this, but I will try it again.

We have property righst because through our efforts we have earned the right to our creation or the ability to purchase property. If the man built a chair from wood that no one claimed it would be his chair. However in the assumption that there is no society Man 2 could beat him or kill him for teh chair and no one would be there to stop him. He has violated Man 1's rights but who cares? They live in anarchy anyway, right?

Now, in today's society people create things that they don't own every day. However they are compensated financially for their work so that they may go and purchase other property.

It is through work and effort that we have the right to own property. That right can be negated through theft or wastefulness (this including gambling, drugs, etc.).

 

[niky]

Actually, the question of the chair-maker and the wood owner is a very valid one.

In today's society, money can often buy the rights to land traditionally owned or developed by another, who has no legal rights to it. This has been done in the past, and is still a problem today.

Who owns the land, then? A corporate entity or rich individual may own the legal rights to a thousand acres and never use or develop all of it. A small group of indigenes or aboriginal people may actually be foraging or farming part of that land with no awareness of the vast legal, political and economic processes that act to create land ownership.

So... who rightfully owns the land? The land-owner has paid a government for conditional ownership (conditional, because said government can revoke rights to the land, depending on local law), but the indigenous people have been on the land for a long time, and have developed it.

-----

As for the question of rights:

1. The right to life (conditional):

- The right to live, once born, with proper nutrition, security and shelter, until such time as the individual is old enough to fend for himself or herself.

- Conditionality hinges on a few things: Namely: that the individual is not a homicidally anti-social or aggressive individual. Also, that the person does not consciously or maliciously infringe on the rights of other individuals by depriving them of any of their needs for life... namely nourishment, shelter or social interaction. Malicious here meaning that the offender performs such actions in order to render the other unable to compete .

2. The right to compete:

- In other words... the right to the same education, childhood and social development as all other human beings... within the bounds of the possible. Thus, they can (theoretically) compete for the same jobs, resources, wealth, etcetera, as anyone else.

- Any wealth or possessions arising from success is the individual's to use. They may choose not to give any of it to their kin or descendants, as long as that they provide all the basics for them.

 

[Danoff]

The whole idea is that we have rights as individuals that are there because we are human.
^This idea isn't completely correct either as it leaves no room for other possible higher intelligences. Which of course goes back to my theory that they must, commonly as a species, recognize that rights even exist.

You're defeating your own argument. Drawing the line at a particular species is completely arbitrary. That's one of the very basic things this thread is getting at - why, fundamentally, normal human beings are different than animals. The reason for our rights can't simply be that we're human and they're not. It has to have some defensible logical motivation.

Rights are inalienable for the people that have them. But people that don't qualify can't be alienated from rights they never had. For a moment, pretend that a monkey was classified as human as well. Pretend that our species was bi-modal and that some of us had very low intelligence (like a monkey) and others did not. Would we extend rights to these monkey-people? I would say no.

I'm trying to get you to ignore the arbitrary distinction set by species and see rights as something less subjective.

We have property righst because through our efforts we have earned the right to our creation or the ability to purchase property. If the man built a chair from wood that no one claimed it would be his chair. However in the assumption that there is no society Man 2 could beat him or kill him for teh chair and no one would be there to stop him. He has violated Man 1's rights but who cares? They live in anarchy anyway, right?

Exactly.

Also, that the person does not consciously or maliciously infringe on the rights of other individuals by depriving them of any of their needs for life... namely nourishment, shelter or social interaction.

I don't understand this. Are you talking about children - whom you have given a right to nourishment, shelter, etc. Or are you talking about adults? In which case you're allowing for theft in all cases except these? I'm lost.

2. The right to compete:

- In other words... the right to the same education, childhood and social development as all other human beings... within the bounds of the possible. Thus, they can (theoretically) compete for the same jobs, resources, wealth, etcetera, as anyone else.

I don't see this as within the bounds of the possible. You're saying that all children should live in the same place, be taught by the same people, have the same friends, as all other human beings (including their parents).

- Any wealth or possessions arising from success is the individual's to use. They may choose not to give any of it to their kin or descendants, as long as that they provide all the basics for them.

So human beings have the right to do anything with their possessions that they wish except violate the rights of others or give it to children. And that they have no rights over their children.

 

[FoolKiller]

I'm trying to get you to ignore the arbitrary distinction set by species and see rights as something less subjective.

I know what you are trying to get me to ignore, but the fact of the matter is that all humans have these rights. Find me one human that does not qualify for these rights, that you would have no qualms with someone killing.

You're defeating your own argument. Drawing the line at a particular species is completely arbitrary. That's one of the very basic things this thread is getting at - why, fundamentally, normal human beings are different than animals. The reason for our rights can't simply be that we're human and they're not. It has to have some defensible logical motivation.

It isn't because we are human, it is that we have self-realization and emotions, feelings and actions that go beyond the instinctual. We can recognize that we have rights. We only say humans because they are the only creatures that we know without a doubt meet that criteria.

Rights are inalienable for the people that have them. But people that don't qualify can't be alienated from rights they never had. For a moment, pretend that a monkey was classified as human as well. Pretend that our species was bi-modal and that some of us had very low intelligence (like a monkey) and others did not. Would we extend rights to these monkey-people? I would say no.

Are you saying that no they don't deserve them or no we wouldn't extend it to them? I believe that we would extend these monkey-people those rights. Whether they deserved those rights, by definition, or not we are a sympathetic race and would extend them those same rights the same we do people who are mentally handicapped or infantile and cannot recognize a violation of rights. There are many who wouldn't but eventually the majority would rule, as much as you hate that thought.

This is assuming that monkey people would survive beyond the dark ages, which they wouldn't.

You are also trying to say that all men are not created equal with this scenario. In that event you have created an entirely different world.

 

[Danoff]

I know what you are trying to get me to ignore, but the fact of the matter is that all humans have these rights. Find me one human that does not qualify for these rights, that you would have no qualms with someone killing.

Any child born into a vegetable state does not and will not have a full range of rights. One of the rights denied to this child is the right to life - because it is NOT created equal with other humans. Children are the property of their parents in most regards (regardless of what Niky thinks), and even a child that is born a complete vegetable is the property of it's parents (in most regards). One of the things we don't allow parents to take from their children is the right to life - UNLESS they're born in a vegetative or comatose state. In which case we do allow the right to life to be suspended.

The same is said for a Terri Schaivo-like case. Guardians that have almost complete say over what happens to Terri get to decide whether she continues to "live". The Terri case is a little different because she was once self-aware, and as such had rights to her body after she died or became a vegetable.

So your arbitrary distinction based on species simply does not work. Not only does it lack proper motivation, it isn't what we practice as a society. The reason we have rights is that we have higher order brain functions (which makes a difference in ways that you and I already agree on). When those brain functions are not present, we don't extend a full suite of rights.

It isn't because we are human, it is that we have self-realization and emotions, feelings and actions that go beyond the instinctual. We can recognize that we have rights. We only say humans because they are the only creatures that we know without a doubt meet that criteria.

I agree.

Are you saying that no they don't deserve them or no we wouldn't extend it to them? I believe that we would extend these monkey-people those rights. Whether they deserved those rights, by definition, or not we are a sympathetic race and would extend them those same rights the same we do people who are mentally handicapped or infantile and cannot recognize a violation of rights. There are many who wouldn't but eventually the majority would rule, as much as you hate that thought.

Rights are decided by pure logic along - not a majority and nothing subjective.

You are also trying to say that all men are not created equal with this scenario. In that event you have created an entirely different world.

I didn't create a different world - that's the shape of the world. Men created without higher order brain capability are NOT created equal in the eyes of justice because there is nothing to distinguish them from animals.

 

[FoolKiller]

Any child born into a vegetable state does not and will not have a full range of rights. One of the rights denied to this child is the right to life - because it is NOT created equal with other humans. Children are the property of their parents in most regards (regardless of what Niky thinks), and even a child that is born a complete vegetable is the property of it's parents (in most regards). One of the things we don't allow parents to take from their children is the right to life - UNLESS they're born in a vegetative or comatose state. In which case we do allow the right to life to be suspended.

Assuming the child won't die on its own anyway (are there any cases of a baby being born like this living to adulthood?) this is the same euthenasia we practice on any other vegetative state patient. It is the guardian speaking in the role of the patient, not a removal of their rights.

Speaking of which:

The same is said for a Terri Schaivo-like case. Guardians that have almost complete say over what happens to Terri get to decide whether she continues to "live". The Terri case is a little different because she was once self-aware, and as such had rights to her body after she died or became a vegetable.

What if (because what ifs are fun) Terri's wishes were to be left on a feeding tube forever if necessary AND what if her husband did know that? Did he commit murder? Did he violate her rights? Or did she just lose her rights the moment she lost brain function and as her guardian he could do whatever he pleased?