Human Rights

[Danoff]

Precision of language is important to avoid sloppy reasoning.

Agreed.

1) Objectivity is related to the truth. An thing being objective means that it is always true regardless of the person considering the matter.

Incorrect. Objectivity does not depend on perception. Only objective statements can be false or true.

2) There is no objectivity in logic. A logical argument may well be wrong in fact. See the example given above concluding that lizards are mammals - it is a perfectly logical argument, yet there is no objectivity whatsoever in the statement.

See above.

3) Reasoning is always subjective. See wikipedia quote above.

- Mathematics (but not scientific theories/predictions and logic) is both objective and subjective. The way in which we perceive the system is subjective. One may argue, however, that some of the truths explained by mathematics represent an absolute truth and so it is objective.

- No matter what the position on mathematics is, it does not relate to this discussion. You do not claim to base your conclusion on a mathematical proof. In any event, there is no absolute truth in the propositions you've made.

Mathematics (like logic) is objective based on the information given. Trusting that when you add one object to another object, a third object will not suddenly spontaneously appear is subjective only in the philosophical sense. Take the nature of the universe as a starting point and Mathemtics is objective.

(Taking the nature of the universe as a starting point is the only rational approach to reality)

4) To give an example:

Your argument - case 1

Subjective assumption: You value the idea that actions should only be taken if it is objectively justifiable.

I never made that argument. I said that actions could be classified as objective and subjective, and that the subjective is inapplicable to human interaction. I did not say that anything should or should not be done. I merely classified objective vs subjective, explained why (due to their nature) objective applies to everyone and subjective does not, and concluded that if we are to proceed objectively certain behaviors are consistent with that goal. Finally I called these behaviors "human rights".

And logically you arrive at the conclusion that in the trolley example we should not act because there is no objective justification for so doing.

Logically, one should not act in the trolley case if one's goal is to maintain objectivity (and be consistent with human rights). If one would like to apply subjective values to the situation, one can choose to act, but that person needs to understand that they have applied an arbitrary value judgement to others and that it is fair for others to do the same to them.

A rational alternative argument - case 2

Subjective assumption: I think it right that actions could always be taken unless there is an objectively discernible reason as to why I shouldn't so do it.

Has nothing to do with our conversation.

It is because of your subjective preference for the assumption mentioned in case 1 that you've logically arrived at your conclusion.

See above.

 

[Wolf-M]

Agreed.



Incorrect. Objectivity does not depend on perception. Only objective statements can be false or true.



See above.

That's the point - objective statements can be tested as to whether they are true or false. Action or inaction in the trolley example has no "true" "false" value attached to it.

(Taking the nature of the universe as a starting point is the only rational approach to reality)

Since an assumption is involved, it is subjective. However, given that it's an agreed basis not subject to challenge, we can safely say that on that reasonable assumption mathematics is objective.

On the other hand, as I've mentioned so many times, your assumption is not something which is free from challenge.

See below last paragraph.

I never made that argument. I said that actions could be classified as objective and subjective, and that the subjective is inapplicable to human interaction. I did not say that anything should or should not be done. I merely classified objective vs subjective, explained why (due to their nature) objective applies to everyone and subjective does not, and concluded that if we are to proceed objectively certain behaviors are consistent with that goal. Finally I called these behaviors "human rights".

I do not understand this part for the following reasons

- Actions are always objective. If you did that objectively speaking you did that. If you didn't do that objectively speaking you didn't do that.

- The reason for taking a certain action is always subjective. It is based on your values system or sometimes outright arbitrary. But not matter whether your action is reasonable or not, it does not hide the fact that it is based on a subjective decision.

- Objectivity applies to everyone in the sense that its truth/falsity does not change - it's an absolute truth. It can never be shown that action/inaction is "true" "false" "correct" "incorrect".

- The preference for objectivity is in itself a subjective value.

- Human rights in the sense you are talking about is always subjective. The only objective rights (which I was referring to when replying to FoolKiller's post) are rights conferred by an objective external system.

Logically, one should not act in the trolley case if one's goal is to maintain objectivity (and be consistent with human rights). If one would like to apply subjective values to the situation, one can choose to act, but that person needs to understand that they have applied an arbitrary value judgement to others and that it is fair for others to do the same to them.

- It's not arbitrary. Acting in accordance with one's own moral system is not considered arbitrary. It's just a religion - you believe in the objectivity of things - that's your religion and you act in accordance with that belief. Only when one's action does not act in accordance with a set of rules can you say it's arbitrary.

Has nothing to do with our conversation.

It has. Your assumption is that unless an action is objectively justifiable, then according to your belief in objectivity the action in question ought not to be done. It's an "ought" under your value system. If you are not talking about "what ought" (subjective) but "what is" (objective), then that is very puzzling indeed. Clearly people do not act in accordance with what you have said. There is no basis on which you can claim that your statement is objective instead of subjective.

On the other hand, one can also sensible say that unless an action is proven to be unjustifiable, then one ought to have the freedom to do that. After all, we are all born free in a natural state. Unless there is a reason why we cannot do a particular thing we ought to be allowed to proceed. It's arguably even more rational a position than yours. As you conceded that might makes right is not objectively wrong, you can only rely on subjective values in saying why we ought not take that action.

 

[FoolKiller]

I thought I answered your question - in the example you've given me you can say that the constitutional (human) rights are infringed, absent that international human rights, and in the absence of either one, no rights infringed.

So, I have no right to property if I live in a place where eminent domain is practiced? Assuming there is no higher law of people who feel the need to nose into my business, while knowing nothing of me or my way of life.

On your point between the clash of systems. Yes you guessed it right. Human rights in the domestic context are human rights defined by the constitution. Human rights in the international context are human rights defined by international treaties. Given that both are human constructs, it is inevitable that occasionally the two may conflict with each other.

Considering the UN rights document conflicts with itself it is a guarantee they will conflict with every signing member's own laws.

But that does not disprove my point. The US government may well have violated human rights as understood by the international community. Is that a surprise? Treatment of Guantanamo Bay inmates, torture and killing of Iraqi civilians etc etc. The lack of enforcement procedures against the US does not cover the fact that it may have infringed human rights of others outside US territory.

Odd, I was referring to standard of living and medical care, which is not provided to all Americans, as we live in a more capitalistic (one would argue, free) system.

It's the international conventions to which the US is a party and which directly imposes an obligation on the US government to observe them.

But it is impossible for anyone to observe them. They conflict with themselves.

But hey, different take. Say the US recognizes gay marriage as a right. Is it not a right because the UN declaration declares marriage between a man and woman in article 16 (This is also one of the self-contradictory issues in this document)? International law trumps domestic law, right?

As to why international law automatically prevails over domestic law, it's a matter of...law.

OK, defend/explain that law. I personally do not recognize the authority of the UN. If rights are only given by law/society, as you say, then it is even more important to be as isolationist as possible in regard to law and regulation. I don't think a fellow countryman who lives a ten hour drive from me knows enough about my region to determine the law for everything I do. I sure as hell don't think a guy living in the desert, halfway around the world, and speaking a different language can tell me what the laws should be in a glacially formed, farming-rich, river valley region.

Domestic human rights law governs the relationship between the state and the citizen; international human rights law dictates the obligations of governments. Think of the analogy of a company - clearly the external law (ie legislation) which says what the company can or cannot do is superior to the internal law (ie the company's constitution/articles) which governs the relationship between the company and its shareholders. It is superior not because it is "more correct" as a matter of philosophy/morality, but because it is higher up in the hierarchy.

Ah, so people who have no clue about what life in the US is like get to regulate it? I mean, that is what national government do to companies, regulate industries they don't understand. And yes, they will be wrong, not by a matter of morality/philosophy, by by a matter of not knowing what the hell they are talking about. I can only imagine that it is worse on a global scale.




Also, I feel it important to point out to you that this UN Declaration of Human Rights that you are saying trumps all other law and creates rights, disagrees with you.

From the Preamble:

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,

So, it seems that even the international legal community believes they do not create human rights, but recognize and protect them because they are fundamental an inalienable.

Even if you are right, it doesn't matter because the highest law on the plant officially says otherwise.

 

[Wolf-M]

So, I have no right to property if I live in a place where eminent domain is practiced? Assuming there is no higher law of people who feel the need to nose into my business, while knowing nothing of me or my way of life.

Your rights are found in the statute book and constitution. That's what constitutional lawyers are for. If the courts do not accept that you have such a right then of course objectively speaking you have no such right. You may argue that as a matter of philosophy, as a matter of natural law, that your rights are infringed - but so what? It's just philosophy and you can't protect your property by resorting to philosophical arguments.

Considering the UN rights document conflicts with itself it is a guarantee they will conflict with every signing member's own laws.

It does not conflict with itself.

Odd, I was referring to standard of living and medical care, which is not provided to all Americans, as we live in a more capitalistic (one would argue, free) system.

In legal circles most people only regard civil and political rights as true human rights. Socio-economic rights are not really rights but mere aspirations.

But it is impossible for anyone to observe them. They conflict with themselves.

But hey, different take. Say the US recognizes gay marriage as a right. Is it not a right because the UN declaration declares marriage between a man and woman in article 16 (This is also one of the self-contradictory issues in this document)? International law trumps domestic law, right?

No international law says that gay marriage cannot be recognised.

But you're right - international law trumps domestic law - so for instance if US entered into a hypothetical treaty/convention that forbids gay marriage from being legally recognised, the US Congress doing otherwise would be in breach of its international obligations.

I'm not sure whether international law is directly enforceable in the courts of US - but in jurisdictions where such is possible, an aggrieved citizen may judicially review legislation on the basis that it contravenes international law.

Mind you also that international law is binding on the US only because US had agreed to be subject to those obligations.

OK, defend/explain that law. I personally do not recognize the authority of the UN. If rights are only given by law/society, as you say, then it is even more important to be as isolationist as possible in regard to law and regulation. I don't think a fellow countryman who lives a ten hour drive from me knows enough about my region to determine the law for everything I do. I sure as hell don't think a guy living in the desert, halfway around the world, and speaking a different language can tell me what the laws should be in a glacially formed, farming-rich, river valley region.


Ah, so people who have no clue about what life in the US is like get to regulate it? I mean, that is what national government do to companies, regulate industries they don't understand. And yes, they will be wrong, not by a matter of morality/philosophy, by by a matter of not knowing what the hell they are talking about. I can only imagine that it is worse on a global scale.

International law is binding only to the extent that the US has agreed to be bound by them. The US has adopted the Universal Declaration.

Also, I feel it important to point out to you that this UN Declaration of Human Rights that you are saying trumps all other law and creates rights, disagrees with you.

From the Preamble:


So, it seems that even the international legal community believes they do not create human rights, but recognize and protect them because they are fundamental an inalienable.

Even if you are right, it doesn't matter because the highest law on the plant officially says otherwise.

If you must go down that route...

The Universal Declaration was only used as an example. It is not the first international instrument that recognised human rights.

Human rights were created as a matter of customary international law. Its modern from can be traced to France during the French Revolution when the French legislature passed the "Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen". More ancient forms of human rights can be found in the English Magna Carta. Undeniably the reason why those documents were created was because of the intellectual thinking as a result of the enlightenment period. But one must not confuse the philosophy behind the enactment of human rights documents (which is based on subjective morality) and the objective rights conferred by those documents.

Thereafter in history its wide acceptance of those principles across countries gave it the force of customary international law. The Universal Declaration is merely a codification of then existing state of customary international law and jus cogens (after the second world war). So even without the Declaration those rights still exist as a matter of customary international law.


Hope this answers your question as regards the relationship between international and domestic law.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

Your rights are found in the statute book and constitution. That's what constitutional lawyers are for. If the courts do not accept that you have such a right then of course objectively speaking you have no such right. You may argue that as a matter of philosophy, as a matter of natural law, that your rights are infringed - but so what?

I do believe that we all agree on a lot of points:
1) If people are infringing rights, the rights are not of a lot of use to you at that moment.
2) When you write things down, it is a subjective representation of something, that thing can be objective.
3) If laws are subjective, written down, they probably do not represent the objective rights correctly anymore.

Wolf-M: seems to value that rights need to be enforced. But that would mean that any injustice that you can enforce would be your right; it is clearly something that I can not logically prove out of a pure definition of right. That is why I call law a negotiation; a subjective agreement.
Wolf-M: seems to state that Objective Rights are based on subjective premises, however I did not see anything subjective in the definitions of "Objective" or "Right".
I believe that if you just use the definitions of "Objective" and "Right" you can prove logically that an objective right has indefinite value. Where the language used might be subjective, it does not change the objective value of what is described, it just might introduce a slight error. The point of the discussion here is to reduce that error to a minimum.

FoolKiller & Danoff could also help the discussion with analyzing more where they are subjective i.s.o. calling everything objective.
e.g.: property is purely subjective, it is a system of supply and demand, value due to rarity of goods that people appreciate. The only reason you need it is to protect value that you created, but again that value is completely subjective or valuing the creation of value is subjective.
Same with lying, it is illogical, that we accept lying does not make it a right, that people do it, does not make it a right. You can not force people to tell the truth, but you have the right to defend yourself based on the truth, they have the right to shut up if they have nothing useful to say. The DSK-Diallo case has gone in a certain direction due that one shut up where the other party seems to have lost the right to pursue due to lying. Where this case is no proof, it supports my point, that you can not defend your rights if you do not have the right on knowingly correct information.

An other theme that has come up: Rights do not lead to obligations for others, In principle I agree, my right on knowingly correct information, does not oblige anyone to say something, it is just when they say something it should be knowingly correct. However I come to 2 logical obligations:
1) You have the obligation to respect the rights of others, otherwise they could not defend that right.
2) In case of conflict you have the obligation to agree on a value system to judge the rights violation against; this is the major weakness in Objective Rights for me.

You could see Wolf-M law enforcement remarks as the latter, the one with most might, imposes the value system against which to judge. It does not change the rights, but it does change the effectiveness of defending your rights. It also shows you should fight for your rights or you will not be able to use them in practice.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

Still stuck with this one: Harassment, stalking, cruelty, torture, ....

they seem to be stopped with: there is an Objective Right to decide on the next action you take not infringing the Objective Rights of others.

but are the people doing this infringing your rights?
You have the right to get away from it, ignore it, ...The others do not have the right to stop you from getting away from it. But would they infringe a right doing it? The issue is that the terms are subjective.

e.g.: Someone tattoos on your face while you are passed out after drinking too much, since that is their cultural thing of respect, acceptance in society:

you see it as cruelty, torture.

 

[FoolKiller]

Still stuck with this one: Harassment, stalking, cruelty, torture, ....

they seem to be stopped with: there is an Objective Right to decide on the next action you take not infringing the Objective Rights of others.

but are the people doing this infringing your rights?
You have the right to get away from it, ignore it, ...The others do not have the right to stop you from getting away from it. But would they infringe a right doing it? The issue is that the terms are subjective.

e.g.: Someone tattoos on your face while you are passed out after drinking too much, since that is their cultural thing of respect, acceptance in society:

you see it as cruelty, torture.

I am expressing my love. She calls it rape.

It is about consent, not subjectivity.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

It is about consent, not subjectivity.

Consent is subjective, the opinion of the person giving consent.

A blood transfer on an unconscious patient. doctors call it saving a life, the Jehovah's Witnesses call it an act against non-negotiable religious stand not to receive blood. Sometimes there is no time to look at all the points.
Do you consent by default to get health care or do you not consent by default. I would say the first where I live.

Madoff did not consent that people called him a financial fraudster.
So people should have stopped saying it? I bet Madoff found it harassment.

I am expressing my love. She calls it rape.

It does not change the point: if the person being raped says "stop" and you do stop, you did not do a rape, you just expressed your love too enthusiastically. If the person was unconscious (not due to your doing) and could not say stop, is it your issue?

You see: in the last point I want to say it is your issue, but I still do not see why it would be. You are only expressing your love?

 

[FoolKiller]

It does not conflict with itself.

I know this is overdue, but yes it does.

Article 23: Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

Free choice to employment is great, until you guarantee them services that require labor, such as these two:

Article 25: Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

Article 26: Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.

A right to education and a right to medical care require the labor of others. However, there is not always enough people to do those jobs. People try arguing that is an unrealistic scenario, but it is happening right now. In the US there is a lot of discussion of how classroom sizes are getting to be 50 students per teacher when they used to be around 30 students per teacher when I was in school. I don't know the figures exactly, but if the trend continues I can guarantee that eventually it will be impossible to guarantee education without forcing someone to be a teacher.

Now, here comes the "well if we paid them more," argument. OK, fair enough, if you think a good education comes from people who don't care about the students but their paycheck primarily. And if you do, then why not allow a more private system or eliminate the teachers' union and institute a merit pay system where they don't get automatic pay raises every year, but only based on how well their students are doing.

But I am sure someone will still argue something about teachers not being treated properly (private schools rarely have that complaint).


So lets take another situation. Right now the US federal government is offering a grant to states to try to find ways to increase oral health providers, particularly in under-served areas. As can be read in the full document (PDF) part of the reasoning is to because beginning in 2014 more dentists will retire than graduate dental school. The population has had over a 30% increase since 1980, yet there are 18% less dental school graduates every year. When you combine the two facts you have an issue. As it stands now they already consider 4,639 regions as dental Health Professional Shortage Areas (HPSA). That will become worse. In fact, I know that in the state of Kentucky there are 25% less dentists than there were 30 years ago.

Now, it is impossible to guarantee the right to a free choice of employment and a right to adequate medical care when it comes to dentists. It should be noted that HPSA refers to health providers of all kinds, not just dentists but I happened to have the dental facts in front of me right now.

Now, unlike teachers you cannot say we need to pay them more. In fact, people complain we pay too much now. Currently the shortage is just in the HPSA's but dental care shortage is looking to be a national problem in 10-20 years. How do we guarantee the right to adequate medical care without making people become dentists? It is already a good paying job and we already through millions at doctors through various programs to get them to serve under-served areas through HRSA. Can we make people be dentists? Can we force all forms of medical providers to live where they don't want?

Plain and simple, Article 23 can, and does, conflict with Articles 25 and 26. Something has to give. You cannot guarantee both.

Consent is subjective, the opinion of the person giving consent.

Consent is the act of exercising your rights.

A blood transfer on an unconscious patient. doctors call it saving a life, the Jehovah's Witnesses call it an act against non-negotiable religious stand not to receive blood. Sometimes there is no time to look at all the points.
Do you consent by default to get health care or do you not consent by default. I would say the first where I live.

I have a living will on file with my lawyer and at the area hospitals. It says what to do in specific instances when I am unable to speak for myself. Some people have a Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) on file. I also have a card in my wallet which says to not give me a blood transfusion. A doctor cannot be expected to not save a life in an emergency without someone or something to state your wishes, as it is safer to assume everyone will choose life over death. But in non-emergency situations they do require your permission to do anything. I was hit in the face with a tennis racket when I was a teenager and neither of my parents were home. I was cut under the eye and bleeding a lot, but not enough to be life threatening. The hospital my neighbor took me to would not work on me until they got my mother on the phone to give them permission to work on me.

Any time I have even a minor test, like lab work, done in a hospital I am asked to sign a consent for work in the event of an emergency. When my wife was in labor we signed a form saying that we did not consent to a C-section and that any emergency procedures that arose had to have my wife's or my permission first. My wife wanted to have a completely natural childbirth, and we were not going to consent to drugs or surgical procedures unless it was life or death.

Madoff did not consent that people called him a financial fraudster.
So people should have stopped saying it? I bet Madoff found it harassment.

Huh? Madoff committed financial fraud. He violated the rights of people who trusted him, thus by showing a disregard for rights he gave up his own rights, which is why he was sentenced to prison. Not that you have a right to not be embarrassed.

It does not change the point: if the person being raped says "stop" and you do stop, you did not do a rape, you just expressed your love too enthusiastically.

You know that isn't what I meant. It is obvious the scenario is supposed to be where I do not stop.

If the person was unconscious (not due to your doing) and could not say stop, is it your issue?

Yes. I violate the rights of anyone if I do anything to them without their, or someone designated to speak for them's, permission.

You see: in the last point I want to say it is your issue, but I still do not see why it would be. You are only expressing your love?

Other than the fact that I am literally inserting myself into their body without permission, possibly impregnating them (let's say it is a female for simplicity's sake) without their permission, and possibly passing on a disease?

You seem to suddenly have this idea that because some people want to violate rights or refuse to recognize other people have them that it makes them subjective and non-existent. If this were the case there would be no moral issue with things like slavery, rape, and murder. The truth is that if I choose to violate the rights of others it doesn't make the rights subjective, it makes me an ass.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

You seem to suddenly have this idea that because some people want to violate rights or refuse to recognize other people have them that it makes them subjective and non-existent. If this were the case there would be no moral issue with things like slavery, rape, and murder. The truth is that if I choose to violate the rights of others it doesn't make the rights subjective, it makes me an ass.

I want to have this clear, that is why I'm being provocative.
Part of the idea behind the thread is to have objective rights as the only discussion, I even believe it should be possible. It will give us the possibility to get those "Asses" punished for infringing rights.

Morality is about good choices (for me), but you are correct in making clear they should never infringe rights.

I know this is overdue, but yes it does.

And why do these human right's statements contradict themselves? Because they mix up rights with subjective wishes, etc...
That is why the quest to objective rights is so valuable.

Now, it is impossible to guarantee the right to a free choice of employment and a right to adequate medical care when it comes to dentists.

this is a good example: you can not go to a international judge and force someone to give you medical care, why would the other one be obliged to do this? So Medical care is subjective, a social agreement, nothing to do with a right.

Consent is the act of exercising your rights.

Completely agree, what I was trying to do was state the right in an objective way, which I'm still not able to do.

But going in the direction that others can not act on you in ways that would give commitments from your side you did not consent to. Do not think this solves cruelty or harrasment.

thus by showing a disregard for rights he gave up his own rights, which is why he was sentenced to prison.

A right is something you can defend, you can not give up on them, you can not loose them. Otherwise it becomes illogical.
There is conflict between rights, Madoff rights and the victims rights and a judgment made Madoff responsible for conflict so violating his rights later is considered the best choice.

 

[FoolKiller]

And why do these human right's statements contradict themselves? Because they mix up rights with subjective wishes, etc...
That is why the quest to objective rights is so valuable.

Which is my point. If human rights were just made up by law we would eventually just be violating human rights left and right just by breathing.

Completely agree, what I was trying to do was state the right in an objective way, which I'm still not able to do.

You have a right to choose what you do and don't do with your body, so long as you do not violate the rights of others.

But going in the direction that others can not act on you in ways that would give commitments from your side you did not consent to. Do not think this solves cruelty or harrasment.

There is no way to have a human right from non-physical cruelty or harassment. Harassment especially has a very vague definition. People can feel harassed by you because you didn't say something when they wanted you to. Anyone who has been in a professional leadership position knows this all too well. And I don't know how many times I have given my wife an honest opinion of something she did to be told I was being cruel.

A right is something you can defend, you can not give up on them, you can not loose them. Otherwise it becomes illogical.

When you violate the rights of others you prove yourself incapable, or unwilling, of recognizing rights. In return society must stop recognizing some of your rights in order to prevent you from continuing to violate the rights of others.

There is conflict between rights, Madoff rights and the victims rights and a judgment made Madoff responsible for conflict so violating his rights later is considered the best choice.

Exactly how was theft Madoff expressing his rights? He took what did not belong to him. He violated property rights just as much as a cat burglar or bank robber does.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

Looking deeper into it, I came to the conclusion that consent is too subjective and would be covered by:

there is the Objective Right to decide on the next action you take, without infringing the Objective Rights of innocent others

So the issue remains that the unconscious person needs to be protected, this would be with:
there is an Objective Right not to be submitted to actions of others that impose commitments on your side.

This could also be used to defend yourself against contracts where not all the terms have been clearly stated.

There is no way to have a human right from non-physical cruelty or harassment. Harassment especially has a very vague definition.

Non-physical cruelty or harassment: seems your only steps against them are:

1) You leave the place where it happens.
2) You associate with people that do not do it.
3) You hide in private property.

Recommended steps:
a) You negotiate: You should not leave school or work for the actions of an other. I for example have received the task in the past to be intermediate between 2 colleagues that were at a stage where normal conversation was not possible.
b) You fight back: Show your value and that the other one is not worth the conflict.
c) You leave: Happened to my sister in law. She found an other job, when the person continued the harassment indirectly with the new CEO she went working for, the CEO used her network and in the end the person harassing got fired anyway.

The whole issue is again that the attacker is in a powerful position and with correct behavior you are generally a victim. Sometimes this goes really wrong: suicide case Marjorie Raymond is an example, but there the person did not handle the conflict ideally; Theresa Vince was murdered though as a tragical ending of harassment, where she had found refuge in early retirement.

So for me with harassment you do have a case to defend your right: there is an Objective Right not to be submitted to actions of others that impose commitments on your side; and with harassment you do need to take decisions = commitments due to the actions of others. However I'm the first to admit that any complaint about harassment is a proof of harassment from the person putting the complaint down and not the other way around, the people that is accused is innocent until proven differently.

Exactly how was theft Madoff expressing his rights?

Not the theft, that was infringing the rights of his victims. In the limitations of his actions (imprisonment) and the assumption of innocence it is the rights of Madoff that are at stake. Madoff still has those rights, no matter what he did or does, the judgment makes that infringing his rights (innocence seems to be rejected) seems a needed step to protect the rights of innocent others (infinite value of not innocent against infinite value of innocent). Issue with judgments remains that they always will inherently be subjective, might = imposing your judgment (the acceptable level of infringing rights) and we are back at my Uezbermensch arguments, judging is an enormous responsibility you take on yourself and people judge too easily.

 

[Danoff]

That's the point - objective statements can be tested as to whether they are true or false. Action or inaction in the trolley example has no "true" "false" value attached to it.

Objectivity has nothing to do with testability, it has to do simply with whether or not the thing being claimed depends on perception/interpretation.

"I like the color yellow" is subjective, it depends on perception.
"God exists" is objective, it does not depend upon perception.

Neither of these is testable. Both are extremely likely to be false. One is objective, one is subjective.

Since an assumption is involved, it is subjective. However, given that it's an agreed basis not subject to challenge, we can safely say that on that reasonable assumption mathematics is objective.

You made my point for me.

On the other hand, as I've mentioned so many times, your assumption is not something which is free from challenge.

We were talking about the above... which you tried to challenge and then accidentally agreed to.

- Actions are always objective. If you did that objectively speaking you did that. If you didn't do that objectively speaking you didn't do that.

Fair enough. But that's not what I'm getting at.

- The reason for taking a certain action is always subjective. It is based on your values system or sometimes outright arbitrary. But not matter whether your action is reasonable or not, it does not hide the fact that it is based on a subjective decision.

Also fair enough. Also not what I'm getting at. But I see how both of these issues are confusing. I'll explain below.

- Objectivity applies to everyone in the sense that its truth/falsity does not change - it's an absolute truth. It can never be shown that action/inaction is "true" "false" "correct" "incorrect".

Agreed (even if I find it to be a little incomplete in ways that are not currently important).

- The preference for objectivity is in itself a subjective value.

Definitely wrong, but also, in a subtle way, not important.

- Human rights in the sense you are talking about is always subjective. The only objective rights (which I was referring to when replying to FoolKiller's post) are rights conferred by an objective external system.

They are conferred by objectivity itself.

- It's not arbitrary. Acting in accordance with one's own moral system is not considered arbitrary. It's just a religion - you believe in the objectivity of things - that's your religion and you act in accordance with that belief. Only when one's action does not act in accordance with a set of rules can you say it's arbitrary.

Acing in accordance with one's own moral system may not be arbitrary, but one's own moral system is arbitrary (if it is subjective), and so those actions are dictated by subjective, arbitrary values.

It has. Your assumption is that unless an action is objectively justifiable, then according to your belief in objectivity the action in question ought not to be done. It's an "ought" under your value system.

That's not actually it. It "ought" not be done in an objective system. That last part is important (makes the statement objective). It "ought" to be done in a subjective system, but our reasons for preferring an objective system to a subjective one are objective.

Yes, the fact that an action exists is objective (any action). And yes, motivation for that action is subjective, but forcing your own subjective values on someone else (who will have a different perception), is a subjective value judgement that has no place in an objective system.

 

[FoolKiller]

Looking deeper into it, I came to the conclusion that consent is too subjective and would be covered by:

there is the Objective Right to decide on the next action you take, without infringing the Objective Rights of innocent others

So the issue remains that the unconscious person needs to be protected, this would be with:
there is an Objective Right not to be submitted to actions of others that impose commitments on your side.

This could also be used to defend yourself against contracts where not all the terms have been clearly stated.

While consent is subjective as to what the individual is willing to consent to (much like what you are willing to do to yourself is subjective) the right to give consent is objective.

In the case of contracts it is consent through deception if all terms are not openly known by all sides. Any contract can be up for renegotiation if new or undisclosed terms come up. Similarly, no contract is binding if a person who signs it is under duress or not in their right frame of mind (disease or intoxication).

Non-physical cruelty or harassment: seems your only steps against them are:

1) You leave the place where it happens.
2) You associate with people that do not do it.
3) You hide in private property.

In the absence of intermediary forces (employers, teachers, ombudsman, etc) then yes. It begs a huge question as to the mental state of someone who continues to expose themselves to people who treat them in such a way. Of course, having grown up in the "sticks and stones may break my bones but words never hurt me" generation I often question the people who get too bothered by it anyway.

Recommended steps:
a) You negotiate: You should not leave school or work for the actions of an other. I for example have received the task in the past to be intermediate between 2 colleagues that were at a stage where normal conversation was not possible.
b) You fight back: Show your value and that the other one is not worth the conflict.
c) You leave: Happened to my sister in law. She found an other job, when the person continued the harassment indirectly with the new CEO she went working for, the CEO used her network and in the end the person harassing got fired anyway.

Proper employers and schools have their own rules against these kinds of things. Admittedly, schools are in a position to only be able to intervene at school, but then parents should be attentive at other times.

But as it stands I have never worked at a job where the company rules on harassment weren't stricter than the law. The law, at least locally, prevents someone in a position of power from using that power to impose their will on a subordinate in a non-work related way, aka no sexual impositions, no illegal activities, etc. But every employer I have had has made it to the point that even being overheard saying a joke about a coworker by another person is enough to have you face disciplinary action.

The simple fact is that most employers, at least in the US, will go extreme to prevent a hostile work environment. If they do not have at least a minimal of rules in place then one must wonder why anyone wants to work there in the first place. It is similar to racial issues where the one claiming to have been unjustly treated by the employer wants to continue working there. I do not get it.

The whole issue is again that the attacker is in a powerful position and with correct behavior you are generally a victim. Sometimes this goes really wrong: suicide case Marjorie Raymond is an example, but there the person did not handle the conflict ideally; Theresa Vince was murdered though as a tragical ending of harassment, where she had found refuge in early retirement.

There was a lot that was handle incorrectly in the Marjorie Raymond case. But first and foremost I have to ask where the parents were on both sides of the equation.

And the Theresa Vince case is one of murder. To what degree do you expect to treat unhealthy infatuation as potential murder? If there were a checklist of signs for each case then we would be able to find and stop nearly every case. As it is you can never tell when overboard harassment ends there and silent infatuation turns to murder.

So for me with harassment you do have a case to defend your right: there is an Objective Right not to be submitted to actions of others that impose commitments on your side; and with harassment you do need to take decisions = commitments due to the actions of others.

So, a guy sees a woman at a bar and hits on her. She turns him down. He keeps coming back. He even says that he is not taking no for an answer. If she leaves though he won't follow her. Is he violating her rights?

Not the theft, that was infringing the rights of his victims. In the limitations of his actions (imprisonment) and the assumption of innocence it is the rights of Madoff that are at stake.

He was assumed innocent until the court trial. Every news story used the terms accused or alleged. American criminal court requires a unanimous jury verdict, and those jurors are instructed to be beyond a reasonable doubt.

Madoff still has those rights, no matter what he did or does, the judgment makes that infringing his rights (innocence seems to be rejected) seems a needed step to protect the rights of innocent others (infinite value of not innocent against infinite value of innocent). Issue with judgments remains that they always will inherently be subjective, might = imposing your judgment (the acceptable level of infringing rights) and we are back at my Uezbermensch arguments, judging is an enormous responsibility you take on yourself and people judge too easily.

He is found guilty, via trial hearing judged by a third party who is presented with all available evidence and he is given the opportunity to prove his own innocence. In fact, the legal system favors the defendant. The defendant has a right to not be questioned if he feels he can't answer without hurting his defense, the prosecution must hand all they find over to the defense before it is presented in court but the defense can hide things from the prosecution, if the jury cannot be convinced unanimously then the prosecution must start over completely, if a man is found innocent of a crime and later new evidence is presented that shows he is guilty he cannot be tried again but if he is found guilty he can appeal repeatedly, and a man found guilty can have his conviction unilaterally thrown out by a high ranking politician but no high ranking official can unilaterally punish a man for a crime.

All of that said, mistakes do happen, circumstances appear convincing, and later new evidence is found. As I said that can be used to free him.

But when a man is guilty he has violated rights and thus the government's requirement to protect his right to freedom is no longer valid. The government, to protect everyone else's rights must violate his rights. Any other view is to suggest that those who violate rights are simply told to stop and left to wander the streets.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

Wolf-M: - The preference for objectivity is in itself a subjective value.

Danoff reply: Definitely wrong, but also, in a subtle way, not important.

I'm partially with Wolf-M on this a preference is subjective.
However I hardened my stand: Subjectivity can not be linked to rights: if preference defines rights, they can be changed at will, it is illogical, because then you can not defend your rights, the other one might have a different preference.

So Danoff is right, when he states "preference for objectivity" is not subjective. Objectively a "preference for subjectivity" is wrong, you would be able to change any right you want and rights would seas to exist.

Wolf-M
- It's not arbitrary. Acting in accordance with one's own moral system is not considered arbitrary. It's just a religion - you believe in the objectivity of things - that's your religion and you act in accordance with that belief.

I missed this before:
1) Yes you moral system is partially subjective.
2) But objectively you moral system can be wrong, when it does not respect objective rights.

You can have plenty of subjective rules in your moral, it helps you make choices. However when your moral does not respect Objective Rights it is wrong, always.

FoolKiller So, a guy sees a woman at a bar and hits on her. She turns him down. He keeps coming back. He even says that he is not taking no for an answer. If she leaves though he won't follow her. Is he violating her rights?

Yes he is. He is imposing a commitment to the person to leave or put up with him, she has as much right to be there in peace as he is. By imposing him to leave her alone, she is as much violating his rights on the actions he can decide to take though. So there is just a conflict of rights, it happens all the time according to me, there is no right to have it easy.

As stated the recommended steps are:
a) You negotiate: with him did not work, so with the bar owner.
b) You fight back: She could try to harass the guy out of the bar (women can be mean in public). With the bar owner: I bet the guy drinks more, but people might come back knowing the woman is a regular.
c) You leave: If the woman does not get satisfaction from the justice system in the bar, regulated by themselves/ the owner, she can leave.

So I agree, in front of an international judge,
* the woman's right to sit in the bar without commitment to endure the man against
* the man's right to say the truth wherever he wants,
seems like a case where them and bar owner have sufficient power to decide the justice system. If you take the side of the man or the woman you are judging already, I tried to avoid that by objectively looking at rights. I'm not claiming I have succeeded perfectly, but there is an effort not to judge and only look at rights.


@FoolKiller Not clear why you are explaining the US system of justice, it is pure subjective, and thus not worth discussing, it is an opinion how justice should be done. That said, I do believe you should be able to appeal to an international instance when your rights are violated (no matter if you are guilty of crimes or not) to defend your rights and that that instance can use force to defend your rights if it believes it is needed (e.g. what is happening in Syria). But again judging is a huge responsibility that should not be taken to easily and most instances are too subjective at this moment.

 

[FoolKiller]

Yes he is. He is imposing a commitment to the person to leave or put up with him, she has as much right to be there in peace as he is. By imposing him to leave her alone, she is as much violating his rights on the actions he can decide to take though. So there is just a conflict of rights, it happens all the time according to me, there is no right to have it easy.

As you define it, the traditional American way of meeting people to date means creating a long line of rights violations on your part. Unless of course, freedom from being hit on is not a right.

And of course, she voluntarily entered a business which is designed around the aspect of social interaction. If she does not enjoy the social interaction she encounters then it is her responsibility to also voluntarily remove herself from the situation. There are bar employees specifically hired to prevent unwanted interactions from going too far in most places. If there aren't then she has voluntarily placed herself in a situation she dislikes. If there are then the guy has violated club rules and the bar employees will let him know.

The simple fact is that all interactions are the result of voluntary actions by both parties. A person cannot go to social club with the expectation of the right of social interaction or non-interaction. Whether you have interactions or not, and whether they are positive or not all depend on your voluntary actions.

* the woman's right to sit in the bar without commitment to endure the man against

Does not exist.

* the man's right to say the truth wherever he wants,

Does not exist without potential consequence, particularly in a privately owned establishment.

seems like a case where them and bar owner have sufficient power to decide the justice system. If you take the side of the man or the woman you are judging already, I tried to avoid that by objectively looking at rights. I'm not claiming I have succeeded perfectly, but there is an effort not to judge and only look at rights.

The only objective right is for the bar owner to set the rules for how far he will allow one patron to attempt to socialize with another.

@FoolKiller Not clear why you are explaining the US system of justice, it is pure subjective, and thus not worth discussing, it is an opinion how justice should be done.

Primarily I was pointing out that harassment is a private property rule set, and in any desirable work conditions that rule set will be stricter than that of the law. I probably rambled on a bit and got on a tangent though. It was late.

That said, I do believe you should be able to appeal to an international instance when your rights are violated (no matter if you are guilty of crimes or not) to defend your rights and that that instance can use force to defend your rights if it believes it is needed (e.g. what is happening in Syria).

Yeah...I don't. That results in guys that admit to butt raping 14-year-old girls hiding out in Europe to avoid legal repercussions, making award-winning movies, and generally making me hate the French infinitely more.

But again judging is a huge responsibility that should not be taken to easily and most instances are too subjective at this moment.

Then open the prisons and hope for the best. I'll be the one using a shotgun on anyone unwelcome approaching my house.

 

[Danoff]

So I agree, in front of an international judge,
* the woman's right to sit in the bar without commitment to endure the man against
* the man's right to say the truth wherever he wants,
seems like a case where them and bar owner have sufficient power to decide the justice system.

In a situation where two individuals voluntarily enter a third individual's property and interact, there are only a few rights violations that can occur.
- One individual can physically harm or force the other.
- The property can be damaged by someone who does not own it.
- That's about it... (I'd constitute any unwelcome presence on the property as damage)

Neither individual has a right to control the actions of the other, and the property owner has no right to control the actions of the people on the property aside from denying them access to the property and requiring that they do not damage the property.

The rights at issue here are freedom from force and property rights. There is nothing that establishes the woman's right not to be hit on.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

The rights at issue here are freedom from force .... There is nothing that establishes the woman's right not to be hit on.

I fail to see the difference between a man that is asked to leave someone alone and does not
vs freedom from force.
Force is not just physical, the man is forcing options on the woman limiting her choices, so she can limit his choices as well.

As you define it, the traditional American way of meeting people to date means creating a long line of rights violations on your part. Unless of course, freedom from being hit on is not a right.

There is no issue with courting, the situation was very specific, the lady did not want the man to continue courting, but the man continued. That is only when it becomes a rights violation. It is exactly the same as your rape case, it is only a rape if one person asks to stop and the other one does not. To see talking and sexual intercourse as different value is subjective, it does not change the rights.

And of course, she voluntarily entered a business which is designed around the aspect of social interaction. If she does not enjoy the social interaction she encounters then it is her responsibility to also voluntarily remove herself from the situation.

It does not matter where you are or how you got there, when you ask to stop the other one should respect that, be it rape or harassment. She never asked the man to harass her, she asked him to stop. As stated a good way to defend would be to harass him back (violating his rights in self defense) and see who wins. She has no responsibility to go away, the interaction is not normal. This is a normal conflict in interaction though, the man not stopping and the woman not accepting the communication of the man. Again judging who is right from the beginning is subjective, I only talk about rights, not what should be done!

The simple fact is that all interactions are the result of voluntary actions by both parties. A person cannot go to social club with the expectation of the right of social interaction or non-interaction. Whether you have interactions or not, and whether they are positive or not all depend on your voluntary actions.

Rights are there to arrange these interactions, if we had no interactions we would not need the rights. You are giving arguments for the rapists here, the girl was in a club, dressed to kill, she asked for it ....

the woman's right to sit in the bar without commitment to endure the man against

Does not exist.

This is indeed an unfortunate formulation from my side.
The woman can go where she wants, also the bar.
The man takes an action to make a lot of noise.
The woman takes an action to ask the man to stop the noise.

There is no way that the man has more right to make the noise then the woman has a right to ask him to stop the noise. The rest is subjective, judgment.

* the man's right to say the truth wherever he wants,

Does not exist without potential consequence, particularly in a privately owned establishment.
....
Primarily I was pointing out that harassment is a private property rule set, and in any desirable work conditions that rule set will be stricter than that of the law.

Private property or not, you have to respect rights.

The only objective right is for the bar owner to set the rules for how far he will allow one patron to attempt to socialize with another.

I would not accept a bar owner to rule, stating that he has a right to rule seems completely unacceptable to me. No one has a right to rule, but you have the obligation to agree on a way to judge.

Yeah...I don't. That results in guys that admit to butt raping 14-year-old girls hiding out in Europe

My point exactly, in your way you are stuck since there is a difference between the US and Europe, etc...
In my case the 14-year-old can go to the international court and if he violated objective rights they will get the guy where ever he is hiding.

But from what I got from this case: a US judge wants to decide what the woman should do and thus pursue the man on that base, the woman wants the case to stop, it is her rights that violated by the judge again:

Samantha Geimer filed court papers in January saying, "I am no longer a 13-year-old child. I have dealt with the difficulties of being a victim ...

I'll be the one using a shotgun on anyone unwelcome approaching my house.

And you will be violating that persons rights.
1) Everyone has the right to be presumed innocent.
2) You have the right to take actions as long as they do not violate the rights of innocent people (otherwise the utilitarian theory would be correct).

 

[Danoff]

I fail to see the difference between a man that is asked to leave someone alone and does not
vs freedom from force.
Force is not just physical, the man is forcing options on the woman limiting her choices, so she can limit his choices as well.

Affecting your choices is not force. Otherwise you're currently affecting my choices right now.... if I wanted to live in your house, I can't because you're there forcing me not to.

The "force" that I refer to is physical.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

From my progress on the subject (cruelty, harassement, torture, rape, ...) it is about:

Force = forcing options on the other
Consent = if you accept that people force options it is OK for them to do so

In rights this remains for me:
* there is an Objective Right to be presumed innocent (not violating any rights) until proven otherwise.
* there is an Objective right to defend your Objective rights.
* there is an Objective Right to decide on the next action you take, respecting the Objective Rights of innocent others.
* there is an Objective Right not to be submitted to actions of others that impose commitments (limitation in choices) on your side.

The main point for me is the last one, are commitments, limitation in choices really Objective?

I understand the way Danoff expresses this is: there is an Objective Right to be free from force.
But you are always under the "force" to respect Objective Rights, there is a limitation to your freedom that is needed to be able to defend the essential of your Freedom. If you were completely free from that force, you can do things that are illogical and against Objective Rights.

I repeat also, but it is a believe: there is no right to have easy choices, interaction will lead to conflict, even with a minimum, pure set of rights.


Imagine paradise, for me this is impossible, but still in our mind it might be the best way to think about a minimum, pure set of rights in a place where this is respected by all.
Essential in paradise is that there is no conflict.
So there is no property, everything is evailable plentyfull and without major effort.
You need Scotty to beam you from place to place, so Scotty can not be in Paradise, sorry Scotty, someone needs to be the slave (oops, I ran in the impossible already, but Scotty loves working, so it is his choice).
I'm talking to someone and find it to hot, I ask Scotty to move us so I'm less hot, all these conditions are plentifull available in Paradise.

I want to hit on a beauty, the beauty of my choice does not want to be hit on. Scotty replaces the situation with the twin of the beauty that likes me, I do not know the beauty, so I do not see the difference with the twin. There have to be plentifull of twins available.

Any case outside of paradise, the beauty and me will be in conflict. I actually think that conflict is essential: from The Matrix triology:

You won't truly know someone until you fight them

I believe in my marriage we continuously are in conflict on rights and that the marriage works since we accept the system of justice between us, the marriage would break when we find it impossible to agree on the system of justice between us.

So for me there are 2 views on the situation:
1) You see there is a conflict of rights, what person A chooses as action imposes commitments (limitation in choices) on person B. If person B has a different choice (choice to be left alone), there is a conflict in rights. So they start negotiating, forcing their justice system, the one with might wins to push their values through, the other one has to move aside.
2) The one choosing first has the right to continue, that it does not please the other one is bad luck for that person.


Issue with view 1: I come in a bar with a pink wall, I say that pink walls are a violation of my rights (it limits my choice not to look at pink) and I start a conflict.
=> My value system states that this is ridiculous, however my logic says it is correct.
Issue with view 2: The victim always loses and loses the right to defend themselves.
=> My value system states that this is against any form of justice, my logic says it is not correct.

So even if my value system states that view 1 is ridiculous (and it is), it is the only logical one I have seen till now that allows you to defend your rights objectively, even if the other one does not value your view.

e.g.: snow on the sidewalk, very relevant in Europe for the moment, in Luxembourg they give you a penalty if you do not remove it, in the UK you are only responsible if you change something on the sidewalk.

I believe that there is a conflict because the user of the sidewalk does not want snow. I fail to see the relevance of the Luxembourgish rule, why would anyone be responsible for the falling of the snow? Why would anyone have to remove the snow? If you do not want it, remove it yourself.
I understand the UK rule, there is a conflict in rights where the choice of one, changes the choices of others. In my value system, the discussion is ridiculous though, the person should look where they walk and have appropriate shoes for the weather, the people cleaning the sidewalk can not be responsible for the stupidity of others. But that does not change their rights.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

I have been on a crusade to say that a lot of things people present as rights are really agreements (negotiated), since they can not be universally defended.

Now that does not mean these agreements are worthless:
there is an Objective Right that when party A in an agreement between A and B fulfils their obligations (partially) that party A has the right to demand that party B fulfils their obligations (partially) out of the agreement.

So where the agreements are subjective, you get rights out of these agreements with the Objective Right above. I still prefer to call them agreements since it gets confusing for most people otherwise.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

Not clear if this is the right place:

Prison governor faces three years in jail for having behind-bars fling with deadly femme fatale

The Prison Governor got 1 year prison as did his lover, was said on the news.
I would recommend this person to take the state in front of on international court. Being imprisoned for a relationship seems against any good sense to me, what is he going to do outside of prison, choose an other woman the society does not approve off?

I do understand that he was fired for incorrect behaviour compared to his function, without compensation.

 

[BobK]

Not clear if this is the right place:

Prison governor faces three years in jail for having behind-bars fling with deadly femme fatale

The Prison Governor got 1 year prison as did his lover, was said on the news.
I would recommend this person to take the state in front of on international court. Being imprisoned for a relationship seems against any good sense to me, what is he going to do outside of prison, choose an other woman the society does not approve off?

I do understand that he was fired for incorrect behaviour compared to his function, without compensation.

Not sure about legality, but it's definitely frowned upon for someone to have a relationship with a person they're in a position of authority over. Having an affair with your boss can get both you and your boss fired for instance. Or a college student and professor (even if both are of age; if one of them isn't it's a whole different can of worms).

 

[Vince_Fiero]

Not sure about legality, but it's definitely frowned upon for someone to have a relationship with a person they're in a position of authority over. Having an affair with your boss can get both you and your boss fired for instance. Or a college student and professor (even if both are of age; if one of them isn't it's a whole different can of worms).

I talked to my boss, before I went out with my wife, because she was my client. All open and transparent, no issue.

He was not open that is why he lost is job and right so IMHO. However go to prison for an affair seems to me like a violation of his human rights. (it might be for illegal trade in penitentiary establishments, etc... that is another case).

 

[Vince_Fiero]

I was stuck on torture, cruelty, rape, not liking pink. The status was:
* there is an Objective Right not to be submitted to actions of others that impose commitments on your side.

Now it did not work, the not linking pink was out of order, but fell in the right.

To go back to rights, for me they had to be objective, no subjective value system involved. So the above lead to conflicts on rights, solved by subjective justice systems. Where I still believe that conflicts will exist, there is an essential way to solve them that came up yesterday while reading up on rights (more on this in a later post).

Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld noticed that even respected jurists conflate various meanings of the term right, sometimes switching senses of the word several times in a single sentence. He wrote that such imprecision of language indicated a concomitant imprecision of thought, and thus also of the resulting legal conclusions. He comes to:

If A has a right against B, this is equivalent to B having a duty to honour A's right. If B has no duty, that means that B has liberty, i.e. B can do whatever he or she pleases because B has no duty to refrain from doing it, and A has no right to prohibit B from doing so.

Based on Hohfeld's work Political philosopher Peter Jones recognised Claim and Liberty rights as the 2 essential pillars:
Jones defines liberty rights as rights which exist in the absence of any duties not to perform some desired activity and thus consist of those actions one is not prohibited from performing.
It seems though that any Liberty holds a claim against any other to respect that liberty.
A claim right is a right one holds against another person or persons who owe a corresponding duty to the right holder.

Where Claim rights are not in line with my concept for this thread, in the sense you need nobody else to have rights, you should not impose things with rights, you do seem to need claim rights to impose the respect of rights.
Not going in the whole theory, but the only way to impose something to another party is when you have a relationship with an object, you own that object so you can decided that others can be limited in the actions on it.

To limit this ownership to the minimum, for me it is clear that any object owns itself:
* there is an Objective Right that every object has itself as property.
In short you own your body and can put limitations on what others do to your body or:
* there is an Objective Right that your property is not submitted to actions of others that impose commitments on your side.

So going back to the one that does not like pink, he has the right to impose that others can not paint his property pink.
So going back to the rape, the victim has the right to impose that others can not violate their property, their body.

Going back to the man hitting on the women in a bar: the woman in the bar has the right to impose that the man can not violate her property, her body.
This is where it still turns ugly, I can see that the man seducing a woman is responsible for an action against her property, her body, her mind. However the area where they are is owned by both, so there is still a conflict. The man can stop directing the action towards the woman and talk to everybody around the woman about the way he loves her, how he wants to treat her right, thus not violating her property, her body.

I do not want to go into a full theory of property, I do believe this is subjective, supply and demand, however your body and soul are your property since it is the essence of Being and that is objective. Other theories would be dogmatic, so not worth discussing, you would have no choice.
It does explain the right to be free from force: you decide on your property, your body, your thoughts.

Imagine property rights allow you to own a house, what do you really own? Inside the house you can do whatever you want, but the outside is part of the street view. Who owns the street view?
Similar with the Burqa, you own your body, but going around in the society in certain clothing you give an image to that society, who owns that society?

It is clear that a vision is that all property is linked to persons or organisations and what you can not link to property rights should not be limited by anybody. However that remains subjective, I own the world or what about public right of way? public right of way: a right possessed by the public, to pass along linear routes over land at all times. Although the land may be owned by a private individual, the public may still gain access across that land along a specific route.

 

[Danoff]

Going back to the man hitting on the women in a bar: the woman in the bar has the right to impose that the man can not violate her property, her body.
This is where it still turns ugly, I can see that the man seducing a woman is responsible for an action against her property, her body, her mind.

Nope, talking to someone is not an action against their property. Unless he's physically messing with her property there is no rights conflict. You might claim that he's altering the chemical makeup of her brain, or that his presence and his statements are causing physical changes in her brain. But he has no control over what physical changes are made - that's entirely under her biological control. It is her choice to remain in his presence (she can leave), it is not her property (she can't kick him off), and he is not violating any of her property rights. No rights conflict.

Imagine property rights allow you to own a house, what do you really own? Inside the house you can do whatever you want, but the outside is part of the street view. Who owns the street view?

No one. It is not property - though easements can be placed on property rights such that you cannot create certain physical structures on your property. This is done through freedom of contract rather than presented as a rights violation.

Similar with the Burqa, you own your body, but going around in the society in certain clothing you give an image to that society, who owns that society?

No one owns your image, it is not property. But you own your body and your clothing and get to decide (as a matter of your rights) how you want to arrange them. I am not in favor of indecency laws but they can be established freely via contract. Public land, for example, can have regulations determined democratically (though not in an overtly discriminatory sense that denies access to individuals arbitrarily). Private land can certainly have regulations requiring clothing. And personal property can have easements requiring clothing when in view of the street. All of this is voluntary, none of it is a rights violation. Passing a law enabling police officers to put you in jail regardless of where you are or what the contracts say simply because you are not wearing the appropriate clothing is a rights violation.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

I was reading about: Human Rights
The term is so polluted that I'm tempted not to use it anymore, people seem to think:

Human rights are rights that attach to human beings and function as moral guarantees in support of our claims towards the enjoyment of a minimally good life. The realization of human rights requires establishing the conditions for all human beings to lead minimally good lives and thus should not be confused as an attempt to create a morally perfect society. Human rights call for the creation of politically democratic societies in which all citizens have the means of leading a minimally good life. Securing human beings’essential interests is the principal ground upon which human rights may be morally justified. Will theorists argue that what is distinctive about human agency is the capacity for freedom and that this ought to constitute the core of any account of rights.

The "enjoyment of a minimally good life" sounds like a wishlist, it is a dream, too far away from reality to be useful.

Questions is it about Rights or something else? Dictionaries see right as anything, they did not help me.
Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld see post above is a lot more helpful.
Legal philosopher Jeremy Bentham stated: there can be no such thing as human rights existing prior to, or independently from legal codification.
This seems a strange thing to me, you need to write something down or it does not exist? Not in my world.
So I believe in moral rights: rights that, exist prior to and independently from their legal counterparts.
But again I find it confusing, not all moral questions should be about rights, kindness for me can be a moral choice, not linked to a right or a responsibility.

It seems that the idea of a Natural Law which is at the origin of Human Rights makes a lot more sense. This sees a natural moral code based upon the identification of certain fundamental and objectively verifiable human goods. Our enjoyment of these basic goods is to be secured by our possession of equally fundamental and objectively verifiable natural rights. Natural law was deemed to pre-exist actual social and political systems. Natural rights were thereby similarly presented as rights individuals possessed independently of society or polity.
Aristotle unambiguously expounds an argument in support of the existence of a natural moral order. This natural order ought to provide the basis for all truly rational systems of justice. An appeal to the natural order provides a set of comprehensive and potentially universal criteria for evaluating the legitimacy of actual ‘man-made’ legal systems. Wittgenstein stated "The logic of the world is prior to all truth and falsehood." So maybe we are more talking about Natural Rights, where natural is like distinguishing between ‘natural justice’ and ‘legal justice’, Aristotle wrote this as, ‘the natural is that which has the same validity everywhere and does not depend upon acceptance.’ (Nicomachean Ethics, 189)

Locke claims that individuals possess natural rights, independently of the political recognition granted them by the state. Locke went so far as to argue that individuals are morally justified in taking up arms against their government should it systematically and deliberately fail in its duty to secure individuals’ possession of natural rights. As Kant supports this: ‘act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.’ (1948:84). I do follow Kant in his "rational agents" that all will understand the natural rights. For Kant, any such rights originate in the formal properties of human reason.

What if Natural Rights do not exist?
1) Try to imagine the world without them.
2) Someone like Gewirth might argue, critics of the existence of Human Rights for each individual would themselves necessarily be acting autonomously and they cannot do this without simultaneously requiring the existence of the very means for such action: even in criticizing human rights one is logically pre-supposing the existence of such individual rights.

Conclusion: We have only reason, logic, to find Natural Rights. A world without them would mean we could not even discuss them.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

Nope, talking to someone is not an action against their property. Unless he's physically messing with her property there is no rights conflict.... No rights conflict.

I understand you can talk to anybody that is not a violation.
When that person asks to stop, you might want to finish your argument.
You continue with something new, no issue, etc...

Are you saying stalking does not exist, harassment does not exist, or what is your point?

It is her choice to remain in his presence (she can leave), it is not her property (she can't kick him off), and he is not violating any of her property rights. No rights conflict.

You punish this woman, make her move by psychological pressure, on what grounds? Are you not confused about the person taking action and thus bearing responsibility for the situation? He came, she did not invite him.

Public land, for example, can have regulations determined democratically... All of this is voluntary, none of it is a rights violation. Passing a law enabling police officers to put you in jail regardless of where you are or what the contracts say simply because you are not wearing the appropriate clothing is a rights violation.

This is contradicting? Laws are the democratic regulations?

 

[Danoff]

I understand you can talk to anybody that is not a violation.
When that person asks to stop, you might want to finish your argument.
You continue with something new, no issue, etc...

You cannot force them to stop talking. If they have an obligation to obey your commands - that is physical force.

Are you saying stalking does not exist, harassment does not exist, or what is your point?

When you're on your own property it's a different story. When you're on someone else's property people can talk to you all they want (provided it's ok with the property owner).

You punish this woman, make her move by psychological pressure, on what grounds? Are you not confused about the person taking action and thus bearing responsibility for the situation? He came, she did not invite him.

She's free to leave if she doesn't like anything going on on the premises. She doesn't have to leave if she doesn't want to. Nobody is punishing the woman by making her do anything. The choice is entirely hers. What she is not allowed to do is force other people to behave in a particular way.

This is contradicting? Laws are the democratic regulations?

These are not laws, these are property rights on publicly owned land. All voters have rights to publicly owned land, and so collectively voters must determine what is acceptable on their land.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

You cannot force them to stop talking. If they have an obligation to obey your commands - that is physical force.

Nobody stated that he should stop talking, just stop directing it at her. I do believe that is the point, her body is her property, his action is directed at her property. Physical force would be an implementation of justice, we are not debating that, we stop at the rights, not how they are implemented. I never stated he does not have the right to talk, he does have that right.

e.g.: The regulation in the street states that bins should be put out in the street after 20h, all people in the street agree. I like the binmen and decide to make their life easier, so I bring all the bags out at 22h together in front of your house. I do not violate the regulations and I do not violate your property. That cats at night open the bags is not my action. Start to get the picture?

When you're on your own property it's a different story. When you're on someone else's property people can talk to you all they want (provided it's ok with the property owner).

She is the owner of her body and her mind, there is no other way, the direction is essential.

But your point is valid, imagine in the bar there is a group of students singing "doubtful" songs. The man says to the owner of the bar, the woman can not understand me, make the students shut up, the bartender states this is a student bar, if you do not like it, though luck. End of story. A student throws up in front of you so you can not move without going through the mess, still the same? It is not your property and nobody violated your property, you can go through the mess whenever you want, nobody is stopping you. The bartender states vomit is part of the charm here, the cleaning man comes at 10h just before reopening.

She's free to leave if she doesn't like anything going on on the premises. She doesn't have to leave if she doesn't want to. Nobody is punishing the woman by making her do anything. The choice is entirely hers.

Exactly the same, you can clean up the mess in front of your house if you want to or move to a different house if you do not like the bins, you can go thought the vomit or sit there till the cleaning man comes, it is your choice. Nobody is punishing you, the choice is entirely yours?

Again a Gran Turino finish moment, you need to offer yourself to get killed to get justice. No if people impose commitments on your property you have the right to take action to get justice.

What she is not allowed to do is force other people to behave in a particular way.

Is she forcing or does she have a right? Why do people come directly with force on rights?
When there is a conflict, there is a judgment (not part of the discussion here), if people keep to the judgment, no force is needed, the conflict is solved. This limits someone's rights further, but interaction leads to conflict, even in paradise.

These are not laws, these are property rights on publicly owned land. All voters have rights to publicly owned land, and so collectively voters must determine what is acceptable on their land.

Still do not see the difference, there are only 2 rights:
1) Natural rights (mostly called Moral): what this thread is about, always exist
2) Legal rights, documented in law: that are collective regulations, written.
Both will support that you can have a contract between 2 parties, but both parties will have to agree to that contract, one can not impose a contract/ agreement to an other.

Property rights on publicly owned land: is either written in law, or signed by both parties or does not exist. I believe the latter.