Is morality objective?

[PocketZeven]

No. My question was not rhetorical. So I'll ask it for a third time:

It doesn't matter how "ethical"your decision is. The point is it is not your decision to make. For instance, how do you know I wasn't planning to give it to someone even more in need? What gives you the right to seize that which is mine? Just because you believe there's a better use than which it can be put? You are condoning thievery , just like you've already condoned rape, murder and slavery.

Rights did not exist out of thin air. If society decided I dont have a right to use your property, then yes I am a thief. However if for whatever reason, society it is ok that I steal from you and give to someone else. Then it becomes my right to take your property and give it so someone else. Hence society accepts that income tax is not thievery. If you are stuck in black and white thinking then move to Monaco or another country without income tax. It is even more strange if you think its thievery and just let the government keep stealing.

I belong to society. You are disgusting for even suggesting me condoning rape, murder and slavery. I never did and never will. That is out of line.

Your position is that society grants rights. That not only requires you to also hold several other utterly repugnant positions that you're clearly trying to distance yourself from, but - yet again - confuses what rights are with what laws are.

We are speaking about rights. What are you on about. If I accurately state that society decides what rights are or people have, what does that have to do with my personal postitions? I belong to society, so I share all these ethical postitions. If you belong to the Kim family in N-Korea then no you believe that you have the right to do anything. That has absolutely nothing to do with my position.

You bringing up these repugnant examples says more about you then me. You keep doing this strangely and my conclusion is you have a problem with me. Which is your right and I will respect that.

Rights are litterally described, protected and adressed in law. Rights on themselves arent laws.

 

[BobK]

Rights did not exist out of thin air. If society decided I dont have a right to use your property, then yes I am a thief. However if for whatever reason, society it is ok that I steal from you and give to someone else. Then it becomes my right to take your property and give it so someone else. Hence society accepts that income tax is not thievery. If you are stuck in black and white thinking then move to Monaco or another country without income tax. It is even more strange if you think its thievery and just let the government keep stealing.

So your contention is that your rights are what someone else says they are, period, that there are no "innate" rights. So if some societies decree that a woman has no right not to be raped (and some do, examples were given to you), therefore according to you those women have no right not to be raped.

I belong to society. You are disgusting for even suggesting me condoning rape, murder and slavery. I never did and never will. That is out of line.

You're the one saying some women have no right not to be raped. And you have the gall to call me disgusting?

 

[Famine]

We are speaking about rights. What are you on about.

Rights.

If I accurately state that society decides what rights are or people have, what does that have to do with my personal postitions?

Again, I have very, very patiently explained this to you already and you have absolutely no reason to ask this question. But I'll do it again, since this appears to be your thing.

The position that holds that society decides what rights are also holds that when a society decides something absolutely repellent is a right, it is not breaching any rights in doing so.

That position means that the person who holds it must also hold that North Korea is not guilty of human rights violations when it incarcerates people, with their family and a generation of their family on either side, for frivolous reasons, and works them to death in forced labour camps while also starving them and using their women (and children) for sexual gratification.

When you say "society decides what rights are" you are also saying "North Korea's state-permitted inhumane prisoner treatment is not a breach of human rights". Which is an appalling thing to say. I'd hope any rational human being would not say that, but it is a required position to hold if you believe "society decides what rights are"...

You bringing up these repugnant examples says more about you then me. You keep doing this strangely and my conclusion is you have a problem with me. Which is your right and I will respect that.

It says nothing about either of us. I'm pointing out to you where your opinion that "societies decide that rights are" leads. It leads to "rape, slavery, FGM, racism, sexism and genocide aren't a breach of human rights when society decides they aren't rights".

I don't care about you. I care about your opinion that, because a society determines what a right is, FGM isn't a breach of human rights when a society decides that a girl's parents have the right to cut off her clitoris.

Rights are litterally described, protected and adressed in law.

They're also denied by law.

Rights on themselves arent laws.

I keep telling you this. You keep going back to the law.

 

[Imari]

You are disgusting for even suggesting me condoning rape, murder and slavery. I never did and never will.

You have done so several times in this thread alone.

As I recall, the Dutch contributed their fair share to the slave trade. That was considered legal at the time. I assume that it's not legal in the Netherlands now to hold slaves, but are you saying that no Dutch slaves had the right to freedom until it was given in Dutch law? That had that law not been made that those slaves would continue to hold no right to freedom to this day?

That seems like a pretty strong statement that freedom is only a right as long as there is a law that grants it. The same applies to rape, murder, and any of the other terrible things that societies and governments have deemed legal over the years. Just because the US has laws prohibiting abortion does that mean that a woman does not have the right to choose what to do with her own body?

"If there's a law it's a right; if there isn't it's not" is a great philosophy if you want no one to recognise any human rights whatsoever.

 

[PocketZeven]

So your contention is that your rights are what someone else says they are, period, that there are no "innate" rights. So if some societies decree that a woman has no right not to be raped (and some do, examples were given to you), therefore according to you those women have no right not to be raped.



You're the one saying some women have no right not to be raped. And you have the gall to call me disgusting?

I never said that, or I will need to file a complaint.

No dont change my words. Rights are what society accept as a right. If another society decree that a woman has no right to be raped (it is disturbing you guys are using this example) that would not mean they dont have that right. I dont belong to that society. Stop implying so.

The whole point is that according to the USA and Europe Kim has no right violating others human rights (dont need to go in disturbing detail). However a N-korean citizen will acknowledge that Kim has the absolute right to do so.

Catholics for example say that god has the right to take and give life. Who gave god more rights then others?

Again, I have very, very patiently explained this to you already and you have absolutely no reason to ask this question. But I'll do it again, since this appears to be your thing.

The position that holds that society decides what rights are also holds that when a society decides something absolutely repellent is a right, it is not breaching any rights in doing so.

When you say "society decides what rights are" you are also saying "North Korea's state-permitted inhumane prisoner treatment is not a breach of human rights". Which is an appalling thing to say. I'd hope any rational human being would not say that, but it is a required position to hold if you believe "society decides what rights are"...

I have also explained my postition clearly to you. Yet instead of sharing and debating the issue, you chose to say something repugnantand controversial just to criticise my postition and opinion as wrong.

Once again, society decides what is or isnt a right. Laws are there to protect them (or deny them). I (pocketzeven) belong to the european society and therefore believe women have the right to not be violated. However within N-korean society Chairman kim has the absolute right to violate anyone he wants. Does that mean I am N-korean? No. The greater society already think that kim should not have that right. Rights are not as universal as you perhaps think.

To continue an actual conversation do you yourself believe that the government has no right to tax income?

"If there's a law it's a right; if there isn't it's not" is a great philosophy if you want no one to recognise any human rights whatsoever.

Famine moved the conversation to rape.

Correction my statement was that "rights are decided by society". You are misquoting me. I didnt mention laws, Famine assumed I did. My position on laws is that laws are there to protect (and admittedly deny) rights.

 

[ryzno]

However a N-korean citizen will acknowledge that Kim has the absolute right to do so.

So they don't get put in prison or killed. People say stuff they don't actually agree with everyday, out of fear.
I lied to donors to the charity I worked for. I told them what the company wanted me to tell them knowing it wasn't even 80% correct. They did do "good in the hood" but they didn't do what they wanted me to say.

 

[Famine]

I have also explained my postition clearly to you. Yet instead of sharing and debating the issue, you chose to say something repugnantand controversial just to criticise my postition and opinion as wrong.

Yes, I'm the one saying that North Korean women have no rights. Of course I am.

Once again, society decides what is or isnt a right. Laws are there to protect them (or deny them). I (pocketzeven) belong to the european society and therefore believe women have the right to not be violated. However within N-korean society Chairman kim has the absolute right to violate anyone he wants. Does that mean I am N-korean? No.

Oh my word, how are you still not getting this?

Your position is "society determines what rights are". This is your position, and you keep stating it as if that changes anything.

That position requires the belief that that rights are only what a society determines them to be.

That position requires the belief that if a society determines you do not have a right, you do not have a right.

That position requires the belief that if a society determines something absolutely appalling to be a right, it is a right.

North Korea's society has determined that the state can imprison whoever it wants, along with their family and a generation either side and their family. It has determined that those prisoners can be starved to, worked to, and raped to death.

Your position that "society determines what rights are" requires the belief that no rights are violated if a woman is raped by a prison guard in a North Korean prison.


I'm not calling you a rapist, or a rape apologiser, or a North Korean (what?). I'm pointing out that to be consistent, your opinion that "society determines what rights are" requires you to believe that no rights are violated if a woman is raped by a prison guard in a North Korean prison.

As I've pointed out on several occasions, this is an appalling position to hold. You seem to agree. If you agree that North Korea is in fact committing rights violations your premise is wrong.

To continue an actual conversation do you yourself believe that the government has no right to tax income?

I mean, I've stated it in this thread, so...

How is a government - a third party - entitled to any portion of my labour as agreed with the person I sell my labour to? Why does a government own any part of my body or mind?

Famine moved the conversation to rape.

I moved it to slavery first. You didn't have a problem with that...

 

[PocketZeven]

Yes, I'm the one saying that North Korean women have no rights. Of course I am.


I'm not calling you a rapist, or a rape apologiser, or a North Korean (what?). I'm pointing out that to be consistent, your opinion that "society determines what rights are" requires you to believe that no rights are violated if a woman is raped by a prison guard in a North Korean prison.

As I've pointed out on several occasions, this is an appalling position to hold. You seem to agree. If you agree that North Korea is in fact committing rights violations your premise is wrong.

No I did not say you said that N-korean women have no rights. I stated that you made the first mention of rape.


To explain it more simply:
I belong to society 1.
You belong to society 2.
N-koreans to 3.


I believe rights are decided by society. 1 and 2 have concensus that a person has the right not to be violated. 3 however has isolated borders and therefore unawhere of the rights the societies 1 and 2 have. In society 3 prisoners have no right to not to be violated.

I belong to society 1 and you to 2. therefore we both disagree with society 3.

Which part makes you assume that because I believe society 1,2 and 3 define their own rights I therefore I must agree with all 1,2 and 3? What logic is in that? I belong to society 1 and therefore might agree or disagree with certain rights that 2 and 3 deny or claim to have.

edit:
This discussion has been taken over by the assumptions and "repugnant" comments by Famine. I suggest to read more carefull, before making such claims. This is where Famine made the first comment:

You believe rights are granted by societies, and North Korea's society does not grant the right to be free from illegitimate imprisonment, or for humane treatment of prisoners. Thus you believe that North Korea's women do not have the right not to be raped by prison guards - and that's an appalling point of view to hold.

The first deliberate misinterpretation is that I did not say granted. He then continues to misinterpret That because I believe in view 1, therefore I must believe in view 2.

1. Right are decided by society
2. women do not have the right to not to be violated

He then even suggests that is the view I personally share? Ofcourse I dont, I am not N-korean.

Within the N-korean society Kim has the right to all. (or in other words his rights are decided by N-korean society). I am an outsider to that society, how can famine suddenly make the connection that because of believing in 1. I must believe in 2.

So they don't get put in prison or killed. People say stuff they don't actually agree with everyday, out of fear.
I lied to donors to the charity I worked for. I told them what the company wanted me to tell them knowing it wasn't even 80% correct. They did do "good in the hood" but they didn't do what they wanted me to say.

That is an ethical question and not necessary about rights. The point is within N-korean society the chairman is "god". And god has absolute rights to al societies that are religious.

As an atheist I dont think god has rights, because he/she doesnt exist.

 

[Famine]

No I did not say you said that N-korean women have no rights. I stated that you made the first mention of rape.

I didn't say otherwise. But just mentioning rape isn't repugnant and controversial. Saying that men have a right to rape women because their society gives them that right... yeah, that'd do it.

I am very consistent.
I belong to society 1.
You belong to society 2.
N-koreans to 3.

I believe rights are decided by society. 1 and 2 have concensus that a person has the right not to be violated. 3 however has isolated borders and therefore unawhere of the rights the societies 1 and 2 have.

I belong to society 1 and you to 2. therefore we both disagree with society 3.

Which part makes you assume that because I believe society 1,2 and 3 define their own rights I therefore I must agree with all 1,2 and 3? What logic is in that? I belong to society 1 and therefore might agree or disagree with certain rights that 2 and 3 deny or claim to have.

You're still just not getting it, and yet in amongst all of that you actually typed a single sentence in that literally says exactly what I've been saying your position is. It's this one:

In society 3 prisoners have no right to not to be violated.

This is exactly what I've been telling you that your position of "society decides what rights are" means. And you agree with it! You actually think that because North Korea does not recognise that right, it is not committing gross rights violations. What a genuinely, terrifyingly abhorrent mindset.


Of course you're showing again that you're incapable of separating the concept of rights from the concept of laws protecting rights, because if you were you'd realise that in fact North Korea is committing gross rights violations, by virtue of the fact that its laws do not protect those rights. Laws aren't rights.

 

[PocketZeven]

I didn't say otherwise. But just mentioning rape isn't repugnant and controversial. Saying that men have a right to rape women because their society gives them that right... yeah, that'd do it.

That is what you mentioned. not me.

This is exactly what I've been telling you that your position of "society decides what rights are" means. And you agree with it! You actually think that because North Korea does not recognise that right, it is not committing gross rights violations. What a genuinely, terrifyingly abhorrent mindset.


Of course you're showing again that you're incapable of separating the concept of rights from the concept of laws protecting rights, because if you were you'd realise that in fact North Korea is committing gross rights violations, by virtue of the fact that its laws do not protect those rights. Laws aren't rights.

Stop acting ignorant. Where in that complete post do i claim to agree with society 3? Your whole statement "you believe in society decides rights (1) and therefore you agree that N-korean prisoners do not have the right to not be violated.(2)" does not make sense at all. Where is the connection? How does your strange mind go from 1 to 2? They arent even directly connected.

I belong to society 1 and adhere to society 1's definition of rights. I strongly oppose the violations in society 3. 1 and 2 agree that 3 is violating rights.

Again mr. Famine where did I state N-korea were not comitting violations. Even a simplification seems too hard for you to grasp. You seem to lack any empathy at all.

Let me try 1 more time and perhaps this time you will finally figure it out.

You were born and raised in N-korea, your whole life. You have had absolutely no contact whatsoever with the outside world. You have believed that President Kim s a living god. He declares that people in prison have no rights and he has absolute rights.

Now in this scenario your belief is that you believe that a prisoner has no rights (including the right to not be violated). They are perhaps considered as not human.

Now I am not N-korean and I grew up in europe. Why would I agree with N-korean you? I think N-korea is in grave violation of human rights.

Your assumption is that your belief in your interpretation of rights are universal. That almost seems narcassist. Speaking with you, is almost like arguing with a flat-earther stuck like a broken record.

 

[ryzno]

That is an ethical question and not necessary about rights. The point is within N-korean society the chairman is "god". And god has absolute rights to al societies that are religious.

As an atheist I dont think god has rights, because he/she doesnt exist.

And they fear him cause he is "god". Or at least he has them believing he his.
There is a subculture that doesn't agree with him. They don't spread their word in fear.
That violates 2 American rights, freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
You'd be put in prison for simply saying you're atheist, do agree with that?

 

[Famine]

Stop acting ignorant. Where in that complete post do i claim to agree with society 3?

I didn't say you agreed with it... What you agreed with is that the people there do not have those rights because the society there has determined that they do not. That is the end point I've been telling you for two days of "society determines what rights are". You have now agreed with that.

I think N-korea is in grave violation of human rights.

How can it be, if it determines what its own citizens' rights are?

I believe rights are decided by society.

The result of this point of view is that no society can ever commit human rights violations.

 

[PocketZeven]

I didn't say you agreed with it... What you agreed with is that the people there do not have those rights because the society there has determined that they do not. That is the end point I've been telling you for two days of "society determines what rights are". You have now agreed with that.

How can it be, if it determines what its own citizens' rights are?

The result of this point of view is that no society can ever commit human rights violations.

Your assumption that rights are universal by default is wrong. Having rights is a belief.

How can it be, if it determines what its own citizens' rights are?

Within their own society they arent. Within the greater society they are. That is the whole point I am making. Women in some strong religious countries have little to no rights at all. In their own society it is completely normal. But in greater society it is a violation of womens rights.

edit: trying to step in ones shoes, does not mean you agree with them.

edit:

And they fear him cause he is "god". Or at least he has them believing he his.
There is a subculture that doesn't agree with him. They don't spread their word in fear.
That violates 2 American rights, freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
You'd be put in prison for simply saying you're atheist, do agree with that?

that was the point famine was trying to make to me. Laws aren’t rights. In the case of prisoners in n-Korea I am not sure they even have laws that deny or grant them the right to not be violated. If they do that would mean they actually do acknowledge that human right. But I have suspicions they don’t.

I am not American by the way. In our laws these rights are acknowledged and protected too.

 

[Famine]

Your assumption that rights are universal by default is wrong. Having rights is a belief.

It's not an assumption, it's a reasoned, rational principle - which starts with the assumption that it isn't. Read the human rights thread.

Within their own society they arent.

Jaw-dropping.

Even a simplification seems too hard for you to grasp. You seem to lack any empathy at all.

That almost seems narcassist. Speaking with you, is almost like arguing with a flat-earther stuck like a broken record.

Classy. Interesting that I'm apparently the one with a "personal problem" with you, even though I only talk about your opinions and not you as a person, while you keep sticking these digs in.

Given the opportunities I've allowed you, I'd have hoped you'd learn to separate opinion from person by now.

Within the greater society they are.

What is "the greater society"?

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

What is "the greater society"?

It depends on the hour you post.

 

[BobK]

I never said that, or I will need to file a complaint.

You didn't say it in so many words, but it's a logical consequence of what you have been saying.

You are, of course, free to report anything I say, at any time. If you feel a need to file a complaint, please do so.

No dont change my words. Rights are what society accept as a right. If another society decree that a woman has no right to be raped (it is disturbing you guys are using this example) that would not mean they dont have that right. I dont belong to that society. Stop implying so.

You are contradicting yourself here. If a society accepts a woman does not have the right not to be raped, then in that society she does not have that right. This is the clear implication of your statement "rights are what society accepts as a right".

So to say it is a right but it is not a right is contradictory. Is this why you feel you had to introduce this "greater society", whatever it is?

I too am asking you, just what is this "greater society" thing? Does it move just a little bit towards universal rights, which you vehemently deny exist?

 

[Danoff]

That's a tricky one! Is said person the only one around and did nothing cause they can't swim and no phone? Are they the parent and know their child can't swim and said parent can't swim? Were they the one who possibly shoved the kid in and sat there and watched? I see two questions that would justify jail time.
People gather around incidents all the time and simply pull out their phone and start recording.

So you do think that it is criminal in some circumstances to not help others - that is, that you're a slave to the needs of others - their needs trump your freedom.

In the "how many people died today because we didn't become surgeons" scenario you take all the what-ifs from our whole lives as evidence of non-actions. The variables are enormous, possibly infinite. The Trolley Problem (and variations) are potted fixed-variable scenarios in which you will specifically do one of two things. Those two choices are presented and you are asked to justify which choice you make. The distinctions are clear.

Sorry, I meant that I don't see a meaningful distinction. The choice to become a surgeon was available to you. The choice to go to Africa and devote your life is available to you, I'm telling you about it right now. You seem to be putting a lot of emphasis on your state of knowledge, but I'm curing that by letting you know about it right now.

At a minimum, you know about your option to become a surgeon today, so go become one or you're killing people. You have 2 choices right this second, choose to become a surgeon and save lives, or don't and kill them. What's your choice? This isn't a hypothetical trolley, this is your life right now. Make an ethical decision. By the way, you're also killing people if you don't start working on a cure for cancer (right this second), and work overtime so that you can earn more money to buy food for the starving. Choose which people you're going to murder.


Edit:

And getting back to the trolley for a second, why does the trolley operator have to be responsible for killing people? The trolley operator could not have prevented the deaths of at least 1 person in the scenario, so how on earth is the trolley operator responsible for any deaths?

It is as though you're thinking that if the trolley operator flips the lever and kills one person (to save 5) that the trolley operator (ironically) is not responsible for killing someone.

Within their own society they arent. Within the greater society they are.

You seem to think that if the greater society agreed with them, then nowhere do those people have rights. You're not understanding that this puts you right back in the same boat that @Famine has been mentioning, that you must contend with the problem that's going in in North Korea right now. Because it could happen anywhere, at any magnitude. You're focusing on where you live (which is arbitrary) instead of accepting that through the accident of birth North Korea could be your home.


Edit:

Maybe you're (incorrectly) thinking that if you were born in North Korea you would agree with their laws, and so you would think that the basic rights that you currently enjoy are not basic rights at all. So you're (incorrectly) thinking that you would be fine with their laws - because societies somehow influence their members to come to a universal agreement on what rights exist.

 

[PocketZeven]

It's not an assumption, it's a reasoned, rational principle - which starts with the assumption that it isn't. Read the human rights thread.

What is "the greater society"?

You are referring tot the human rights thread as if it is already done science and therfore cant be challenged. Human rights are not set in stone starting at the dawn of human intelligence. In older times a emperor/leader/king had the absolute right to kill whoever he desired even if the person did not violate any rights. (and I am not talking about laws). Women had no rights and were considered property in some cultures.

For convenience I was referring to modern Civilisation.

You didn't say it in so many words, but it's a logical consequence of what you have been saying.

You are, of course, free to report anything I say, at any time. If you feel a need to file a complaint, please do so.



You are contradicting yourself here. If a society accepts a woman does not have the right not to be raped, then in that society she does not have that right. This is the clear implication of your statement "rights are what society accepts as a right".

So to say it is a right but it is not a right is contradictory. Is this why you feel you had to introduce this "greater society", whatever it is?

I too am asking you, just what is this "greater society" thing? Does it move just a little bit towards universal rights, which you vehemently deny exist?

So stop saying it then.

I will explaint it as simplified again as I did earlier:

Society1: Prisoners have limited, but basic rights
Society 2: women in prison have no rights

You and I belong to society 1. A n-korean belongs to 2. In our view 2 is violating human rights.
Someone from society 2 would disagree and say prisoners forfeit all rights when their imprisoned.

Perhaps a relevant example (disregard laws and focus on rights) less extreme, but also controversial :

Society 1: pro-life
society 2: pro-choice
1 says an embriyo is already a human being and therfore has the right to live. Terminating a pregnancy is a violation of the babies rights (murder).
2 says a women has the right to make a choice to what they do to their body.
Both these right are disputed and controversial. Even when you dont consider the law.

With greater society I refer to modern (western) civilisation. In the west in the dark ages prisoners also had little rights.

 

[Danoff]

You are referring tot the human rights thread as if it is already done science and therfore cant be challenged. Human rights are not set in stone starting at the dawn of human intelligence. In older times a emperor/leader/king had the absolute right to kill whoever he desired even if the person did not violate any rights. (and I am not talking about laws). Women had no rights and were considered property in some cultures.

What exactly does the term "right" mean to you in this context? Because you're using it like laws, even though you say it's not. Please explain how you see rights as different from laws.

 

[Famine]

You are referring tot the human rights thread as if it is already done science and therfore cant be challenged.

No, as if it's something you should read, because you're retreading that discussion and it'd be more helpful to you to read that first rather than continuing to do so.

Human rights are not set in stone starting at the dawn of human intelligence. In older times a emperor/leader/king had the absolute right to kill whoever he desired even if the person did not violate any rights. (and I am not talking about laws). Women had no rights and were considered property in some cultures.

Your examples are both laws.

For convenience I was referring to modern Civilisation.

Which one? What gives "greater society" the position to contradict a society's rights if a society is the arbiter of rights?

 

[PocketZeven]

No, as if it's something you should read, because you're retreading that discussion and it'd be more helpful to you to read that first rather than continuing to do so.

Your examples are both laws.

Which one? What gives "greater society" the position to contradict a society's rights if a society is the arbiter of rights?

What exactly does the term "right" mean to you in this context? Because you're using it like laws, even though you say it's not. Please explain how you see rights as different from laws.

I guess you both follow a different philosophy surrounding rights. To me rights are ethical principles within a social and legal environment and society. Rights discribe the freedoms and entitlement of people within society.

A law defines in part define, denies or grants people rights within a country. But also defines judgment, punishment etc.

Or just the opposite meaning of "wrong".

What is your definition?

edit: I did some reading and I understand the difference in opinion. Libertarians and like minded have a different theory in which there is a distinct definiton as "natural" rights. Within that theory rights are universal.

"Rights are not inalienable, but only the possessor of a right can alienate himself from that right – no one else can take a man's rights from him."

However this is a theory and not prove-able fact.

 

[Famine]

Or just the opposite meaning of "wrong".

Interesting...

If a right is the opposite of a wrong, what would you call a right that society grants (by, you know, a law) despite it being wrong to do so? A right like a parent's right to mutilate their daughter's external genitalia, like a white man's right to own a black man, like a crowd's right to pelt a homosexual with stones until they die, like a state's right to imprison a 10-year old girl for committing no offence simply because she is related to someone whose only offence was to breach the etiquette of that state, and her captors' right to use her for sexual gratification, like a society's right to define Jewish, gypsy, homosexual and disabled people as subhuman and execute them to prevent them diluting their genetic purity?

Is there a word for those "rights"?

 

[PocketZeven]

Interesting...

If a right is the opposite of a wrong, what would you call a right that society grants (by, you know, a law) despite it being wrong to do so? A right like a parent's right to mutilate their daughter's external genitalia, like a white man's right to own a black man, like a crowd's right to pelt a homosexual with stones until they die, like a state's right to imprison a 10-year old girl for committing no offence simply because she is related to someone whose only offence was to breach the etiquette of that state, and her captors' right to use her for sexual gratification, like a society's right to define Jewish, gypsy, homosexual and disabled people as subhuman and execute them to prevent them diluting their genetic purity?

Is there a word for those "rights"?

What are you on about?

The word "right" has synonyms. I was referring to the use in: "you are right" as "you are correct".

edit:
Unrelated, but why do you always choose to describe horrible examples with little too much detail? You seem to prefer "sexual"examples. Having a bad day? Are you a veteran of war? You could have just said "parent's right to violate their kids' rights ", instead of mutilation of...

edit 2:
to be clear. When you speak of rights, you speak of the concept of "natural rights" that are universal?

 

[Danoff]

I guess you both follow a different philosophy surrounding rights.

It doesn't matter so much as we need to be clear on what the word means.

To me rights are ethical principles within a social and legal environment and society.

You're defining it as opposed to the way I am using it, and the way @Famine is using it. This is a problem.

Rights discribe the freedoms and entitlement of people within society.

But only "within" a society. This is heavily overlapped with the concept of a law. Law defines the freedoms and entitlements of people within society.

A law defines in part define, denies or grants people rights within a country. But also defines judgment, punishment etc.

So you're using rights as a subset of law, which is to say, law minus the sentencing and court rules. That's generally how the word "law" is used in common language.

What is your definition?

There are layers of answers to this question, I'll keep it brief. First, I've been using the word "rights" as short for "human rights". Second, I'd say that it describes acts which, if someone commits against any other human (regardless of where they are), logically results in a fair use of force. So for example, your property rights describe that the act of taking your property opens the taker to force. And if you do not have a right to the property, taking it does not open the taker to force.

It necessarily applies to humans, regardless of arbitrary characteristics.

I think that your actual position on this is that rights do not exist.

Or just the opposite meaning of "wrong".

You mean correct. No, you're not using it that way. For example, you said:

Society1: Prisoners have limited, but basic rights
Society 2: women in prison have no rights

Try reading that back with the word correct. Basic corrects? Women in prison have no corrects? You're using it differently than the opposite of wrong.

 

[Famine]

What are you on about?

Rights.

The word "right" has synonyms. I was referring to the use in: "you are right" as "you are correct".

Ever considered the reason why words have synonyms?

Unrelated, but why do you always choose to describe horrible examples with little too much detail? You seem to prefer "sexual"examples. Having a bad day? Are you a veteran of war? You could have just said "parent's right to violate their kids' rights ", instead of mutilation of...

You think that's too much detail? I mean, I could have described the four different types of FGM...

You need to recognise that what you're saying might have horrible consequences, and you need to ask yourself hard questions to make sure what you're thinking isn't something that's also appalling to you. When you say that "society decides what rights are" you say that a 12-year old girl's rights are not violated when her parents take her to an unlicensed medical practitioner to hack her genitals apart with a razor blade. Or if they sell her to a 50-year old man to be raped on a daily basis and burned to death in the street if she refuses.

If it makes you uncomfortable... good. Perhaps you should rethink what you're advocating if those scenarios - which you say are rights if the relevant society determines them to be - are horrifying. I think they are, and that's why I could never hold the position you hold.

to be clear. When you speak of rights, you speak of the concept of "natural rights" that are universal?

Please read the human rights thread.

 

[PocketZeven]

It doesn't matter so much as we need to be clear on what the word means.



You're defining it as opposed to the way I am using it, and the way @Famine is using it. This is a problem.

From the perspective of natural rights I understand your postitions. However I do not share that theory.

The question was what my definion of rights was. I described a second synonyms as a joke that apparantly fell flat.

edit:

You need to recognise that what you're saying might have horrible consequences, and you need to ask yourself hard questions to make sure what you're thinking isn't something that's also appalling to you. When you say that "society decides what rights are" you say that a 12-year old girl's rights are not violated when her parents take her to an unlicensed medical practitioner to hack her genitals apart with a razor blade. Or if they sell her to a 50-year old man to be raped on a daily basis and burned to death in the street if she refuses.

If it makes you uncomfortable... good. Perhaps you should rethink what you're advocating if those scenarios - which you say are rights if the relevant society determines them to be - are horrifying. I think they are, and that's why I could never hold the position you hold.

Please read the human rights thread.

Recognise horrible consequences? Perhaps in your use and definition of rights within the context of the theory of natural rights.

I discribed the theory I believe in, but you are stuck in the thought that certain rights are natural and universal. So if I acknowledge that within N-korean society a north korean's point of view (note me) believes a person in jail forfeits almost all their rights. That means I accept it and dont see it as a violation of human rights? Ofcourse not. It is a rights violation from my point of view.

No sir. I will try to explain my view another way with my previous example. One of the main "natural"rights that is universable and unalienable according to the theory of natural rights:
Do you believe all living beings, including an embriyo in a woomb has the right to live?

 

[Famine]

I described a second synonyms as a joke that apparantly fell flat.

Did you have a think about why certain words have synonyms?

As a left-hander, the etymology of the word "right" to mean both the direction/side and the correctness of something is very familiar to me. There's a reason why "rights" exist as a concept separate from "laws" and use that word...

Recognise horrible consequences? Perhaps in your use and definition of rights within the context of the theory of natural rights.

I have absolutely no idea what this means. I was pointing out to you that if what you're arguing for has consequences you think are too repulsive to even talk about, you should probably argue for something else. At the very least you need to consider the ramifications of your position.

I discribed the theory I believe in, but you are stuck in the thought that certain rights are natural and universal.

Where did I say that then?

Try not to believe in things. Find a rational core and work out from there with logic and reason. Belief makes things wishy-washy, like arguing for something and ignoring the hideous violations it creates as a consequence, while simultaneously berating someone else for bringing them up.

I discribed the theory I believe in, but you are stuck in the thought that certain rights are natural and universal. So if I acknowledge that within N-korean society a north korean's point of view (note me) believes a person in jail forfeits almost all their rights. That means I accept it and dont see it as a violation of human rights? Ofcourse not. It is a rights violation from my point of view.

It can't be a rights violation from your point of view, because your point of view endorses nations defining rights to suit them. It can only be something horrible, but still right.

It can only be a rights violation if the society defines laws to deny rights and has no say in what rights are. Which is what I've been telling you.

Do you believe

No. I don't work on belief.

all living beings, including an embriyo in a woomb

An embryo isn't a living being. We have an abortion thread. Try reading that.

 

[Danoff]

From the perspective of natural rights I understand your postitions. However I do not share that theory.

It is why you keep getting accused of discussing laws, because you're using the word "rights" almost exactly as the word "law" is generally used. I'd encourage you to adopt a more universal definition of rights so that it can be distinguished from law. In short, you already have a word for what you're calling "rights", how about using our definition then?

 

[BobK]

So stop saying it then.

I will explaint it as simplified again as I did earlier:

Society1: Prisoners have limited, but basic rights
Society 2: women in prison have no rights

So in society 2, women do not have the right not to be raped, because they have no rights.

Those are your words: "women in society have no rights". The right not to be raped is a right, but they have no rights.

It doesn't matter a whit if you're a member of that society or not.

You really need to think out the logical consequences of what you're saying.

 

[PocketZeven]

It is why you keep getting accused of discussing laws, because you're using the word "rights" almost exactly as the word "law" is generally used. I'd encourage you to adopt a more universal definition of rights so that it can be distinguished from law. In short, you already have a word for what you're calling "rights", how about using our definition then?

You definition however is that out of the blue, nature established that only human have rights. These are universal and un alienable.
According to my theory that people naturally, through ethics, norms and values people have come to recognise rights. However because of perhaps geography, religion or other factors these "rights" can differ from eachother in other societies. Just like the theory of natural righs is perhaps more prevelant in the USA then where I live.

Try not to believe in things. Find a rational core and work out from there with logic and reason. Belief makes things wishy-washy, like arguing for something and ignoring the hideous violations it creates as a consequence, while simultaneously berating someone else for bringing them up.

An embryo isn't a living being. We have an abortion thread. Try reading that.

You think that Rights are natural and universal to all humans. Isnt that a belief in something?
I am very rational. My theory supports that actually. What is hideous for you, does not mean it is hideous for another. If you and I observe that a random act is hideous. Person nr.3 might observe the act as normal or even beautiful.

How do you establish or prove that rights are objective, universal and unalienable If so many people disagree with that theory.

That an embryo is not a living being is also an opinion. So rights are exclusive to humans? An embryo is an entity that lives. How do human naturally obtain the right to live and have property and others dont? I am genuinely trying to understand this theory.