Oh, geez! A crossbow-wielding one of those....
Don't you know crossbows are restricted weapons in Canada. However my "high velocity projectile launch mechanism" from winchester is not legislated at all...only guns are.
I am looking at purchasing a 'horzontally oriented dart launcher" in the future since those are not legislated either.
Without a common definition of "inherent rights" people tend to talk passed each other.
In many countries like Canada and the US we have inherent rights that can not be taken away or even given away. That's a great thing that people often take for granted.
It would probably be best if people the world over were covered by inherent rights that could not be taken away or given away and that would be defended by global organizations such as the UN and the International Court of Justice and a yet unestablished global policing agent.
In a sane world the International Court of Justice could interevene in countries such as North Korea, Libya, the United States and Canada, when warranted.
Oh, geez! A crossbow-wielding one of those....
Don't you know crossbows are restricted weapons in Canada.
No they're not. Used to be but not now. Only one handed bows and small ones 500mm or less are prohibted.
Politicalnick, I hate to inform you that your statements are absurd. If you really had an "innate right to life" then you would never die. If a tree falls on you and crushes you like an egg, what happened to your right to life?!? Who took it away?!? Nobody. It was never there. You just got killed randomly like many other organisms do. No rights involved.
You have a right to life only in the political sense, such that we have agreed, as a society, that we shouldn't go around killing each other. Won't stop the tree but it will stop people, when backed up by the authority of government. We enshrine this preference in what we call a "human right". It is entirely a social construct. And yes, I can take it away from you. I can do it by killing you. People have this happen to them every day in all parts of the world. Yelling "I have a right" at someone just before they shoot you through the head will mean precisely nothing.
The idea that rights are innate or natural is very dangerous, because it makes us feel entitled to them, as you seem to, and hence we forget the necessity of fighting to achieve them and hold onto them. All our human rights are only won through hard social struggle and they are only maintained by constant social vigilance. When we all sit back and start whining about "they can't do that. I've got my rights!" then we won't have them for long, because they are not innate and they can and will be taken from you if you allow that to happen.
Politicalnick, I hate to inform you that your statements are absurd. If you really had an "innate right to life" then you would never die. If a tree falls on you and crushes you like an egg, what happened to your right to life?!? Who took it away?!? Nobody. It was never there. You just got killed randomly like many other organisms do. No rights involved.
You have a right to life only in the political sense, such that we have agreed, as a society, that we shouldn't go around killing each other. Won't stop the tree but it will stop people, when backed up by the authority of government. We enshrine this preference in what we call a "human right". It is entirely a social construct. And yes, I can take it away from you. I can do it by killing you. People have this happen to them every day in all parts of the world. Yelling "I have a right" at someone just before they shoot you through the head will mean precisely nothing.
The idea that rights are innate or natural is very dangerous, because it makes us feel entitled to them, as you seem to, and hence we forget the necessity of fighting to achieve them and hold onto them. All our human rights are only won through hard social struggle and they are only maintained by constant social vigilance. When we all sit back and start whining about "they can't do that. I've got my rights!" then we won't have them for long, because they are not innate and they can and will be taken from you if you allow that to happen.
Jacob - If my god created me and gave me the right to life and then he makes a tree squash me then it is his decision it was my time to move on to the next existence. The one that put my soul into this body has a superior right to remove it. If that tree is cut down by a person and squashes my head then he would be charged with some form of murder and hopefully sued for wrongful death. This is because he infringed upon my rights, not because he is evil.
Every criminal or civil court case is about an infringement of somebody's rights somewhere, somehow.
I think we are quite reasonably able to feel and claim an entitlement to these rights. If all government was removed I can still have my own thoughts even if expressing them publically i some societies may bring a punishment or a consequence.
I also happen to agree with you though that it is the responsibility of each individual to maintain these rights as their own conscience dictates to them
I can't imagine why you bother to engage people in discussion if the answer to every point they make is just going to be "God's great plan". There's no room for debate here, so you're not discussing at all, are you? You're just preaching. I'm afraid you won't find any converts here.
I apologize if you think I am 'preaching'. I am not religious at all but I am spiritual. I don't think we can claim to have rights over the higher powers of the universe whatever you or I may think those powers are so in a way you are correct in stating they are somewhat social amongst the human race.
Sure, yelling about my rights as you shoot me won't save my life but you saying I don't have the right to life while you shoot me doesn't mean I don't have it and you haven't violated it. That right to live exists in both circumstances.
Are you saying the people of Myanmar, where there are huge atrocities against the population on a daily basis, don't have a right to live or think because the oppressive regime in power says so? They have those rights no matter what, they just don't have the freedom to exercise those rights due to the present rulers. There is a huge differnec between having a right and being able to use it.
We are very lucky that here in Canada we do have the free ability to exercise our rights in a meaningful way and I am thankful for that.
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. The people of Myanmar don't have a right to life because they can be killed indiscriminately with no repercussions. This seems self-evident, to borrow a phrase. If these people have a right to life then the term is fairly meaningless, because apparently people with a right to life can be slaughtered like cattle with impunity.
I'm sure we can all agree that they should have a right to life. That we would all like to see that happen. But currently, they do not. To get to that point will require a great effort of social reform and probably a fair bit of violent revolution. We are very lucky that we live in a society where that battle has already been fought and rights were created for us to enjoy. Like any edifice, however, it can be torn down in the blink of an eye if it is not guarded.
So under your theory that if someone can't freely exercise their rights they don't exist:
Mr Milosavich (or however you spell it) should not have been tried and convicted for human rights violations against the Serbs because those rights didn't exist during the genocide. You can't violate a right that doesn't exist.
Same thing for all the Nazis that took part in the holocaust, because the Jews were 'slaughtered like cattle with impunity' they did not have the right to life. Therefore the entirety of the Nuremburg trials should have never happened. Their rights didn't exist at the time so no rights violations occured.
Those rights obviously existed at the time and the perpetrators were held accountable. If the rights did not exist, as you say they didn't, we had nothing to hold anyone accountable for.
No, I'm saying the rights exist when we create them. We try despots under our own laws and ignore the laws they write for themselves because we have a particular vision of a just society. Saying "all people have a right to life" is our expression of a society as we wish it to be, not as it is, and we impose it on others in pursuit of that society.
Milosevic, for instance, was quite indignant in his trial, basically saying that everyone was calling him a monster when his crimes were no different from crimes perpetuated every day around the world by many other leaders, and he had a point. But our response is: we don't care. We've got you here and not them, and as our baby step towards a better world, we replace your dehumanising morality with our own and hold you accountable under the rights as we define them. This is a social contract that has become global under the structure of a world court. There was nothing innate about this structure but required a lot of social effort to construct a consensus that legitimised it, and it still has a lot of evolving to do.
Rights, like morals and laws, are always evolving. To think of the rights you recognise as innate and apriori implies that you have a monopoly on morality and that you have the last word on what constitutes a crime. Perhaps someday we may decide that all living creatures have the same right to life as human beings, but if the police marched into your house and tried you for murder because you killed some earthworms in your backyard, you'd be flabbergasted. If society ever got to that point, it would be a long process of building consensus in that direction. Who knows what the rights of the future might be? We can't predict them any better then the technologies of the future because they are not natural but constructed.
@ Jacob
Never mind Myanmar. By that reasoning you have no grounds on which to argue for your own protection. By that reasoning enslavement, torture, and the notion that some people are less than human are considered good and right actions.
You might be able to reason your way there (as indeed you have) but it is a disconnection from our sense of what is right and wrong, and the concepts of consent and respect.
I realize that some of the rules of the game are different from place to place, and in the past as opposed to now, I also realize that rights and freedoms can conflict, that using "personal rights" as a way to attack and abuse is against the spirit of the concept.
Certainly the concept of rights has changed through time, and there have been setbacks (some major - the status of women, for example), especially at times when demand has outstripped resources, or cultures have come into conflict.
Even so, would argue that the trend has been toward a broader understanding of rights and freedoms, even if that recognition has not translated into application.
The Ptolemaic view of the universe may have been the accepted truth at one time, but even if there is a day in the future when it is accepted again, that will not make it right.
Likewise, I could easily rationalize an ethics of eugenics, and make a case that the killing of people who are seen as weaker or less useful is an expedient thing to do (and no, I am not refering to abortion, and this is not an anti-choice argument). I could also easily reason that the most efficient society is one controlled by one strong ruler whom everyone obeys. It makes perfect sense, actually, and there are certainly enough places where it has been done, and where it is done.
Those may be perfectly valid conclusions in a theoretical universe where there is no right and wrong, and certainly I will concede that in theory nothing has any meaning at all.
On the other hand, I do not think our society, or even an individual person can function well without an understanding of the basic concepts of respect and consent. I think the strongest argument I have is that no one has yet come forward to make a case for discrimination, torture and slavery being a good thing..
Are "rights" limited to homo sapiens or should animals, plants, the earth and universe have rights conferred on them too?
In order to survive as a species, homo sapiens may have to start thinking about our place in the universe and our responsibility as members of the universe.
Are "rights" limited to homo sapiens or should animals, plants, the earth and universe have rights conferred on them too?
If plants have the right to not be eaten then before long, they'd be all that's left.
Though I like the idea of PETA changing their name to STFU at that point. Lettuce-murdering SOBs.
Snert-- what does STFU mean?
Very funny post "Lettuce-murdering SOBs" -- mind if I use it?
Shut the forks up, I expect. Unless those veggies are being pureed into soup.
I think the strongest argument I have is that no one has yet come forward to make a case for discrimination, torture and slavery being a good thing..
Actually, this case has been made extensively throughout history, and while it has fallen in popularity, it is still being made today in parts of the world. But what has happened is that we have dipped our toes into the waters of equality (just a little) and found that despite all the doomsday predictions of a long line of despots, equality works really, really well.
I too am a spiritual person, believe it or not. I have my own quasi-theist views on the moral order of the universe and it informs the way I live my life. I just don't think that this is a good basis for constructing public policy, including the construction of what we consider human rights. For these kinds of things I take a more scientific approach. You gotta go with what actually works. What gets results. These are the grounds by which I argue for my own protection. Not by virtue of my personal needs or by appealing to an intrinsic moral order that somehow I have been blessed with the prophetic vision to discern, but by the inescapable conclusion that having certain protections for everyone makes better societies. The evidence is all around us. Societies that decide to create a legal contract of human rights for all its members are happier, healthier, and more prosperous. I would argue that they become so by creating better equality, and I could certainly link this to my own flaky moralistic meanderings, but the point is that there is no need. All we have to do is look at what works and say "Hey, let's do that!" No appealing to higher powers necessary.
The advantage to this is that we can discuss these matters intelligently and come to rational conslusions instead of constantly being at a impasse with those we disagree with. "Human rights are such and such as set down by the Lord Almighty!!" "Nonsense, my holy book clearly states that these are our human rights!" "How dare you! Repent or die, infidel!!" There is still plenty of disagreement over empirical analysis, but there is also a path by which it can be solved, with evidence and reason, rather than the constant standoff of true believers. They don't care what the end results are because it's all about following faith blindly, and if that produces a shitty society, then it must be part of God's great plan.
I haven't invoked the power of any god, Jacob. I am pretty close to being an atheist, actually so if you are directing that argument at me you are barking up the wrong tree.
And I should clarify. Of course I know there are racists in the world, and people who believe in torture, but I don't think they check in the forum here on a regular basis. What I am interested in is if any of the people presenting a moral relativist argument here in this thread can expand on that belief and paint me a picture of a social order in which those are good and moral values.
And no, I'm not asking for anecdotes, because as I have already said I know values do not always translate perfectly in the real world.
But I am asking for a moral argument telling me what is good about racism, non-consensual force and torture. If our values are indeed relative, that should not be hard.
(edit)
As well, if these values are indeed relative, how do can you justify saying that oppression and discrimination are wrong? It seems to me you can't have it both ways.
And if they are truly relative, and not changing in a developmental way, we will probably see some day in the future when these modern evils are in fact good ideas, no?
There are not any objectively verifiable rights. We act as if there are. The latter should be enough for a society.
There are some acts that are seen as objectively and universally wrong. Let's say someone steals from another person and then murders that person in order to get money for a vacation to Vegas. Can anyone say this is not objectively wrong? Personally I think it is as objectively wrong as "1+1=3"
A higher power is not required to say that "1+1=3" is objectively wrong or that "1+1=2" is objectively right. In that sense I think it can also be said that certain ethics are objectively right, even if humans are not able to completely understand these ethics. Human reason can be used to come closer and closer to understanding what correct ethics are. Following from this it makes sense that objectively correct ethics can be codified as "inherent rights" without the need of a higher power.
If plants have the right to not be eaten then before long, they'd be all that's left.
And if people destroy all of the plants, there won't be any plants or humans left.
If more people don't start taking a holistic view of our existence in the universe and change our ethics, our existence in the universe will likely come to an unwelcome end.
I don't believe that morals are relative (though they can be pretty fuzzy). I have fairly absolute ideas about what's right and wrong. My point is just that, given the wide range of moral frameworks within a culture, our social policy decisions should be based on more easily agreed-upon notions than one person's or one group's moral sensibilities. Notions like utility which are easier to quantify. Absolute moral codes, while good for personal conduct, are not so useful when you move into the collective realm, because everyone's just butting heads all the time. We need to have a means by which we can compromise. So when it comes to questions like what will we define as a human right, legally speaking, thinking of rights as innate doesn't get us anywhere. We need to find a consensus as a culture for these concepts to be useful for us, which means compromise, which means defining them by a framework that is not absolute.
There is no such thing as rights. Much like its collaborator Democracy, the idea of rights is a brilliant tool to make the masses believe in their own enslavement.
You don't have rights, you have what the elites [i]allow[/i] you to have so you will shut up and play along.
What is this Jehovah thing any way?.. only rights it has given any human is that we have to listen to what it says or we will spend the rest of eternity in a flaming hell.
I love when Gods are vindictive.
The USA is one of the few western world countries still refusing to acknowledge a range of basic human rights established in the latter half of the last century, like the right to food and children's rights defined by the United Nations. I think we should consider rights in that same way and not parrot whatever it is coming out of the states. Rich Americans and US based multinationals already own much of Canada and dictating too much of our policies to Ottawa and provinces. Nothing says we have to think like US political hawks and their lackies in Ottawa, too. Just sayin'.
And whats with Jahovah giving you the right to personal property? What bible have you been reading?
Actually, the only rights you have are the ones you determine and can defend favourably.
What is this Jehovah thing any way?.. only rights it has given any human is that we have to listen to what it says or we will spend the rest of eternity in a flaming hell.
Have you looked at the state of the world lately...flaming hell sounds like a nice vacation.
Thanks to mods for letting me back...I know you all missed me.
That's quite the assumption, nick, given that you opened the thread with this gem:
"All legislation, statutes and Acts, are specifically written to limit your ability to live free by your own consience. And are written in such a way as the general public could never understand them. I spent 3 hours reading the Land Title Act with my law dictionary in hand and the only part I could decifer was section "139: Air space is to be construed as land" and section "145: Air space is subject to property tax". I didn't say it made any sense, I just said I could understand the meaning.
This group of people calling themselves politicians have fooled us all into believing they are there to make laws and control the individual people and be lords over us. My only lord is my God. In truth, the only real job they have is the oversight of the administration of the financial business of the country. In other words, to keep the beauracrats in line.
I personally am tired of this. I have never intetionally hurt any of my fellow man and have benn sorry and tried to make amends if I hurt someone unitentionally. Most of the people in this country are exactly the same as me and we do have recourse against the few through the criminal code and civil laws. We certainly don't need to spend billions each year to have the government regulate each and every aspect of our lives whe we already know in our hearts how to be decent."
"...we already know in our hearts how to be decent."
The Sally Ann have just commissioned an Angus Reid poll to find out how Canadians feel about their impoverished neighbours. Four in 10 believe that the poor in Canada have it pretty good. One out of four Canadians believe ("in their hearts") that the poor are "lazy" and have "low moral values."
I chatted with a Bell technician the other day while he ran a new wire to the house. A born-again variety of Christian, his job took him into the houses of every social class in the country. He had exactly that attitude toward people in social housing that Angus-Reid turned up from under their respective rocks. When challenged by me about the brand of Christianity that would sneer at others, he wobbled off into "God given" objectives for the individual man, woman and child. ...and it was all laid on by God some 6,000 years ago at the time of creation.
The Salvation Army's view of our society, based on up-front observation, is a far, far healthier one than the church-driven one that assumes "We certainly don't need to spend billions each year to have the government regulate each and every aspect of our lives whe we already know in our hearts how to be decent."
Your Lord permits atrocities that have to be corrected by politicians elected by such big-hearted electorates all the time. How Home sapiens has survived this far in such ignorance and greed is a miracle in itself.
"...we don't need to spend billions..."
It always reduces to the philosopher's wallet, doesn't it Nick.
Unless you have religion rights are constructed social agreements. And unless you have religion, this is good enough and important enough. Social conventions are not insignificant.
The problem is imagining that they don't evolve over time which they do or that people cannot disagree about at least some of them -- which they do. There can be a good debate over whether freedom of speech or freedom from hunger is the more important right for example.
that some have virtual universal acceptance is creating the illusion that the source and concept is universal which it is not.
Sean,
Sorry, but if you have been reading my comments at all you should realize that is not the case.
and to George Victor as well:
Painting it as religious pride is just as much a red herring as pointing to those who talk about their greed and self-importance as if they were rights
Neither is the question which of which values are more important, or what to do when they come into conflict (I think I have said that once or twice too).
But the fact remains that I think there are some things which are absolutely right and absolutely wrong.
Religion isn't based on "pride" 6079. It's essentially fear of death that drives people to talk about their God-given rights as they construct ever more complex and ethereal world views that wind up perverting the sermon on the mount. Dangerous stuff. Look how Leo Straussians and neo-conservatives jive together.(Going to the Oxford for original meaning of " jive" as "misleading" talk).
@ George
Perhaps I am mistaken, but to hear some people talk about their guns, property and freedom it sure sounds like arrogance end entitlement to me.
For that matter, a lot of them have an upside-down understanding of some of their basic religious concepts, like sin, prayer and love, so I don't take their usage as definitive at all.
But my point is that has religion has nothing whatsoever to do my position, so I can't be dismissed on those grounds (nor told that I can't hold those values because I am not religious).
I was just trying to ferret out the meaning of "religious pride," 6079. Of course your value system does not have to be grounded in faith in a God. Our club is large, and growing, I hope.
I'm just posting to complain about the minutes of my life stolen by this thread, and the fact that babblers (who should know better) have chosen to engage with the lunatic who started it.
One more post brings the thread closer to the oblivion it deserves.
Here's hoping it gets there sooner.
@ George
Gotcha, and to clarify, part of my comment was for Sean.
and @ LTJ
That made me smile. If you're going to read, read, but don't blame others because you feel guilty about rubbernecking at a car crash. Are you headed to the hockey thread next? People's music lists? or 9-11 land?
(edit)
and George, I agree with you about some people's religious motivation. That said, I am less scared by those motivated by fear than I am by those who know without a doubt that they are going to be welcomed into the arms of Jesus no matter what they do.
They're one and the same, 6079.
And the "lunatic" who started it represents a huge percentage of the U.S.population, and a growing proportion here. (Great Gaia it was nice when I was allowed to be so explicit in the old days. Sigh.)
I'm sorry George, I don't believe that for a second. I know many Americans, half of whom vote GOP, and very, very few fall for this shit.
Unfortunately, they do fall for the 'terrorism' talk, and the inversion of their own interests too often.
Eleven more posts to a little peace, here at least...
Ten.
Absolute moral codes, while good for personal conduct, are not so useful when you move into the collective realm, because everyone's just butting heads all the time. We need to have a means by which we can compromise. So when it comes to questions like what will we define as a human right, legally speaking, thinking of rights as innate doesn't get us anywhere. We need to find a consensus as a culture for these concepts to be useful for us, which means compromise, which means defining them by a framework that is not absolute.
I think we already have a framework that is based on inherent rights, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
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,
...
Article 1.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 2.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
...
I think these rights are based on the objective belief that all persons are equal. Mathametically this can be written as "1=1"
No higher power could make "1=2". Even a higher power would have to admit that they don't have the power to make 1 equal anything other then 1. In that sense there can be no omnipotent higher power.
I'm just posting to complain about the minutes of my life stolen by this thread, and the fact that babblers (who should know better) have chosen to engage with the lunatic who started it.
One more post brings the thread closer to the oblivion it deserves.
Is that the standard of the left wing on here. Calling people lunatics because they may have a different opinion than yours. Sounds a lot more like hard line conservitism to me.
Thought Babble Policy was 'no personal attacks'
Don't worry about an apology because I doubt you would actually mean it.
Speaking of reacting from fear, gotta love the respect people here are showing for others discussing topics they don't think are worthy.
Frankly if I see an idea I think is in error, my first reaction isn't to shove it into a closet where no one can see it, but to bring it into the light of day and discuss it openly.
I suppose you won't have to worry because once this goes past 100 you'll be safe from these evil ideas, and we'll be done and finished with this forever , eh?
LTJ, please don't call other babblers threads a waste of time. And please don't use language which marginalizes mental illness like "lunatic." If you don't like a thread, don't post in it. It's simple, and may help it die a more natural death.
Is that the standard of the left wing on here. Calling people lunatics because they may have a different opinion than yours. Sounds a lot more like hard line conservitism to me.
Thought Babble Policy was 'no personal attacks'
Don't worry about an apology because I doubt you would actually mean it.
Why would I apologize to someone who has no respect for the mandate of this forum, and has referred to others here as 'infants'? Your audacity is only surpassed by your utter hypocrisy.
Why would I apologize to someone who has no respect for the mandate of this forum, and has referred to others here as 'infants'? Your audacity is only surpassed by your utter hypocrisy.
If I somewhere called you an infant directly I apologize. If I said some people wanted to be an infant of the government, that stands.
6079-- I don't get your post at all. I was not speaking to you. I am also not diminishing right and wrong by observing that these are social constructs. The purpose of observing them as social constructs gives us the responsibility to re-evaluate them and to be aware that the social agreement that is at their foundation can evolve.
So I don't see how I have offended your position in any way by this.
Further to that I consider there are moral absolutes for me-- these are my internal laws if you will. I assume that most other people share some of the same but am open to the idea that not all of them are universal. What is wrong with that.
As for those considering this thread of no value -- I actually think the question of where rights come from and what they are to be very interesting and worthy of consideration even if the starting point is not one I agree with. I have learned from exploring ideas that I have never agreed with as well. It is a good touchstone at times. Can't see the harm in it.
@ Sean,
The only thing I had a problem with is your statement that it is only religious people who believe it is not a social construct. I wasn't pissed off about it, but I do disagree (if I understood your meaning correctly), because I don't fall into either category.
I am sure there are parts of this disagreement which are semantic, because as I said, I do know the application is different from place to place, and has changed from time to time,
Beyond that, I don't really want to start repeating stuff I have said a few times already.
I'm sorry George, I don't believe that for a second. I know many Americans, half of whom vote GOP, and very, very few fall for this shit.
Unfortunately, they do fall for the 'terrorism' talk, and the inversion of their own interests too often.
This shite forms the basis of the rejection of state involvement in anything, LTJ...the philosophy that, matched with the Chicago School's economics, is at work privatizing the world we know. It's been the goal of neo-conservatism as enunciated by Irving Kristol, disciple of Leo Strauss and father of the movement , all of which preceded 9/11. Read the OP closely. This is pure politics of the extreme right posing as a declaration of "freedom."
Because I like to be a nice guy....
#100...and its gone....
