One way to interpret the word is that rights are what actually can do. In this sense they are, what society around you define And allow. These rights would be relativistic not only in reality but in theory with the Karamazov consequences.
An other interpretation would be some general set of higher rights independent of the present legal system of the society one happens to be looking at. In this view rights would transcend the individual settings of a given society. This might at least find some support in a small number of rights general to most cultures.
Yet another approach is to look at what people think are human rights. One finds that there seems to be a set of moral images in the human mind probably from birth. These moral images allow certain stuctures of right be defined that people generally believe to be categorical. A pity they are not consistent and sometimes contradict each other, as the work on the Fat Man Paradox seems to show.
There is another approach to rights as the structure of rules that optimize the welfare of a society.
These and other approaches are not all exclusive and overlap.
Because we have a general liberty interest and any law that restricts what we can do has to pass scrutiny in order to be enacted. It must at least be rationally related to a legitimate interest. No laws can restrict our liberty if they are merely arbitrary or capricious. You don't need a law saying that you have the right to put sugar in your coffee. And any law that says you can't would need to be based on a good reason to stop you. You have a right to do whatever you like unless there is a reason to prohibit it. That's how American law works. I don't "believe" that, that's how it works.on what basis do you believe you have every right possible unless there's a constitutionally sound reason to restrict it?... what makes you believe this to be true?
You keep changing your words. You shouldn't do that. And you said nothing about being entitled to anything. You were talking about FEELING entitled.oy vey... I didn't know i actually had to explain what a right is to you.. i would have assumed you already had an understanding.
a right is a just claim to something... a just claim is the same as being entitled.
Again, you're using vague terms. What does "by virtue of our nature" even mean?in this discussion, we''re talking about having just claims to something by virtue of our nature...we're entitled to something by virtue of nature.
Rights are created by everyone. Every human civilization has had its own concept of rights. We didn't stumble onto the idea, as you seem to be suggesting. It's an integral part of every human society. Rights are simply a part of having rules to govern our interaction. And again, every group of people has had rules to govern their societies.well, this is generally where the meat and potatoes of the discussion comes in ... are these rights created by man.. or are they discovered and developed by man?
if they are created, who are the creators? and on what basis did these creations take hold?... personally, I can't fathom an accidental creation of such a thing that just so happens to coincidence perfectly with natural human reason and behavior... but then again, i'm not a big believer in magic or incredible coincidence that just so happens to be as valid today as it was 2500 years ago... or 2000 years ago.. or 200 years ago.
There's nothing to discover. Rights aren't a physical law. They're not even a psychological law. They're part of human interaction. We create them when we decide how we want our societies to function.again.. creation or discovery?..... feel free to provide an argument as to why they are a creation as opposed to a discovery.
Why don't you provide an argument? You haven't yet done that. All you've done is throw increasingly vague terms at me and pretend that this means something.
Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.
I find it interesting how people who claim various other political philosophies can turn into raging anarchists when discussing issues such as this.
I don't call it "natural rights", but the sense of self SHOULD lead people inexorably towards developing a sense of others. If it doesn't, then the person in question is a sociopath. Sociopathy masquerading as a political philosophy simply doesn't cut it for me.
The so-called "golden rule" is a notion that has arisen independently in so many cultures that any thinking person should question its origins.
"you're better off on Stormfront discussing how evil brown men are taking innocent white flowers." Infinite Chaos
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers
No. We have ABILITIES imparted to us by nature. Our ABILITY to fight, speak, etc.
"Half full or half empty doesn't matter. What matters is, you've only got half a glass...so what are you going to do about it?" - Me