• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do Humans really have inalienable rights?

Are we really born with inalienable rights?

  • Yes

    Votes: 21 53.8%

  • No

    Votes: 17 43.6%

  • Other (explain)

    Votes: 1 2.6%
  • Total voters
    39
Tucker Case said:
They are not only entitled to that pursuit, they have it naturally. Only intervention by society itself can prevent that pursuit.
Click to expand...

No they don't. Humans have the desire for those things. They are not rights. The degree that these things occur in a society are constructed by that society. You are confusing wants and rights.
 
phattonez said:
Note that these are in the presence of mitigating factors. If I'm simply more powerful than someone and want his house, am I justified in taking it?
Click to expand...

Whether or not you are justified or not is established by the society you live in...hence the rights of that society. You may want your house, but the constructs dictated by that society determine whether you have a right to it or not.
 
I believe that there is a major confusion in the definition of the term, "rights". Would someone who believes in inalienable rights please define it.

What is a right?
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
I believe that there is a major confusion in the definition of the term, "rights". Would someone who believes in inalienable rights please define it.

What is a right?
Click to expand...
It's mostly academic since the Constitution only defines the powers of the federal government. It does not bestow rights. Nevertheless the debate is not really about the definition of rights, but about the types of rights they are.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
I believe that there is a major confusion in the definition of the term, "rights". Would someone who believes in inalienable rights please define it.

What is a right?
Click to expand...

A right is an ability to do something. It is not the desire, it's the ability to act on a desire.

A right is simply that which a person has the natural ability to do. Society doesn't create rights, it creates consequences for those who exercise their rights.

I'm not confusing "rights" with "wants" because the right exists in the absence of desire to exercise the right. The right is the ability to do something if one chooses to, but they don't need to do it. Even if a person has no desire to engage in a behavior, it is still their right to do so.

Society did not create the rights at all. They exist in the absence of society. If they can exist in the absence of society, then they are not a social construct.

The social construct is the invented consequences for engaging in rights. These are man-made.

The thing that society determines is which extant rights warrant "free-exercise", that is, which rights can be exercised without societal consequence.

What you are doing is confusing the creation of consequences by society as a denial of rights, but even with the threat of consequence, the right still exists. A person in our society still has the right to engage in illegal behavior, they just may receive consequences for doing so.

A right is something that a person can do by virtue of existence.

Some variants of rights are social constructs. An example of this would be the "right" to a fair trial. This "right" is granted by society because it cannot exist in the absence of society. It is in fact a privilege.

But the right to engage in self-preservation behavior, on the other hand, is a natural right. It exists in the absence of society. A person has the right to try and preserve their life in the absence of society.
 
phattonez said:
Note that these are in the presence of mitigating factors. If I'm simply more powerful than someone and want his house, am I justified in taking it?
Click to expand...

In some cultures, absolutely. You have to remember that you're looking at things from a specific cultural position, there are cultures throughout history where "might makes right" has been the accepted position. I'm just pointing out the fallacy of making cultural claims outside of the cultural context. What's true for you may very well not be true for someone else outside of your culture.
 
Cephus said:
In some cultures, absolutely. You have to remember that you're looking at things from a specific cultural position, there are cultures throughout history where "might makes right" has been the accepted position. I'm just pointing out the fallacy of making cultural claims outside of the cultural context. What's true for you may very well not be true for someone else outside of your culture.
Click to expand...

This is independent of culture. If it's fine, then prove it.

There are such things as universal truths, you know.
 
Tucker Case said:
A right is an ability to do something. It is not the desire, it's the ability to act on a desire.

A right is simply that which a person has the natural ability to do. Society doesn't create rights, it creates consequences for those who exercise their rights.

I'm not confusing "rights" with "wants" because the right exists in the absence of desire to exercise the right. The right is the ability to do something if one chooses to, but they don't need to do it. Even if a person has no desire to engage in a behavior, it is still their right to do so.

Society did not create the rights at all. They exist in the absence of society. If they can exist in the absence of society, then they are not a social construct.

The social construct is the invented consequences for engaging in rights. These are man-made.

The thing that society determines is which extant rights warrant "free-exercise", that is, which rights can be exercised without societal consequence.

What you are doing is confusing the creation of consequences by society as a denial of rights, but even with the threat of consequence, the right still exists. A person in our society still has the right to engage in illegal behavior, they just may receive consequences for doing so.

A right is something that a person can do by virtue of existence.

Some variants of rights are social constructs. An example of this would be the "right" to a fair trial. This "right" is granted by society because it cannot exist in the absence of society. It is in fact a privilege.

But the right to engage in self-preservation behavior, on the other hand, is a natural right. It exists in the absence of society. A person has the right to try and preserve their life in the absence of society.
Click to expand...

I disagree. A right is what a person is entitled to. A right is a societal or man made concept. Nobody has the "right" to do anything in the State of Nature. You live or you die based on your abilities there.

Women in Iran don't have as many "rights" as they do in the USA... why? It is a societal concept, that is why. Women there certainly have the "ability" to not wear veils, but they don't have the "right" to not wear one, if they had that right, they would not be persecuted when they didn't wear one, for example.

People have the right to live, to remain free and to own property. People do not have the right to take any of those away, in the USA. They can and do, but, as you said, there is a consequence. That does not mean that they have the "right" to take them away, they are simply acting in accordance with the State of Nature. They are not evolved enough to comply with the Social Contract. They react against the concept of rights of man.

If there is no society, then there is no law. If you build a house in ancient Siberia and a group comes along and kills you and takes your house, that is that. You had the right to build it, but not the "right", or the backing, to maintain and preserve it against those that might take it. Without government, or societal back-up, there are no "rights".

That is my take on it... :2razz:
 
Bodhisattva said:
I disagree. A right is what a person is entitled to. A right is a societal or man made concept. Nobody has the "right" to do anything in the State of Nature. You live or you die based on your abilities there.

Women in Iran don't have as many "rights" as they do in the USA... why? It is a societal concept, that is why. Women there certainly have the "ability" to not wear veils, but they don't have the "right" to not wear one, if they had that right, they would not be persecuted when they didn't wear one, for example.

People have the right to live, to remain free and to own property. People do not have the right to take any of those away, in the USA. They can and do, but, as you said, there is a consequence. That does not mean that they have the "right" to take them away, they are simply acting in accordance with the State of Nature. They are not evolved enough to comply with the Social Contract. They react against the concept of rights of man.

If there is no society, then there is no law. If you build a house in ancient Siberia and a group comes along and kills you and takes your house, that is that. You had the right to build it, but not the "right", or the backing, to maintain and preserve it against those that might take it. Without government, or societal back-up, there are no "rights".

That is my take on it... :2razz:
Click to expand...

Here's my sticking point. In the absence of society, does a man have the right to speak freely?

If so, it simply cannot be a social construct.

Even if consequences are rendered for engaging in the right, it does not negate the existence of said right. Primarily because the ability to exercise the right will still exist. It will just have consequences.

I would say that the "entitlement" aspect is what rights can be freely exercised. Certain rights are deemed by a specific society to be ones where people are entitled to freely exercise those rights.
 
Tucker Case said:
Here's my sticking point. In the absence of society, does a man have the right to speak freely?

If so, it simply cannot be a social construct.

Even if consequences are rendered for engaging in the right, it does not negate the existence of said right. Primarily because the ability to exercise the right will still exist. It will just have consequences.

I would say that the "entitlement" aspect is what rights can be freely exercised. Certain rights are deemed by a specific society to be ones where people are entitled to freely exercise those rights.
Click to expand...

I understand your point. I would say that the man does not have the right to speak freely, but rather the ability to speak freely.

The confusing aspect is that there are rights and then there are "rights". Rights can be associated with rights and wrongs, more or less... but "rights", what we are discussing, to the best of my understanding, are social constructs. We all have the right to do anything within our ability, but we do not have the "right" to engage in hate speech. We can, and many do, but the infringe on others "rights" and they face consequences.
 
phattonez said:
This is independent of culture. If it's fine, then prove it.

There are such things as universal truths, you know.
Click to expand...

Says who? How do you know?
 
Tucker Case said:
Here's my sticking point. In the absence of society, does a man have the right to speak freely?
Click to expand...

In the absence of society, there's no one to stop a man from speaking freely, "rights" don't enter into it. In the absence of society, there's nobody to stop one person from killing another either. So much for the "right to life".
 
Cephus said:
In the absence of society, there's nobody to stop one person from killing another either.
Click to expand...

Even in society there is no way to really stop somebody from killing another. Everyone has the right to kill right now, today, in this society. Everyone.

It will just have consequences if one engages in this right.
 
Tucker Case said:
Even in society there is no way to really stop somebody from killing another. Everyone has the right to kill right now, today, in this society. Everyone.

It will just have consequences if one engages in this right.
Click to expand...

Everyone CAN kill somebody... they don't have the "right" to do it though.
 
While his language is....colorful George Carlin said it best I think when it came to peoples "rights". Before ou play this video...Beware! Foul language is in it! Do not let your kids watch it if you care about language!

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWiBt-pqp0E"]YouTube - YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS - George Carlin[/ame]
 
Tucker Case said:
I would argue that it is their right, but society has dictated that the free exercise of this right is illegal.
Click to expand...

Are you defining "right" as "anything you can do, you have a right to do so."?
 
Tucker Case said:
Even in society there is no way to really stop somebody from killing another. Everyone has the right to kill right now, today, in this society. Everyone.

It will just have consequences if one engages in this right.
Click to expand...

No, everyone has the *ABILITY* to kill people, if they had the right to do it, there would be no consequences because there would be nothing wrong with it in the eyes of society.

The fact that society does punish people for doing it, at least under some circumstances, proves that it isn't a social right.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
Are you defining "right" as "anything you can do, you have a right to do so."?
Click to expand...

I would define a right as anything that you have the potential ability to do. You may not have the means or desire, but if you have the potential ability to do it, it is a right.

Rights are potential actions that may or may not be exercised by persons. Free speech, right to defend one's life, etc.

These actions are freely accessible in the absence of society.

Even if society dictates that someone cannot engage in an action, this alone cannot stop one form engaging in that action. Free speech is universal. Anyone, anywhere can exercise this natural right. Unfortunately, in some places, they will create consequences for a person who exercises this right. But the existence of consequences do not deny the right. The right still exists. The person can make a choice to accept the consequences for exercising their right. There is no way anyone, anywhere can actually prevent someone from exercising their rights if they make this choice.

Even under threat of death, a person can still choose to exercise their rights.

Another example would be that I wouldn't say a person has a right to life, but they do have a right to defend their life. They may not succeed, but nobody, no law, can prevent them from trying to defend their lives.

basically, I define "rights" as the capability to perform potential actions where this capability is granted by virtue of existence and cannot be denied to a person who chooses to engage in that action regardless of consequence.

They can exist in the absence of society.

What people are discussing here is what I would call "freely exercised rights". The ability to freely exercise ones rights is entirely dictated by society. Any society may choose to create laws which implement consequences for exercising certain rights, thus negating the ability to freely exercise those rights without fear of consequence, but they cannot actually prevent people from exercising those rights if the people so choose.

You can only implement consequences after the fact. So they are still inalienable. You cannot alienate a person from their rights, you can only punish them for exercising them.
 
Tucker Case said:
I would define a right as anything that you have the potential ability to do. You may not have the means or desire, but if you have the potential ability to do it, it is a right.

Rights are potential actions that may or may not be exercised by persons. Free speech, right to defend one's life, etc.

These actions are freely accessible in the absence of society.

Even if society dictates that someone cannot engage in an action, this alone cannot stop one form engaging in that action. Free speech is universal. Anyone, anywhere can exercise this natural right. Unfortunately, in some places, they will create consequences for a person who exercises this right. But the existence of consequences do not deny the right. The right still exists. The person can make a choice to accept the consequences for exercising their right. There is no way anyone, anywhere can actually prevent someone from exercising their rights if they make this choice.

Even under threat of death, a person can still choose to exercise their rights.

Another example would be that I wouldn't say a person has a right to life, but they do have a right to defend their life. They may not succeed, but nobody, no law, can prevent them from trying to defend their lives.

basically, I define "rights" as the capability to perform potential actions where this capability is granted by virtue of existence and cannot be denied to a person who chooses to engage in that action regardless of consequence.

They can exist in the absence of society.
Click to expand...
Which is an entirely uninteresting discussion. I don't think anyone would claim that people don't have the faculties to speak freely, or defend themselves, or otherwise express themselves and their will.

What people are discussing here is what I would call "freely exercised rights". The ability to freely exercise ones rights is entirely dictated by society. Any society may choose to create laws which implement consequences for exercising certain rights, thus negating the ability to freely exercise those rights without fear of consequence, but they cannot actually prevent people from exercising those rights if the people so choose.

You can only implement consequences after the fact. So they are still inalienable. You cannot alienate a person from their rights, you can only punish them for exercising them.
Click to expand...
I believe the notion is that there exists some objective universal morality therefore there is some set of human actions which are always just and right. Therefore such actions would be deemed inalienable despite the fact that some people or societies suppress them.

I find the notion of universal objective morals lacking because there is always some hypothetical situation where even the most heinous of actions can be right or morally neutral or where even the most benevolent, gracious, etc, action can be deemed neutral or even wrong. That is, we see right and wrong from our value based perspective rather than from a perspective free of our subjective world view. This highlights two of the problems: 1) the problem with being non-omniscient. We only can base our opinions off what we have experienced. In the future our opinions may radically change as new knowledge becomes available. But for the time being let's assume that what we know now will always hold true for morality. But there is still a problem.

2) Thesecond problem is that morals are based on subjective goals. What this means is that actions we assume are right or just in all conceivable circumstances are "inalienable rights" because they are optimal actions in meeting or attaining our goals/purpose. The problem is there is no apparent universal purpose/goal in life. It is subjective. Some peoples goal is to be happy. Others is to achieve enlightenment. For others its to please their God. Thus, certain actions may be optimal for achieving a purported goal or purpose but that is the extent to the universality.
 
Tucker Case said:
I would define a right as anything that you have the potential ability to do. You may not have the means or desire, but if you have the potential ability to do it, it is a right.
Click to expand...

Then the word loses all meaning. By your reasoning, rape is a right because people have the potential ability to do it.
 
If a person doesn't acknowledge inalienable human rights then they are exhibiting unconscionable behavior and should be treated as less than human.
 
sazerac said:
If a person doesn't acknowledge inalienable human rights then they are exhibiting unconscionable behavior and should be treated as less than human.
Click to expand...
this is a false, but all too common of a misunderstanding.

Simply because one does not recognize inalienable rights does not necessarily mean one does not find value or truth in certain rights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom