• 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!

The right to -not- exercise a right?

Do you have the right to NOT exercise a right?

  • Total voters
    38
Ikari said:
Rights are innate and inalienable to humans.
Click to expand...

Like what? Examples? More looking for a why and how they are inalienable.

also, Comic relief:

1_the_right_to_bear_arms.jpg
 
Last edited:
Ikari said:
The idea of natural rights is not new. I didn't make it up. It was subject of debate for some time, and codified in many political philosophies such as those proposed by Hobbes and Locke.
Click to expand...

Just because the idea is old doesn't make it right.

Again.

You claimed rights are innate and always exist.

I provided two examples illustrating how this leads to irreconciliable contradictions and some "rights" of today cannot have always existed and that they trump pre-existing rights. Ergo, rights are not innate, they are not eternal, and they're nothing but man made constructs defining human relationships.

The existence of the mother's right to murder babies alienates the right of the baby to live.

The right of the baby to live alienates the right of the mother to murder the baby.

Which one is innate, when either trumps the other?
 
Last edited:
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Just because the idea is old doesn't make it right.

Again.

You claimed rights are innate and always exist.

I provided two examples illustrating how this leads to irreconciliable contradictions and some "rights" of today cannot have always existed and that they trump pre-existing rights. Ergo, rights are not innate, they are not eternal, and they're nothing but man made constructs defining human relationships.

The existence of the mother's right to murder babies alienates the right of the baby to live.

The right of the baby to live alienates the right of the mother to murder the baby.

Which one is innate, when either trumps the other?
Click to expand...

It is important to remember that even though there is no "unalienable rights" for the individual, because there is circumstances when any protection of an individual should be violated. As people are talking about rights in this discussion, I get the impression it involves that the rights can not be violated under any circumstances.

For the extreme, protecting all people's rights except for one always trumpts protecting the rights of one individual.


This means that "rights" exist, but only in that there is protections for individuals that should be promoted for as many people as possible.

So even if life isn't a right for an indvidiual for all circumstances, the only time that life for someone is violated is only to protect the rights of someone else. Death penalty as punnishment for violating someone's else's right to their own life.
 
Last edited:
Nobody has the "right" to goods and services that are the result of others labor unless they have the ability to pay for those goods and services.

If you claim to have the "right" to take and use the services of the doctor, but you do not have the ability to pay said doctor, then that is nothing more than stealing. By extension, you do not have the "right" to confiscate the results of my labor (taxation) to provide those goods and services to someone else. By doing so you are depriving me the "right" to benefit from the results of my labor and by extension you are depriving me of my "right" to provide for my family and better their lives (pursuit of happiness).

Ideally, we should abolish most health insurance and just expand the idea of Health Savings accounts with high deductible catastrophic policies. This would encourage better usage of the health services and would also reinforce the importance of saving for emergencies.

If I get hurt, I promise not to burden any of you with the cost of my care. If I can't afford it, I will not ask for it. Period.

Now, if everyone else would just do the same.
 
Cephus said:
I never said you made it up, I said you can't justify it. Neither could Hobbes or Locke. Just because someone says something, even if it's a philosopher, that still doesn't make it so.

Now I'm still waiting for your EVIDENCE that rights exist outside of human society.
Click to expand...

You want evidence that a moral concept exists? What kind of a stupid question is that?
 
Ethereal said:
You want evidence that a moral concept exists? What kind of a stupid question is that?
Click to expand...

I believe it can be answereded! A Moral Concept DOES exist. It's an abstract idea. It's been noted and passed on. now is there are concrete evidence of morals? Eh...not really, 'cept for those who choose to practice morality.
 
The right to -not- exercise a right?
Click to expand...

Abortion is a good example; it is a right.
Males and non-pregnant females don't have the capacity to exercise this right, although they still have it.
Pregnant females do have the capacity to exercise this right, although they certainly have the right not to.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
The Laws of Thermodynamics are taken as Law because they've never been observed to have been broken.

Your assertion that rights are innate has been shown false by the existence of mutually exclusive rights, thereby creating paradox. Paradox does not exist in nature, and hence your claim that rights are innate has been proven false.

Your choices now are to provide an argument that invalidates the proof, you concede defeat, or you pretend the proof was wrong and none of us evil people are LISTENING, DAMMIT!




Merely restating your hypothesis is not proof of the hypothesis.

Circular reasoning is failed reasoning.
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as mutually exclusive rights. Negative individual liberties, by their very definition, cannot be defined as such if they exclude the rightful exercise of another's liberty. Jefferson already came up with the perfect litmus test:

Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.

Jefferson on Politics & Government: Inalienable Rights
Click to expand...
 
1069 said:
Abortion is a good example; it is a right.
Males and non-pregnant females don't have the capacity to exercise this right, although they still have it.
Pregnant females do have the capacity to exercise this right, although they certainly have the right not to.
Click to expand...

But then again Abortion is a man-made term, a definition of something that a woman could naturally (some sort of instinct?) do but would probably not have done had civilization not come up with it...oh **** I am confused...what the hell did I just say?
 
EpicDude86 said:
I believe it can be answereded! A Moral Concept DOES exist. It's an abstract idea. It's been noted and passed on. now is there are concrete evidence of morals? Eh...not really, 'cept for those who choose to practice morality.
Click to expand...

What do you mean, "is there concrete evidence of morals?"

There is evidence of "morals" because people espouse them; I'm not sure how you could contend otherwise. That's not proof that they're right or wrong, merely that they exist.

Natural rights theory is simply a moral affirmation of an innate desire to live in accordance with one's will. Natural rights are NOT invisible force fields that are supposed to protect you from all transgressions. It's a moral concept that is justified by a set of biological and psychological axioms.
 
Goobieman said:
If you have the right to X, do you have the right to NOT exercise that right?
Click to expand...

No, not neccesarily. For example, you have the right to bear arms, but you do not have a right to refuse to bear arms if you get drafted. Or, you have the right to free speech, but you do not have a right to remain silent, for example, if you know that someone committed a murder.
 
Ethereal said:
You want evidence that a moral concept exists? What kind of a stupid question is that?
Click to expand...

No, I want evidence that this so-called moral concept is factually true. You can believe there are monkeys coming out of your butt, I'm not going to take you seriously until you can validate your belief.

Otherwise, it's just a bunch of mindless, fanatical handwaving nonsense.
 
EpicDude86 said:
But then again Abortion is a man-made term, a definition of something that a woman could naturally (some sort of instinct?) do but would probably not have done had civilization not come up with it...oh **** I am confused...what the hell did I just say?
Click to expand...

Well, fine.
I can just as easily come up with a handful of other examples, without even trying very hard.
I have the right to own a gun; I choose not to exercise this right.
Many people have the right to vote and choose not to- I think that in an average election year, less than 60% of eligible voters actually vote. This last election, it was a little more. 66%, maybe?
People in the US have the right not to be physically assaulted, but some of them choose to enter into consensual S&M relationships and voluntarily forfeit this right.
The list goes on.
If we exercised every right we have to the fullest extent, we'd have no time to do anything else but go around exercising rights all day long, to no purpose.
Rights are there to be exercised if and when you need them.
 
Ethereal said:
What do you mean, "is there concrete evidence of morals?"
Click to expand...

Like there's concrete evidence of behaviors and other naturally occuring 'phenomena'.

Ethereal said:
There is evidence of "morals" because people espouse them; I'm not sure how you could contend otherwise. That's not proof that they're right or wrong, merely that they exist.
Click to expand...

EpicDude86 said:
A Moral Concept DOES exist. It's an abstract idea. It's been noted and passed on. now is there are concrete evidence of morals? Eh...not really, 'cept for those who choose to practice morality.
Click to expand...

I think we're saying something similar here?

Ethereal said:
Natural rights theory is simply a moral affirmation of an innate desire to live in accordance with one's will. Natural rights are NOT invisible force fields that are supposed to protect you from all transgressions. It's a moral concept that is justified by a set of biological and psychological axioms.
Click to expand...

It's still a theory, created by man's mind. But yeah, I see where you're going with this.
 
1069 said:
Well, fine.
I can just as easily come up with a handful of other examples, without even trying very hard.
I have the right to own a gun; I choose not to exercise this right.
Many people have the right to vote and choose not to- I think that in an average election year, less than 60% of eligible voters actually vote. This last election, it was a little more. 66%, maybe?
People in the US have the right not to be physically assaulted, but some of them choose to enter into consensual S&M relationships and voluntarily forfeit this right.
The list goes on.
If we exercised every right we have to the fullest extent, we'd have no time to do anything else but go around exercising rights all day long, to no purpose.
Rights are there to be exercised if and when you need them.
Click to expand...

But my point is these are all man made things. Most of society has agreed upon, and built on to, these codes because they don't exist naturally, or they are hard to determine without having some sort of guidelines. Ever read Lord of the Flies? It's kind of an example of the vice-versa. IN the book some boys end up stranded on an island without adults. The boys subsequently are without any enforced moral code (no adults to tell them what to do), though some of them still exercise the morality they were taught (behaving, not throwing rocks, etc.), the others revert to 'instinct' and acting, well...like little boys. Kinda a roundabout example I know. But it's the only thing i've got at the moment. I'm balancing too many threads lol.
 
Like there's concrete evidence of behaviors and other naturally occuring 'phenomena'.
Click to expand...

"Morals" are a social construct.
They are something we evolved to allow us to live together in groups; to allow for there to be tribes, communities, civilizations.
They are all based on the law of reciprocity ("Do unto others", Golden Rule, etc), and have their origin in prehistoric times, and are more or less universal: common to every nation and culture. Without reciprocity-based "morals" or rules, cultures don't last long enough to be more than a blip on the radar of history.
 
1069 said:
"Morals" are a social construct.
They are something we evolved to allow us to live together in groups; to allow for there to be tribes, communities, civilizations.
They are all based on the law of reciprocity ("Do unto others", Golden Rule, etc), and have their origin in prehistoric times, and are more or less universal: common to every nation and culture. Without reciprocity-based "morals" or rules, cultures don't last long enough to be more than a blip on the radar of history.
Click to expand...

Yeah I was trying to say show me naturally occurrences of morality as opposed to man-made/man-inspired ones. We're in agreement I believe.
 
Cephus said:
No, I want evidence that this so-called moral concept is factually true. You can believe there are monkeys coming out of your butt, I'm not going to take you seriously until you can validate your belief.

Otherwise, it's just a bunch of mindless, fanatical handwaving nonsense.
Click to expand...

How does one prove a moral concept to be "factually true"? Can you prove that raping children is "factually immoral"?
 
EpicDude86 said:
Like there's concrete evidence of behaviors and other naturally occuring 'phenomena'.

I think we're saying something similar here?
Click to expand...

I'm sorry. I don't understand what you mean.

I agree that "morals" only exist in the abstract but that doesn't mean they don't exist. Triangles only exist in the abstract but that doesn't mean we deny their existence, or ask for evidence of their existence.

It's still a theory, created by man's mind. But yeah, I see where you're going with this.
Click to expand...

Well, yes, I agree that it's largely subjective but so are all moral precepts. That doesn't mean they aren't logical. Natural rights theory comes to a moral conclusion (which is largely subjective) but that conclusion is based upon biological and psychological axioms (which are largely objective).

So, you can disagree with the morality of the conclusions, but I don't know why anyone would. I mean, do you think that people living in accordance with their wills is immoral?
 
Last edited:
Ethereal said:
I'm sorry. I don't understand what you mean.

I agree that "morals" only exist in the abstract but that doesn't mean they don't exist. Triangles only exist in the abstract but that doesn't mean we deny their existence, or ask for evidence of their existence.



Well, yes, I agree that it's largely subjective but so are all moral precepts. That doesn't mean they aren't logical. Natural rights theory comes to a moral conclusion (which is largely subjective) but that conclusion is based upon biological and psychological axioms (which are largely objective).

So, you can disagree with the morality of the conclusions, but I don't know why anyone would. I mean, do you think that people living in accordance with their wills is immoral?
Click to expand...



I guess the best way to describe it would be that morals don't occur naturally and isn't observable naturally as something like rainfall, an aurora borealis, or an animal's instincts maybe? I'm just confusing myself now lol. I do that a lot when I over-analyze.
 
Ethereal said:
How does one prove a moral concept to be "factually true"? Can you prove that raping children is "factually immoral"?
Click to expand...

Morality, like rights, is an entirely socially-derived concept. Without humanity, there are no such things. I never claimed raping children is "factually immoral", in fact I'd say in no uncertain terms that it is not. However, in our society, we have subjectively determined that we will accept that raping children is unacceptable and against the law and that those who engage in such will be punished.

But that doesn't change anything for the people who would claim that raping children is "factually immoral", they'd be expected to back it up, just like the people who think rights exist outside of the social order. If they cannot, then their claims about morality or rights are simply false.
 
Cephus said:
Morality, like rights, is an entirely socially-derived concept. Without humanity, there are no such things.
Click to expand...

How is morality entirely derived from society when ideas can only originate from individuals? Additionally, your logic dictates that society and humanity don't really exist either, so why even mention them?

I never claimed raping children is "factually immoral"...
Click to expand...

I never said you did. I just asked you a question.

...in fact I'd say in no uncertain terms that it is not.
Click to expand...

Then you're a nihilist. Raping children is immoral. I don't care what kind of convoluted nonsense you conjure up in an attempt to win a stupid internet argument but raping children is just immoral and there's no intellectual wiggle room. If you're going to suggest otherwise then you've already proven how silly you are.

However, in our society, we have subjectively determined that we will accept that raping children is unacceptable and against the law and that those who engage in such will be punished.
Click to expand...

And how did society (which doesn't actually exist) arrive at this conclusion? I mean, what's the rationale for it? Do you just agree with things because society says so?

Also, society has already subjectively determined the morality of natural rights. It's the philosophical cornerstone of our Republic. So I guess that means it exists, according to your logic.

But that doesn't change anything for the people who would claim that raping children is "factually immoral", they'd be expected to back it up, just like the people who think rights exist outside of the social order. If they cannot, then their claims about morality or rights are simply false.
Click to expand...

Show me factual evidence of a triangle's existence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom