View Poll Results: Are Rights Natural?

Voters
67. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes.

    27 40.30%
  • No.

    32 47.76%
  • Other.

    6 8.96%
  • Rootabega.

    16 23.88%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 34 of 36 FirstFirst ... 243233343536 LastLast
Results 331 to 340 of 352

Thread: Are Rights Natural?

  1. #331
    Doesn't go below juicy
    tacomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Cleveland
    Last Seen
    05-20-16 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    31,781

    Re: Are Rights Natural?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jray573 View Post
    So if you would define a right as a legal guarantee, would you not consider a law against speech as a restriction of rights? And if you saw such law as a restriction of rights, from what base do you consider a right?
    I would consider it a restriction of freedoms. However, I may or may not care depending on how much I valued that freedom. In the case of speech, I greatly value it, so I would probably find it immoral. However morals and desires aren't rights, so I may or may not be successful in my effort to change society into a form I consider best.

    The base is rights is law.
    Last edited by tacomancer; 03-13-10 at 06:45 PM.

  2. #332
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,692

    Re: Are Rights Natural?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jray573 View Post
    Desires and values do determine rights within a society or government. Basically, it determines which ones should be protected, and which should be restricted.
    This supports my position. The society determines what desires and values BECOME rights. The rights are not inalienable. They are given by the society.

    Values and desires have nothing to do with freedoms. It deals purely with ideas.
    As an idea, your freedoms depend on what the society allows.

    This in no way conflicts with what I claimed about rights. If anything, it supports it.

    If society and government ceased to exist what would we be permitted or allowed to do? Only from there can we determine what our values and desires are, and only from that can we determine what our rights should be as a society. Society does not create permission or allowance, it only determines what should be so.
    If society or government ceased to exist, we would EACH do what our INDIVIDUAL desires and values dictated. Since this is relative to the individual and can vary between individuals, these desires and values are not universal. Once a society would be created, that society would determine which of these desires and values would become rights. Those that did not could remain desires or values, but would NOT be rights.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  3. #333
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 06:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

    Re: Are Rights Natural?

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    I have asked this question MANY times of those who believe in natural rights and have never gotten an answer. How would YOU define rights?
    You never got an answer? You sure about that?

  4. #334
    Student Jray573's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    OKC, OK
    Last Seen
    04-12-10 @ 03:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    178

    Re: Are Rights Natural?

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    This supports my position. The society determines what desires and values BECOME rights. The rights are not inalienable. They are given by the society.
    Not exactly supportive of your statement. The way I see it rights pre-exist a society. A society, or government determines which they value, and which they need to restrict under the concept of civility. I maintain the same concept of rights as you do only after the creation of a society, only before it do we differ on opinion.



    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    As an idea, your freedoms depend on what the society allows.
    This is only true once a society exists. Your freedoms are limitless before that.


    If society or government ceased to exist, we would EACH do what our INDIVIDUAL desires and values dictated. Since this is relative to the individual and can vary between individuals, these desires and values are not universal. Once a society would be created, that society would determine which of these desires and values would become rights. Those that did not could remain desires or values, but would NOT be rights.[/QUOTE]

    So under your reasoning would you claim that the first amendment creates the right to free speech?

  5. #335
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,774

    Re: Are Rights Natural?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jray573
    I like how Thomas Paine broke it down in "Rights of Man." How at creation, or at man's beginning, however you want to look at it, man was completely unrestricted. Do you disagree with that? Also, how would this limitless freedom be considered different from rights? If you think it differs, I would love an explanation. Perhaps in this is where the confusion between our two lines of thinking lies.
    Any man, living alone, is completely unrestricted even today. Once you start to add other people, their "rights" become limited inherently, there are things they cannot do as part of a society, regardless of size. Your rights are restricted even if there's only one other person you interact with.

    The point is, you're using the term "rights" indistinguishably from "ability". I have the ability to do "X", that doesn't mean I have the right to do "X". As I said to someone else, if I go to my favorite restaurant and they're out of prime rib, should I complain because I had a "right" to have prime rib? There are many different things being talked about here. First, you have the ability to do something, which is always controlled in any societal situation. I have the ability to murder others, I could pick up a brick and smash the head of the person next to me if I really wanted to. However, because of social custom, I do not have the right to do that, in fact I'll be severely punished for doing it or even making the attempt whether or not it succeeds. Rights are those things which society has agreed everyone ought to be able to do with or without specific restrictions. You have, at least in the United States, the right to free speech, but that right is not unlimited. There are lots of things that you are not free to say, like it or not. That's true of every single right set forth in the founding documents.

    The second you put yourself into a social context, you voluntarily give up some of the things you are capable of doing. Don't like it? Go find yourself a nice deserted island somewhere. Then you can have all the "rights" you want to give yourself.

    Personally, I'm not interested in what Thomas Paine had to say, I'm not debating Thomas Paine. I care about what *YOU* have to say and how *YOU* justify your beliefs. Appealing to authority doesn't mean jack squat.

    Yeah, I agree 100% with this statement. Which is why I claim that civilization restricts and protects the rights they desire. All laws restrict freedom, society chooses which rights should be protected, and which should be restricted. Libertarians tend to believe that rights should be extended to the greatest extent that allows the rights of others to be protected. So if what you are doing doesn't hurt someone else, you should have the right to do so.
    But it doesn't "restrict and protect the rights they desire", it "creates and grants the rights they desire". You are asserting that the rights exist separate from the society. I am saying that the society itself generates these rights and absent society, rights don't have any objective meaning.

    Yeah, wow, I don't even know how to respond to this. I think I provided enough perspective that we don't need to resort to insult, but feel free to debate as you like. I don't believe that I stated anything was true because it was true.
    Whether you personally have or not doesn't change the fact that lots of people, including in this very thread, have done so. They still cannot answer where these claimed "rights" come from and how they were objectively discovered. It's just not a question that they want to answer, outside of the idea that it supports their preconceived conclusion, this it must be true. But that's backwards thinking, it's not making a logical case that leads to a conclusion, it's taking a conclusion and finding evidence or claims that support it. That's just not a credible case that can be made.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  6. #336
    Doesn't go below juicy
    tacomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Cleveland
    Last Seen
    05-20-16 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    31,781

    Re: Are Rights Natural?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jray573 View Post
    Not exactly supportive of your statement. The way I see it rights pre-exist a society. A society, or government determines which they value, and which they need to restrict under the concept of civility. I maintain the same concept of rights as you do only after the creation of a society, only before it do we differ on opinion.

    This is only true once a society exists. Your freedoms are limitless before that.

    So under your reasoning would you claim that the first amendment creates the right to free speech?
    I find it interesting that you seem to use the words freedoms and rights interchangeably.

  7. #337
    Student Jray573's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    OKC, OK
    Last Seen
    04-12-10 @ 03:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    178

    Re: Are Rights Natural?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    Any man, living alone, is completely unrestricted even today. Once you start to add other people, their "rights" become limited inherently, there are things they cannot do as part of a society, regardless of size. Your rights are restricted even if there's only one other person you interact with.
    I agree 100%

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    The point is, you're using the term "rights" indistinguishably from "ability". I have the ability to do "X", that doesn't mean I have the right to do "X". As I said to someone else, if I go to my favorite restaurant and they're out of prime rib, should I complain because I had a "right" to have prime rib? There are many different things being talked about here. First, you have the ability to do something, which is always controlled in any societal situation. I have the ability to murder others, I could pick up a brick and smash the head of the person next to me if I really wanted to. However, because of social custom, I do not have the right to do that, in fact I'll be severely punished for doing it or even making the attempt whether or not it succeeds.

    No, ability doesn't determine rights. I have the right to walk, even if I lack the ability.

    I don't really understand the point behind the prime rib comment. You do have a right to prime rib, but with that comes a responsibility of finding it. If they are unable to provide you that prime rib it doesn't restrict your right. In restricts their ability to provide it.

    Right, the concept of civilization is founded on ideas like your point with murder. That's what makes Libertarians different than anarchists. Reasonable people don't believe rights should be limitless, and we prefer a society that would restrict the right of life to others.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    Rights are those things which society has agreed everyone ought to be able to do with or without specific restrictions. You have, at least in the United States, the right to free speech, but that right is not unlimited. There are lots of things that you are not free to say, like it or not. That's true of every single right set forth in the founding documents.
    Right, post society that is correct. Society does determine which rights you should, or should not have. We seriously aren't going to disagree on this aspect of rights, though we may disagree on which rights should be granted or restricted.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    The second you put yourself into a social context, you voluntarily give up some of the things you are capable of doing. Don't like it? Go find yourself a nice deserted island somewhere. Then you can have all the "rights" you want to give yourself.
    Agree 100%

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    Personally, I'm not interested in what Thomas Paine had to say, I'm not debating Thomas Paine. I care about what *YOU* have to say and how *YOU* justify your beliefs. Appealing to authority doesn't mean jack squat.
    Thanks for caring, I just tend to think he said it better than I am capable of. I thought his description was fascinating, and because it was a leftist on a debate forum that introduced me to him and the site named after him I made the mistake of thinking he was a respectable source for the left. I don't see him as an authority, just an excellent writer.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    But it doesn't "restrict and protect the rights they desire", it "creates and grants the rights they desire". You are asserting that the rights exist separate from the society. I am saying that the society itself generates these rights and absent society, rights don't have any objective meaning.
    Right, we understand where each of us are coming from. I would also agree that rights would lack objective meaning without society. Since typically a right is useless without the ability to protect them.


    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    Whether you personally have or not doesn't change the fact that lots of people, including in this very thread, have done so. They still cannot answer where these claimed "rights" come from and how they were objectively discovered. It's just not a question that they want to answer, outside of the idea that it supports their preconceived conclusion, this it must be true. But that's backwards thinking, it's not making a logical case that leads to a conclusion, it's taking a conclusion and finding evidence or claims that support it. That's just not a credible case that can be made.
    That's a bit of a strawman. Where do trees come from originally? Nature, regardless of how it's created is as old as time. Rights would have been created at the same time as the first creature. Morality would be created at the same time as the first creature with a conscious. Whatever the motive was for the first society would determine how others would like to live together. Which rights they should and should not have.

    The only difference in our thinking is when rights were created. You think each individual society or government creates it. And I guess I just don't understand what the big deal is. I'm guessing it's important, but what impact does your difference in opinion of rights have that is different from mine? Because at the end of the day when you factor in society we both agree that they determine what is and isn't right, and from there they determine what should and should not be allowed. At the creation of society our debate becomes almost pointless.

  8. #338
    Student Jray573's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    OKC, OK
    Last Seen
    04-12-10 @ 03:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    178

    Re: Are Rights Natural?

    Quote Originally Posted by megaprogman View Post
    I find it interesting that you seem to use the words freedoms and rights interchangeably.
    Not exactly, though they are closely related. If you restrict a freedom you take away rights. I'm pretty sure you would agree on that though. From what I see the debate is based around origin and validity.

  9. #339
    Doesn't go below juicy
    tacomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Cleveland
    Last Seen
    05-20-16 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    31,781

    Re: Are Rights Natural?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jray573 View Post
    Not exactly, though they are closely related. If you restrict a freedom you take away rights. I'm pretty sure you would agree on that though. From what I see the debate is based around origin and validity.
    Cool. I was making a stab in the dark to see if that was the basis for your concept.

  10. #340
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,692

    Re: Are Rights Natural?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    You never got an answer? You sure about that?
    Not that I recall in regards to a definition of rights. It's possible I might have forgotten if it occurred on another thread recently. As of late, natural rights has been a popular topic at DP, and I've been involved in several threads about it.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

Page 34 of 36 FirstFirst ... 243233343536 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •