0 members (),
6
guests, and
0
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums59
Topics17,128
Posts314,541
Members6,305
|
Most Online294 Dec 6th, 2017
|
|
There are no members with birthdays on this day. |
|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,740 Likes: 1
veteran
|
veteran
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,740 Likes: 1 |
As I wrote earlier, the concept of rights arose from the study of the nature of man. Sure would love to read the research report on this "study". Got a link? heh, rights change over time, according to prevailing thought. back in ancient Athens, Slaves, Women and the insane (as if theres a difference between the three *Ducks*)certainly had different rights to the men, and all these were self evident at the time. certainly even in the US constitution, originally slaves had far less rights then the white man. When were women allowed to vote? indeed isnt it writted in one of the US founding documents that "we hold these truths to be self evident". This is a statement that a decision was taken on what rights would be. a decision was made by a select group, informed by prevailaing philosophies and political considerations. Often such agreed upon definitions of rights are codified in a constitution but not always. oh and these rights are clarified by our judicial systems, again decisions - nay even creations of man, informed by prevailing philosophies and political/social considerations This is the nature of all rights, they are a creation of man, and subject to change at any moment. We can state the nice clean theory of what rights should be, or what we beleive them to be (our own creations, if you will, based on our own philosphies and histories) but the processes and structures around which rights are codified, protected and sometimes enforced are equally important.
"The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words." (Philip K.Dick)
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 12,010
Pooh-Bah
|
OP
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 12,010 |
[ So it is not a right if exercising the "right" would conflict with another person's similar exercising of his right? You are mistaken. A quick example: You have the right to express your thoughts, but you do not have the right to enter into my home to do so without my permission. Your right is restricted when it would violate one of my rights. By denying you entrance into my home, I have not infringed upon your right to express your thoughts. Yours, Issodhos I am pretty sure I was addressing a situation where people were exercising co-equivalent rights and came never the less came into conflict through that situation.
"It's not a lie if you believe it." -- George Costanza The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves. --Bertrand Russel
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 12,010
Pooh-Bah
|
OP
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 12,010 |
As I wrote earlier, the concept of rights arose from the study of the nature of man. Sure would love to read the research report on this "study". Got a link? Yes, and would this study be a scientific treatise... or a philosophical reflection? Is there a single authoritative study, or is is a matter of opinion and discussion? Is the study a reflection of the culture from which it emerged so that other cultures would inherently agree as might be the case of a study of particle physics or chemistry?
"It's not a lie if you believe it." -- George Costanza The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves. --Bertrand Russel
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 12,010
Pooh-Bah
|
OP
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 12,010 |
The question remains: What exactly is the nature of a "right"? I am still waiting for an answer to what seems the most fundamental question.
"It's not a lie if you believe it." -- George Costanza The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves. --Bertrand Russel
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 12,581
Pooh-Bah
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 12,581 |
[ So it is not a right if exercising the "right" would conflict with another person's similar exercising of his right? You are mistaken. A quick example: You have the right to express your thoughts, but you do not have the right to enter into my home to do so without my permission. Your right is restricted when it would violate one of my rights. By denying you entrance into my home, I have not infringed upon your right to express your thoughts. Yours, Issodhos I am pretty sure I was addressing a situation where people were exercising co-equivalent rights and came never the less came into conflict through that situation. I believe I addressed this when I wrote, "I think you are confusing socially agreed upon protocol with rights and conflating “advantage” with an unfounded requirement for “equity”, as well as expecting another or others to provide you assistance in the course of you exercising your right. By the way, two or more people are quite capable of speaking simultaneously – it is done all the time.:-)" One does not have a right to syncrhonicity, Ardy. And I think you fully know that.:-) Yours, Issodhos
"When all has been said that can be said, and all has been done that can be done, there will be poetry";-) -- Issodhos
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 12,581
Pooh-Bah
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 12,581 |
The question remains: What exactly is the nature of a "right"? I am still waiting for an answer to what seems the most fundamental question. I think I have already expressed my opinion on this and provided my reasoning, but to repeat myself, I think the nature of a right is that action which is integral to the nature of man, does not require the forced assistance of others in order to be exercised, does not initiate aggression against another, and can be engaged in or exercised without violating the rights of another. It is good enough for me. But then, I am a laid-back, easy-going, live-and-let-live kinda guy.;-) Yours, Issodhos
"When all has been said that can be said, and all has been done that can be done, there will be poetry";-) -- Issodhos
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 12,010
Pooh-Bah
|
OP
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 12,010 |
The question remains: What exactly is the nature of a "right"? I am still waiting for an answer to what seems the most fundamental question. I think I have already expressed my opinion on this and provided my reasoning, but to repeat myself, I think the nature of a right is that action which is integral to the nature of man, does not require the forced assistance of others in order to be exercised, does not initiate aggression against another, and can be engaged in or exercised without violating the rights of another. It is good enough for me. But then, I am a laid-back, easy-going, live-and-let-live kinda guy.;-) Yours, Issodhos Humm, you seem to define rights as a set of actions. That is not at all my understanding. I was thinking of rights more as the conceptual entitlement to action (or inaction). In trying to figure this out, I came accross the following that seems to me to be a good beginning Rights are entitlements (not) to perform certain actions or be in certain states, or entitlements that others (not) perform certain actions or be in certain states.
Rights dominate most modern understandings of what actions are proper and which institutions are just. Rights structure the forms of our governments, the contents of our laws, and the shape of morality as we perceive it. To accept a set of rights is to approve a distribution of freedom and authority, and so to endorse a certain view of what may, must, and must not be done. link Of course others are free to refine or refute the above as they feel is warranted. But for me, the above does a fairly good job of capturing the concept that most people have when they use the word "rights"
"It's not a lie if you believe it." -- George Costanza The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves. --Bertrand Russel
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 12,581
Pooh-Bah
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 12,581 |
The question remains: What exactly is the nature of a "right"? I am still waiting for an answer to what seems the most fundamental question. I think I have already expressed my opinion on this and provided my reasoning, but to repeat myself, I think the nature of a right is that action which is integral to the nature of man, does not require the forced assistance of others in order to be exercised, does not initiate aggression against another, and can be engaged in or exercised without violating the rights of another. It is good enough for me. But then, I am a laid-back, easy-going, live-and-let-live kinda guy.;-) Yours, Issodhos Humm, you seem to define rights as a set of actions. That is not at all my understanding. I was thinking of rights more as the conceptual entitlement to action (or inaction). To make a choice is an action, Ardy. For example: If I chose to express an idea that is an action and my right. If I chose to not express an idea that is also an action and my right. If I chose to associate or assemble with others that is an action and my right. If I chose to not associate or assemble with others tha is an action and my right. If I chose to maintain my privacy that is an action and my right. If I chose to not maintain my privacy that is an action and my right. If all you have left is a semantic quibble, I am going to have to conclude that this thread has probably reached its end. Yours, Issodhos
Last edited by issodhos; 08/02/08 11:52 PM.
"When all has been said that can be said, and all has been done that can be done, there will be poetry";-) -- Issodhos
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 754
journeyman
|
journeyman
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 754 |
rights change over time, according to prevailing thought. This is true, yet I would submit, that if the changes in rights move in the direction of an enfranchisement universality for humanity, regardless of perceived differences between individuals, as well as towards a decrease in state sanctioning of persons' acts, which do not directly impair another person's liberty, then it progresses positively.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 12,010
Pooh-Bah
|
OP
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 12,010 |
To make a choice is an action, Ardy. For example: If I chose to express an idea that is an action and my right. If I chose to not express an idea that is also an action and my right. If I chose to associate or assemble with others that is an action and my right. If I chose to not associate or assemble with others tha is an action and my right. If I chose to maintain my privacy that is an action and my right. If I chose to not maintain my privacy that is an action and my right.
If all you have left is a semantic quibble, I am going to have to conclude that this thread has probably reached its end. Yours, Issodhos I do not agree that it is a sematic quibble. If you choose to leave the discussion, it is your right... which is to say you are entitled to make a choice. That said, would you prefer the following definition A "right"; is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context.
"It's not a lie if you believe it." -- George Costanza The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves. --Bertrand Russel
|
|
|
|
|