• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.
  • Done now. Domine miserere nobis.

What rights do we deserve as human beings?

Jchazard

Member
Local time
Today 5:17 AM
Joined
Dec 13, 2010
Messages
75
---
I'll give a basic diagram for us to start with. I have a feeling 3a might be argued heavily:


1. We are entitled to equal treatment as long as we do not infringe on another’s rights.

a. We deserve to be responsible for the lives of others whose rights are in jeopardy.

2. We are entitled to live safely and to be our own person with our own possessions.

a. We deserve to be responsible over such unless our ability to do so is deemed unfit.

3. We are entitled to be exposed to whatever we wish and express our opinions freely.

a. We deserve to be able to withhold information for the safety of others.


 

Moocow

Semantic Nitpicker
Local time
Today 12:17 AM
Joined
Nov 21, 2009
Messages
911
---
Location
Moocow
Entitled, deserve, entitled, deserve... what makes you think we are entitled to deserve anything at all? Don't you have to do something to deserve entitlement?

It's not like my, or anyone else's birth was inherently a gift upon the world.
 

Jchazard

Member
Local time
Today 5:17 AM
Joined
Dec 13, 2010
Messages
75
---
Entitled, deserve, entitled, deserve... what makes you think we are entitled to deserve anything at all? Don't you have to do something to deserve entitlement?

It's not like my, or anyone else's birth was inherently a gift upon the world.

I understand it's the way everyone at this forum does things, but let's not get objective to the point we say there are no rights. Let's assume we have them. If we didn't people would use us, we'd have no control of our beings, no thoughts or feelings to ourselves, cruel treatment and havoc... let's assume we all have rights to live in a certain manner. We don't have to be a gift to the world to live in it freely.
 

Moocow

Semantic Nitpicker
Local time
Today 12:17 AM
Joined
Nov 21, 2009
Messages
911
---
Location
Moocow
It doesn't change the fact that it remains little more than an assumption, and a dangerous one at that.

Maybe we should think more about what rights we specifically should not have.
 

Jchazard

Member
Local time
Today 5:17 AM
Joined
Dec 13, 2010
Messages
75
---
It doesn't change the fact that it remains little more than an assumption, and a dangerous one at that.

Maybe we should think more about what rights we specifically should not have.

I don't think it's dangerous as long as you get it right. Saying we have none is far more dangerous. If we said what rights we don't have it would be endless and we'd never be able to say we SHOULD have the right to live. The American bill of rights lists rights we should have and has been safe and in affect for hundreds of years.
 

Moocow

Semantic Nitpicker
Local time
Today 12:17 AM
Joined
Nov 21, 2009
Messages
911
---
Location
Moocow
The American bill of rights lists rights we should have and has been safe and in affect for hundreds of years.

Yeah, maybe for white males. I'm not so sure about the rest of them.
 

RobertJ

Active Member
Local time
Today 12:17 AM
Joined
Mar 23, 2009
Messages
227
---
The only rights one deserves are those which one is capable of securing and acting upon himself. Why give credence to some externally imposed doctrine composed by people who are not you? By what authority is divined the capacity for one to tell another what is suitable for them?

Furthermore, it's wholly delusional to believe that by virtue of some document that those rights listed thereon will be forever protected.
 

Jchazard

Member
Local time
Today 5:17 AM
Joined
Dec 13, 2010
Messages
75
---
The only rights one deserves are those which one is capable of securing and acting upon himself. Why give credence to some externally imposed doctrine composed by people who are not you? By what authority is divined the capacity for one to tell another what is suitable for them?

Furthermore, it's wholly delusional to believe that by virtue of some document that those rights listen thereon will be forever protected.

@Moocow- please. Is it just white males now? No.

@You- Now we're getting somewhere!

Right 1- You only get rights if you can get them yourself.
Right 2- We have the right to not be governed by law.

Alright. I wholly disagree with right 1. If you lived in a communist country or were disabled you would not be able to secure your own rights. Does that make you less human than another and undeserving of rights? No. At right 2 this is simply proposterous. If there was no law no one would have rights to live and everyone would have the right to kill.

Also, we're not making a document to rule over the world forever. We are debating on a small Internet forum what rights we should have as individuals. Lol
 

RobertJ

Active Member
Local time
Today 12:17 AM
Joined
Mar 23, 2009
Messages
227
---
@Moocow- please. Is it just white males now? No.

@You- Now we're getting somewhere!

Right 1- You only get rights if you can get them yourself.
Right 2- We have the right to not be governed by law.

Alright. I wholly disagree with right 1. If you lived in a communist country or were disabled you would not be able to secure your own rights. Does that make you less human than another and undeserving of rights? No. At right 2 this is simply proposterous. If there was no law no one would have rights to live and everyone would have the right to kill.

Also, we're not making a document to rule over the world forever. We are debating on a small Internet forum what rights we should have as individuals. Lol

I failed to communicate what I had intended. What I hoped to elucidate is that a person is an entity unto themselves, and need not recognize nor have enforced upon them the mandates of any outside entity. This isn't a right, because it's not ordained by an outside source (unless you bring god into the mix, and even then, god's externality is another debate). To depend on an outside source for the protection of your rights also subjects you to the infringement upon your personal choices and conduct by that same entity.

If there was no law no one would have rights to live and everyone would have the right to kill.

But the enforcers of law must and do retain the capacity and "right" to kill anyone not abiding by those laws. The only difference now is there are distinct rules one must play by in order to not be killed.

Also, we're not making a document to rule over the world forever. We are debating on a small Internet forum what rights we should have as individuals. Lol

What comprises the world (of humanity)? Individuals.
 

Jchazard

Member
Local time
Today 5:17 AM
Joined
Dec 13, 2010
Messages
75
---
I failed to communicate what I had intended. What I hoped to elucidate is that a person is an entity unto themselves, and need not recognize nor have enforced upon them the mandates of any outside entity. This isn't a right, because it's not ordained by an outside source (unless you bring god into the mix, and even then, god's externality is another debate). To depend on an outside source for the protection of your rights also subjects you to the infringement upon your personal choices and conduct by that same entity.



But the enforcers of law must and do retain the capacity and "right" to kill anyone not abiding by those laws. The only difference now is there are distinct rules one must play by in order to not be killed.



What comprises the world (of humanity)? Individuals.

*sigh* You're wrong. If you have the right to live you have the right to live. No one can kill you, even the enforcers. In punishment one would be place in isolation so he can no longer threaten the rights of others, but still keep his own.

Also, yes. Free will is a right. You're saying we have the right to make our own decisions and have control over our own beings. If there were no rights, we'd be able to be controlled by another and it wouldn't matter. Granted (and it's sad I have to say this) YES there are no true rights but we're looking at this from a subjective perspective.
 

Jchazard

Member
Local time
Today 5:17 AM
Joined
Dec 13, 2010
Messages
75
---
Well, there we have it. Anyone else wanna take a crack at this chestnut?

Is that honestly all you could say in response? We're arguing rights, not the existence of them for god's sake. Not everything is about whether or not it really has an existence or purpose in the end.
 

Zensunni

Raro recte, numquam incerte
Local time
Today 12:17 AM
Joined
Jan 7, 2011
Messages
397
---
Location
New Hampshire
They way rights have been expounded in Political Theory, for our times, is that everyone has every right to every thing when not in a society. Exercising them can be a battle.

When you get into society, rights are created, conventional, and then we all need to respect them.

Jchazard, your list sounds Libertarian. I assume by 'deserve' you mean concomitant responsibilities. That is the way it reads to me.

In our system of thought, John Locke stated that the first law of nature is to protect yourself and the second law is to help your fellow man as soon as your safety has been relatively assured. What we deserve is to have more concern for our fellow citizen, in my view. The US, anyway, has gone so far down the path of avarice (something else John Locke talked about) that people are focusing on their lot in life almost to the exclusion of others in society.
 

gruesomebrat

Biking in pursuit of self...
Local time
Today 12:17 AM
Joined
Nov 12, 2010
Messages
426
---
Location
Somewhere North of you.
*sigh* You're wrong.
Well, there we have it. Anyone else wanna take a crack at this chestnut?
This forum is rarely my humour channel (unless I'm reading something on the 'Fun' sub-forum), but these two posts made me laugh. I originally assumed that hazard was putting this up to have an actual discussion of human rights, and yet within 5 hours, he's already telling someone they're wrong. Since rights are purely subjective, its impossible to say which rights are right or wrong.

As a rule, people have no rights. We are not entitled to anything from the rest of humanity. We really have no responsibility to other humans, much less to any other species. Rights are a construct of society, in place solely as a diplomatic way to keep civil order. They are not the only possible way to keep order, and we are in no way 'entitled' to them. Ask the German Jews of the 1940's whether 'rights' did them any good against the Nazi's. Or the Rwandans, if 'rights' did them any good against their government. Rights don't mean a damn thing to someone who is going to oppress people, and they really never have. With that in mind, why do we bother inventing these constructs? If they do no good, what is their purpose? Other than mass delusion, I honestly can't see one.
 

Inappropriate Behavior

is peeing on the carpet
Local time
Today 12:17 AM
Joined
Sep 21, 2008
Messages
3,795
---
Location
Behind you, kicking you in the ass
Rights are just priveledges grated (to most) by external sources. They are laws. While labeling some as inalienable may sound nice they are just laws that exist until they stop existing. So what you are asking should be: What laws should we live by? Lose the word 'rights' and the word 'deserve'. Rights are laws and what we deserve is too horrifying to mention!

Now if you want to re-write the legal code that we should live by then I'm all for it. We can start by eliminating the pretentious use of a certain dead language.
 

JarNew

Banned
Local time
Today 5:17 AM
Joined
Nov 27, 2010
Messages
209
---
Ability to communicate :
 

Reluctantly

Resident disMember
Local time
Yesterday 7:17 PM
Joined
Mar 14, 2010
Messages
3,135
---
Anything you say or do can and will be used against you in the court of life.
 

snafupants

Prolific Member
Local time
Yesterday 11:17 PM
Joined
May 31, 2010
Messages
5,007
---
Entitled, deserve, entitled, deserve... what makes you think we are entitled to deserve anything at all? Don't you have to do something to deserve entitlement?

It's not like my, or anyone else's birth was inherently a gift upon the world.

No, but industrialization has compromised some facets of life before factories; for example, clean air and water, which are basic to human functioning and should not be negatively affected by technological progress. It seems unjust that some folks wearing ties and chasing carrots should affect the next generation.
 

Yet

Active Member
Local time
Today 6:17 AM
Joined
Feb 11, 2011
Messages
352
---
Location
restaurant at the end of the universe
rights and rules are created in society's (are culture based) ... and about these rights and rules people have subjective thoughts ... what I mean to say: there is no objectivity in it. WHat do we base rights and rules on? Why? So we are able to live reasonably comfortably with each other and we know what we can expect in life and in contact. It is for a great deal culture based.

Producing global human rights can only work if you invite all sorts of society's. It is not an 'absolute' thing but quite 'relative' (in time ánd space) ... and I wonder whether they can find each other in matters about the possition of certain members (women, children) and the position of religion and science.
 

BigApplePi

Banned
Local time
Today 12:17 AM
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
8,984
---
Location
New York City (The Big Apple) & State
rights and rules are created in society's (are culture based) ... and about these rights and rules people have subjective thoughts ... what I mean to say: there is no objectivity in it. WHat do we base rights and rules on? Why? So we are able to live reasonably comfortably with each other and we know what we can expect in life and in contact. It is for a great deal culture based.

Producing global human rights can only work if you invite all sorts of society's. It is not an 'absolute' thing but quite 'relative' (in time ánd space) ... and I wonder whether they can find each other in matters about the possition of certain members (women, children) and the position of religion and science.
I think this captures something. I read this entire thread about an hour ago. What strikes me is the use of this word, "rights", and the ambiguity of definition. "Rights" is somebody's concept. We don't have to accept this concept. We can create our own. But unless there is something better ... we are still in trouble. Look at the original post:
1. We are entitled to equal treatment as long as we do not infringe on another’s rights.

a. We deserve to be responsible for the lives of others whose rights are in jeopardy.

2. We are entitled to live safely and to be our own person with our own possessions.

a. We deserve to be responsible over such unless our ability to do so is deemed unfit.

3. We are entitled to be exposed to whatever we wish and express our opinions freely.

a. We deserve to be able to withhold information for the safety of others.
Just intuition tells me there is something terrific about these assumptions. But what is it? Are they valid in some sense? Are they workable? Are they practical? Are they ideal? If they do have merit and you buy them or some of them, is there anything glaringly missing?
 

Yet

Active Member
Local time
Today 6:17 AM
Joined
Feb 11, 2011
Messages
352
---
Location
restaurant at the end of the universe
Just intuition tells me there is something terrific about these assumptions.
could it be that it puts down in writing that you deserve to mingle into other peoples lifes and affairs using your own judgement instead of common law and say about other people whatever you like with no restraint?

nr 1 I do not understand at all ... equal treatment bound ? that's extreme ... If I do not live up to the 'right' of someone (which is not defined) I cannot count on equal treatment? So eh ... with people who commited a crime you could do whatever you want?
 

^_\\

Member
Local time
Today 5:17 AM
Joined
Apr 5, 2011
Messages
69
---
No I won't just assume we have rights. The assumption you are working from is not just one I disagree with, it is incomprehensible to me. The words "rights", "deserve" and "entitled" are bullshit to my mind (in this context): I have a vague understanding of how people usually use them and their official definition but you don't even seem to be sticking by those rules. Then you go and say we have a right to free will. Even if I acxwpt the notion of free will, I don't see how it is something I have a right rather than something I have. The problem isn't that people are getting too objective, the problem is that you aren't making sense.


I should probably post something that isn't a rant.
 

thoumyvision

Mauveshirt
Local time
Yesterday 11:17 PM
Joined
Apr 5, 2011
Messages
256
---
Location
Saint Louis, MO
You're using three different words here, and they all mean something slightly different.

To deserve something requires an active virtue or lack thereof. For instance, to deserve punishment you must have done wrong. To deserve praise you must have done something praiseworthy. American Citizens who were born in another sovereign nation deserve to vote by virtue of their successful completion of the US naturalization process.

To be entitled to something means you are given something by another based on inborn or inherent qualities. Persons born in the United States are entitled to vote in her elections once they reach the age of majority. This entitlement is granted without prejudice as long as the initial criteria is met. However, convicted felons have this entitlement rescinded for the period of their incarceration.

So then we come to rights. Rights are inborn and are not granted by an external source. Rights can be defined, such as in the American Bill of Rights, but these definitions are not what grants you the right to something, they only affirm that the American government has pledged not to take them away. For instance, I have the right to walk out my front door, hopscotch for a block or two, fart loudly, and hopscotch back to my house. I'm quite certain that right has never been explicitly defined by anyone; I have it because I am physically and mentally capable of doing so, and it has not been taken away by any entity capable of doing so.

Since rights are inborn, not deserved, a better subject for this thread might be "What rights should human beings be allowed?"

Moving on to your rights.

1. We are entitled to equal treatment as long as we do not infringe on another’s rights.
Too broad. Are you entitled to a birthday present from me since I give one to my sister every year?

a. We deserve to be responsible for the lives of others whose rights are in jeopardy.


By what virtue do we deserve this responsibility? How is this responsibility defined?

2. We are entitled to live safely and to be our own person with our own possessions.

We should have this right (not entitlement, it is not something granted to us)

a. We deserve to be responsible over such unless our ability to do so is deemed unfit.
Not deserved, but right otherwise.

3. We are entitled to be exposed to whatever we wish and express our opinions freely.

a. We deserve to be able to withhold information for the safety of others.
Er, these two are contradictory, if we have the right to be exposed to whatever we wish then no one has the right to withhold information for the safety of others.

I would agree that we have the right to expose ourselves to whatever is legal and available. We do not have the right not to be exposed to things we find objectionable.
 

ApostateAbe

Banned
Local time
Yesterday 11:17 PM
Joined
Jul 23, 2010
Messages
1,272
---
Location
MT
I think most of our rights are independent of whether or not we deserve them. I'll change the wording a little.
1. We demand equal treatment as long as we do not infringe on another's rights.

a. We demand to be responsible for the lives of others whose rights are in jeopardy.

2. We demand to live safely and to be our own person with our own possessions.

a. We demand to be responsible over such unless our ability to do so is deemed unfit.

3. We demand to be exposed to whatever we wish and express our opinions freely.

a. We demand to be able to withhold information for the safety of others.​
The change in wording reflects what it is really all about--allow me these rights or else I will do the best I can to make you sorry.
 

Zionoxis

Active Member
Local time
Today 12:17 AM
Joined
Jan 30, 2011
Messages
437
---
Location
USA
a. We demand to be responsible for the lives of others whose rights are in jeopardy.

As rights are defined by the individual, I would personally have to rid myself of this specific right. It should not be forced to be responsible for someone whose life is in jeopardy when there may be someone either more qualified, or the one facing trouble may not even want help.

"You must let me help you, it is my right!"

"I am committing suicide, leave me alone!"
 

Cheeseumpuffs

Proudly A Sheeple Since 2015
Local time
Yesterday 9:17 PM
Joined
Jun 27, 2011
Messages
2,238
---
Location
Earth Dimension C-137
I have to agree with most everyone here. "Deserve" is a strong word. Rights are awarded to people for who they are, not on a broad scale.

To quote OP:
1. We are entitled to equal treatment as long as we do not infringe on another’s rights.

a. We deserve to be responsible for the lives of others whose rights are in jeopardy.

2. We are entitled to live safely and to be our own person with our own possessions.

a. We deserve to be responsible over such unless our ability to do so is deemed unfit.

3. We are entitled to be exposed to whatever we wish and express our opinions freely.

a. We deserve to be able to withhold information for the safety of others.

1. Equality is dead, but I understand the general outline. I mess with you, I deserve to be messed with.
A. Not totally sure where you tried to take this but I personally wouldn't want to be responsible for protecting another's rights.

2. I get. Life, Liberty, Property. Locke's big three.
A. I see where you're going "if you cant keep it you dont deserve it." Still....

3 and A. eeehhhhh sure.

HOWEVER:

I am alive and I can think. Therefore I am entitled to continue living and thinking. But other animals live and think too so aren't they entitled as well?

But to continue living I have to eat. Eating would mean the killing of either a plant or animal and would be a violation of their rights as living beings. Which, when applied to your right #1, means that in exercising my right to survival as granted to me by my ability to do so, I am giving up my rights by infringing on others rights.

My final point being: Morality (because that's essentially what we're talking about) is a gray area that will always be different depending on who you ask for it. Nothing is deserved, equality is dead. the only thing that makes people think they deserve something is that they have risen above being primitive. But have we really? We still kill, we still eat. How are we so different from wild animals who "earn" the "right" to survive by destroying something(one) else's "rights"?
 

jamesreed292

Redshirt
Local time
Today 12:17 AM
Joined
Jul 21, 2011
Messages
22
---
I'll give a basic diagram for us to start with. I have a feeling 3a might be argued heavily:


1. We are entitled to equal treatment as long as we do not infringe on another’s rights.

a. We deserve to be responsible for the lives of others whose rights are in jeopardy.

2. We are entitled to live safely and to be our own person with our own possessions.

a. We deserve to be responsible over such unless our ability to do so is deemed unfit.

3. We are entitled to be exposed to whatever we wish and express our opinions freely.

a. We deserve to be able to withhold information for the safety of others.

********************

1. What if the rights you are infringing upon are unjust?

a. same question above ^

2. We entitled to live, "safely" is responsibility of the person in question. Born into chaos cannot be helped but accepting your surroundings is a question of free will.

a. Responsibility over yourself is all that is necessary. If every person was responsible in their actions and will to take numerous counts of constructive criticism then responsibility would not exist.

3. sounds good to me

a. withholding information for "safety"... Who's safety exactly? Your safety? Because my idea of safety revolves around the fact of knowing ALL the information before I make a decision. Faith in people ftw
 

Artsu Tharaz

The Lamb
Local time
Today 4:17 PM
Joined
Dec 12, 2010
Messages
3,134
---
What do you mean by 'deserve'?

Do you mean 'what rights should we enforce so as to allow for the best possible society'?
 

Jah

Mu.
Local time
Today 6:17 AM
Joined
Jan 15, 2010
Messages
896
---
Location
Oslo, Norway.
Deserve as in because "we are children of X." ?


(where X be your deity of choice.)
 

Jesse

Internet resident
Local time
Today 4:17 PM
Joined
Oct 4, 2010
Messages
802
---
Location
Melbourne
None. If there was just one human on an island there would be no rights.
Add in another and suddenly there are rights given to each other.
Extending that in a society there are a few more added.

That is just how I see it.
 

GYX_Kid

randomly floating abyss built of bricks
Local time
Today 5:17 AM
Joined
Dec 19, 2010
Messages
943
---
we have the right to assume we have any
 

BigApplePi

Banned
Local time
Today 12:17 AM
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
8,984
---
Location
New York City (The Big Apple) & State
I suppose there are two kinds of rights. Those granted by God and those by man. God grants us life but there is no guarantee as to length or well-being. Anything can happen. If you obey the Ten Commandments you get special treatment. If you don't you get punished. Consult with Job to get further details.

Rights granted by man to man go under a contract: written, oral or traditional. If your right is not honored you may gripe or even sue. But not to be too naive about this. If you are too ignorant as to how serious a right granted to you is, you will suffer the consequences. As a last resort you can run to your mama and hope.
 

H +

Redshirt
Local time
Today 5:17 AM
Joined
Jul 23, 2011
Messages
20
---
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

There is no god but Man.

Man has the right to live by his own law.
Man has the right to live in the way that he wills to do.
Man has the right to dress as he wills to do.
Man has the right to dwell where he wills to dwell.
Man has the right to move as he will on the face of the earth.
Man has the right to eat what he will.
Man has the right to drink what he will.
Man has the right to think as he will.
Man has the right to speak as he will.
Man has the right to write as he will.
Man has the right to mould as he will.
Man has the right to paint as he will.
Man has the right to carve as he will.
Man has the right to work as he will.
Man has the right to rest as he will.
Man has the right to love as he will, when, where, and whom he will.
Man has the right to die when and how he will.
Man has the right to kill those who would thwart these rights.

.
 

RobertJ

Active Member
Local time
Today 12:17 AM
Joined
Mar 23, 2009
Messages
227
---
^ Thanks for this contribution, H +.
 

Zionoxis

Active Member
Local time
Today 12:17 AM
Joined
Jan 30, 2011
Messages
437
---
Location
USA

scorpiomover

The little professor
Local time
Today 5:17 AM
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
3,384
---
To be human?

Apart from that, what else is there?

I mean, it's not like lions refuse to kill other lions, because there is some sort of moral code that all species must abide by, is there?
 

dark

Bring this savage back home.
Local time
Today 12:17 AM
Joined
Sep 19, 2010
Messages
901
---
What makes a human a human qua human?
 

dark

Bring this savage back home.
Local time
Today 12:17 AM
Joined
Sep 19, 2010
Messages
901
---
Apes.
 
Top Bottom