Basic Human Rights

[henry quirk]

Do you really care what I have to say?

I wouldn't ask if I weren't.

Hmm... that's unusual. Well, I think the best way to respond is to give a general description of where I think we're similar and where I think we differ (rather than responding point by point to your post).

I can see the value of what you say because I, too, am a very independent person, and I do not expect anyone to give me handouts or come and save me. I've made my own way while navigating and using the systems that support my journey (having a house, developing land, paying for public infrastructure that I use, etc.). I do not have healthcare because I'm an independent consultant in technology and it's too ridiculously expensive for me to pay for it individually when I may only use it occasionally. I do not expect the system to provide it for me because I do not take things for granted. But it would be nice to have it in exchange for what I already contribute in other ways.

I also don't like being told what to do or being controlled, so I don't like a lot of laws that do just that. I don't like being forced to wear seatbelts or helmets... but I appreciate safety regulations for food and water, and police protection when needed.

When ideas and controls become too extreme, I think they lose value -- and we humans tend to do that a lot.

Although I feel responsible for my life, I do not think I own anything. I'm genuinely focused more on what I can do, rather than on who I am or what I own. Everything could fall away, and I would deal with the new environment as best as I could. I feel gratitude for what I can experience in the moment... wherever.

I also see that a lot of very good people have taken different paths than mine, and I want them to have good experiences too. It is a tricky balance to create one's own experience, while others may have different needs and views that impact that experience.

I'm more inclined to think about sharing love and joy than think about pointing a gun at someone. And I think that what we think about is what creates our experience.

Hopefully I've expressed that well enough. I'm distracted with some other things going on...

Yeah, we do have some things in common, and thank you for the post.

The followin' stands out for me...

I do not think I own anything

Not even yourself? You don't belong to yourself?

[Lacewing]

The followin' stands out for me...

I do not think I own anything

Not even yourself? You don't belong to yourself?

I feel responsibility for myself... and what I create of myself. But I also feel part of a larger system, and as a product of that system. I don't give myself away, but I share. I'm not sure I "belong" to anything, really... I'm just a part. And I'm not sure what this "myself" actually is. I'm just experiencing through it.

[RCSaunders]

Although I feel responsible for my life, I do not think I own anything.

The followin' stands out for me...

It stood out for me too. I'd like to ask Lacewing:

When you receive your pay check, don't you consider it yours to use as you choose--to save it, or spend it, or give it away? That's all most people mean by, "own." If you don't really own your pay check, if it's not exclusively yours, how do you decide what to do with it?

I could ask that same question about anything you buy with your pay--your food, books, or your computer, for example. Don't you consider them exclusively yours to use and dispose of as you choose. If you do, that's what most people mean by, "owning," something--something that is theirs to use and dispose of as they choose and that no one else has a claim to. Perhaps you are making too much of the word, "own." Is that possible?

[Lacewing]

Although I feel responsible for my life, I do not think I own anything.

The followin' stands out for me...

It stood out for me too. I'd like to ask Lacewing:

When you receive your pay check, don't you consider it yours to use as you choose--to save it, or spend it, or give it away? That's all most people mean by, "own." If you don't really own your pay check, if it's not exclusively yours, how do you decide what to do with it?

Well, somewhat. I have to use it towards things I would rather not (such as excessive property taxes or other absurd fees). So it's kind of like a game of shuffling money around.

I could ask that same question about anything you buy with your pay--your food, books, or your computer, for example. Don't you consider them exclusively yours to use and dispose of as you choose. If you do, that's what most people mean by, "owning," something--something that is theirs to use and dispose of as they choose and that no one else has a claim to.

Sure, to a certain degree. But anytime someone seems to suggest owning something independently and outright from all else, that seems to reject being part of a larger system. We are influenced by, and must pay out to, a lot. Maybe we are not who/what we might think we are?

Perhaps you are making too much of the word, "own." Is that possible?

Maybe? Or maybe people might think ownership is more than it actually is?

[RCSaunders]

The followin' stands out for me...

I do not think I own anything

Not even yourself? You don't belong to yourself?

I feel responsibility for myself... and what I create of myself. But I also feel part of a larger system, and as a product of that system. I don't give myself away, but I share. I'm not sure I "belong" to anything, really... I'm just a part. And I'm not sure what this "myself" actually is. I'm just experiencing through it.

Perhaps I can help. I'm quite serious. There is nothing facetious about what I am about to say.

Go stand in front of a mirror. The person you see is, "you." That person is conscious and that consciousness is exclusive to the individual person you are looking at in the mirror. No one else can perceive or know your consciousness in any way (just as you cannot know anyone else's consciousness). The person you see in the mirror together with it's exclusive consciousness is yourself. It is that, "yourself," you are responsible for, both for sustaining that individual's life and for all that individual consciously chooses to do; because that individual is you. That is your identity.

I'll only add, you are not a part of anything you do not choose to be a part of. You are free to be part of anything you like, of course, but understand, if you choose to be a member of some system or society or ideology that requires you to surrender your own choices to someone else, you have sacrificed some part of your own identity. Enjoy others, love and help them, because its your choice, otherwise its neither love or help, but a chore performed from a grudging sense of duty and obligation.

Does that make sense to you?

[Immanuel Can]

Are we not much more likely to have a right to death than a right to life? Once born the only guarantee is that we will die.

Well, then we don't need a "right" for it, do we?

As Hebrews 9:27 "...it is destined for people to die once, and after this comes judgment." No rights claim needed. People are going to get both, no matter what any other human being does.

[Lacewing]

Go stand in front of a mirror. The person you see is, "you."

So it was unnecessary and belittling for you to start with that. But it sets the tone for where your head is at.

That person is conscious and that consciousness is exclusive to the individual person you are looking at in the mirror. No one else can perceive or know your consciousness in any way (just as you cannot know anyone else's consciousness). The person you see in the mirror together with it's exclusive consciousness is yourself. It is that, "yourself," you are responsible for, both for sustaining that individual's life and for all that individual consciously chooses to do; because that individual is you. That is your identity.

I'm not limited to ideas of an identity. I can play with it, but I am not ruled by it. Can you understand that?

I'll only add, you are not a part of anything you do not choose to be a part of. You are free to be part of anything you like, of course, but understand, if you choose to be a member of some system or society or ideology that requires you to surrender your own choices to someone else, you have sacrificed some part of your own identity.

So, what about children who are born into brainwashed systems?

I think we have much more potential than the identities we perceive. We often endeavor to preserve them at all costs -- so convinced are we, and even addicted -- but what are they really? A story and a costume on a stage. Many people never experience anything else: they say "this is who I am". That's a story. I will suggest that humans typically know very little about themselves, really -- they know stories they've been told, or that they've decided on for themselves. Perhaps we can say that humans know as much about themselves as they know about gods. Claims of knowing are not really knowing anything beyond stories.

Enjoy others, love and help them, because its your choice, otherwise its neither love or help, but a chore performed from a grudging sense of duty and obligation.

I agree.

Does that make sense to you?

Yes. Does what I said make sense to you?

[henry quirk]

The followin' stands out for me...

I do not think I own anything

Not even yourself? You don't belong to yourself?

I feel responsibility for myself... and what I create of myself. But I also feel part of a larger system, and as a product of that system. I don't give myself away, but I share. I'm not sure I "belong" to anything, really... I'm just a part. And I'm not sure what this "myself" actually is. I'm just experiencing through it.

I find stark questions helpful, here's a couple...

If you were raped, it would be wrong, yes?

Why?

If someone came to you, declared you his property, this would be wrong, yes?

Why?

[Sculptor]

There is no such thing as rights!

This is like saying there is no such thing as laws, customs, rites, norms.
You might as well go further and say there is no such thing as ideas.
Not much of a starter on a philosophy website

[Immanuel Can]

There is no such thing as rights!

This is like saying there is no such thing as laws, customs, rites, norms.
You might as well go further and say there is no such thing as ideas.
Not much of a starter on a philosophy website

I think what RC is saying is that like "laws, customs, rites and norms," rights are just things made up by particular societies. Consequently, they are just as changeable, ignorable and eliminable as the former. I don't think he's claiming they don't exist as fictions...just that they are fictions.

At least, that's what he seems to be saying.

[gaffo]

Okay, but if that's right, then the next question is going to be, "Well, then where do rights come from?" Because we're ruling out human institutions as a basis of rights...so if we have them, they have to come some other way.

What do you think that way is?

DNA via evolution of man as a social animal. as i said in my prior posts above Sir.

"Evolution" is an utterly impersonal process,

correct its a machine.

and has no opinions about "rights."

correct again.

It's premised on "survival of the fittest," not "rights." So that answer just doesn't float the boat, I'm afraid.

clearly you have no uderstanding of evolution - you tthink "survival of the fittistist" as some evil.


not me - i view it as Truth - not good or bad in the overal but always good per the animals that surviv.


does the rat mom that refuseds to suckle her young having suriving kids? - no. does the mom rat that does suckle have kids that survive? - ys. so the latter has the DNA for suckle, and urvives via evolution.


its that simple bubba.

so ya one can be a product of evolution and be a moral animal due to survival via genes that promote mothererhood-bortherhood - love for mankind - etc..........


smarten up sir. remove your porgraming and think!

[Immanuel Can]

DNA via evolution of man as a social animal. as i said in my prior posts above Sir.

"Evolution" is an utterly impersonal process,

correct its a machine.

and has no opinions about "rights."

correct again.

It's premised on "survival of the fittest," not "rights." So that answer just doesn't float the boat, I'm afraid.

clearly you have no uderstanding of evolution - you tthink "survival of the fittistist" as some evil.

Heh. It's not how human beings came to be what they are, of course. But that's not the concern.

It's simply a morally abhorrent principle, when applied to other human beings. And most people would agree it is, even those who imagine Darwin explains human origins. And for you, it means when you get old or weak, you die, and nobody ought to help you, or even care. In fact, they ought to be glad: another of the "weak and sick" has been eliminated, and the race "progresses." Yay.

But I would add that God indicts it as morally reprehensible as well, so I'm feeling in good company on that one.

But more importantly at the moment, "survival of the fittest" does not presuppose there are any grounds for any rights at all. Not a one.

[gaffo]

"Evolution" is an utterly impersonal process,

correct its a machine.

and has no opinions about "rights."

correct again.

It's premised on "survival of the fittest," not "rights." So that answer just doesn't float the boat, I'm afraid.

clearly you have no uderstanding of evolution - you tthink "survival of the fittistist" as some evil.

Heh. It's not how human beings came to be what they are, of course. But that's not the concern.

It's simply a morally abhorrent principle, when applied to other human beings. And most people would agree it is, even those who imagine Darwin explains human origins. And for you, it means when you get old or weak, you die, and nobody ought to help you, or even care. In fact, they ought to be glad: another of the "weak and sick" has been eliminated, and the race "progresses." Yay.

But I would add that God indicts it as morally reprehensible as well, so I'm feeling in good company on that one.

But more importantly at the moment, "survival of the fittest" does not presuppose there are any grounds for any rights at all. Not a one.

non-secuiter above - only shows you do not understand evolution - you place a morality on it - i don't but belive its prodcts are moral.

BTW young folks help the old - esp theri pareents - we are the same age so i assume if either or both of your parents are alive you help thme - in their 80's now - ys? you help them because you are a christian only - not because you just happen to be born a good man - a social animal via evolution?


----so lets gt to it (BTW you are fast in your reply!) - lts talk about evolution - your view (which is wrong BTW) and my virew of it - which of coure is the corrrect view


BTW my drunk best friend is getting batter after his girlfriend left him 3 months ago - seems to be coming to terms with it. still drinking but les suicidal....so i still have little hope, but he is moving in the right direction.

[Lacewing]

The followin' stands out for me...

I do not think I own anything

Not even yourself? You don't belong to yourself?

I feel responsibility for myself... and what I create of myself. But I also feel part of a larger system, and as a product of that system. I don't give myself away, but I share. I'm not sure I "belong" to anything, really... I'm just a part. And I'm not sure what this "myself" actually is. I'm just experiencing through it.

I find stark questions helpful, here's a couple...

If you were raped, it would be wrong, yes?

Why?

If someone came to you, declared you his property, this would be wrong, yes?

Why?

Henry... I answered your question, and I don't see how this questioning changes anything. Could you please show the courtesy of responding to my comments directly instead of firing more questions at me? Is there something I said above that you don't agree with? Yes, I think it's wrong to rape anything... even an animal. And yes, if someone claimed that I was his property, he would be stupid and wrong. How does that equate with whether or not I own myself (as you say)? Does a tiger own itself? Or is it simply wrong to abuse or claim to own other living things?

[Immanuel Can]

only shows you do not understand evolution - you place a morality on it - i don't but belive its prodcts are moral.

No, I understand it. I don't believe it. That's quite different.

But it's also not particularly relevant, since I am not saying that evolution is moral. I'm saying it's totally amoral, and that applying it to other human beings (through a "survival of the fittest" ethic) is Immoral. And on that, most people, even evolutionists, (except Social Darwinists) tend to agree with me. And God certainly does, as He declares in the Bible. So I think you're vastly outvoted.

BTW my drunk best friend is getting batter after his girlfriend left him 3 months ago - seems to be coming to terms with it. still drinking but les suicidal....so i still have little hope, but he is moving in the right direction.

I'm glad to hear that. The drinking's going to seem to him like it's a "solution," but it's just making the problem worse. But when somebody's drinking, it's not to experience life, but to escape it. And that, too, is a form of suicide...just a slow, ineffective one.

Your friend needs a program. He won't get well by himself. That's not how addition works...but I guess I don't have to tell you that.