Basic Human Rights

[Immanuel Can]

I don't know why alcohol...etc.

Well, thanks. That's an honest answer.

I was just curious.

[gaffo]

I don't know why alcohol...etc.

Well, thanks. That's an honest answer.

I was just curious.

quite welcome Sir.

[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

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.

Or maybe you are being too generous.
Whatever he might mean, its a hopeless gambit on a thread discussing rights.

[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

Of course the words laws, customs, rites, norms are used. So are God, creation, emergence, and realism (in the Platonic sense).

In the case of "rights," my point is that everything the word is supposed to identify does not exist, and is, at best, nothing but wishful thinking.

I answered the question for commensense here.

I don't expect anyone to agree with it. Too many people have a vested interest (or at least a psychological need) in believing they have a, "right," to what they have not earned or produced by their own effort believing the world, society, the government, or God owes it to them, just because they were born.

I agree that to a point.
Another person claimed there was such a thing as "natural rights", to which I repsonded in much the same way. However saying they do not exist - you have only one recourse - that is leave the thread.
Rights do exist like all customs laws norms and rights, and they are back up every bit as much as customs laws and norms. None of those things have necessary and indelible physical components and die with the persons thinking them.

A right is a claim, a gambit to establish a justification to act in a certian way, which others customarily agree with.
My reservation is that the UDHR of the UN is all very well - but useless without support and sanctions.

[Immanuel Can]

A right is a claim, a gambit to establish a justification to act in a certian way, which others customarily agree with.
My reservation is that the UDHR of the UN is all very well - but useless without support and sanctions.

That would mean that a "rights" claim is just an illusion. It would mean that the truth is that those who have power can force what they want to come about, and those that lack the power cannot...and there's no moral appeal to any higher standard than that of raw power.

In which case, why talk about "rights" at all? Because then, nobody has reason to believe in any. Who is powerful and who is not, in a given situation, is a mere fact, not a moral value then.

[commonsense]

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

Of course the words laws, customs, rites, norms are used. So are God, creation, emergence, and realism (in the Platonic sense).

In the case of "rights," my point is that everything the word is supposed to identify does not exist, and is, at best, nothing but wishful thinking.

I answered the question for commensense here.

I don't expect anyone to agree with it. Too many people have a vested interest (or at least a psychological need) in believing they have a, "right," to what they have not earned or produced by their own effort believing the world, society, the government, or God owes it to them, just because they were born.

As you know, RC, I agree that what we call “rights” does not reference anything other than wishful thinking. I did not believe so, until I fully understood what you were saying.

The catchphrase, “There are no rights” seems to succinctly capture the idea that “rights” references nothing and that that which we call rights does not exist.

Therefore I don’t think we have a right to life. Once we are born, the only thing that is certain is that we will die. In fact, from the moment we are conceived, the only event that occurs with certainty is death, and that whether we are born or not.

Life and death are biologic facts. No rights are needed to guarantee these occurrences, neither God-given nor otherwise.

All the rest is just wishful ought-to-be’s.

[Lacewing]

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.

Okay, trying again. I can agree and understand with what you’ve said here, while I think there’s more to consider as well...

Point #1: Lots of humans may not be able to recognize what other options there are because they get programmed or locked into certain beliefs and limited-thinking, and they fear or don't see anything beyond that. Babies were the easiest example of having no choice, but intoxicated adults may not recognize choice, as well.

We can try to hold some severely intoxicated Christians responsible for themselves (I certainly try to), but what I’ve seen on this forum suggests an absolute blindness to only that which supports their identity which is fiercely tied to their ego. Any other beneficial or broader options/viewpoints are unfathomable to them. They pretty much reject the whole of creation. Their identity is completely who/what they are. This is an example of why I think identity can be very blinding.

Point #2: I do not think about identity the way you do. To me it appears that identity can be a limiting idea that we humans can do just about anything to preserve. I prefer to recognize being part of a larger whole, of nature... and flowing with those broader rhythms/synchronicities which have been more powerful and perfect in manifestation than my cleverness could do alone. I do not understand it... but I continually experience it. There is freedom and potential beyond identity (other than the simple cloak we use to function in the world). And maybe that’s why I can think and play as freely as I do.

If life is a stage for humans... and some don’t know they’re on a stage, and some know they are... who is likely to have more fun, I wonder?

[RCSaunders]

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.

That's right.

Whatever he might mean, its a hopeless gambit on a thread discussing rights.

You don't have to like it, but a thread discussing an absurd fiction as though it were a reality on a philosophy site is exactly the appropriate place to make that observation.

[Lacewing]

So you are wanting a yes or a no answer to your question, correct?.

Yeah, I did, but It seems we have little common ground.

Agreed.

It's interesting what we do agree on, despite that. Which demonstrates, maybe, that no single or particular path is necessary for such things.

[RCSaunders]

In which case, why talk about "rights" at all? Because then, nobody has reason to believe in any. Who is powerful and who is not, in a given situation, is a mere fact, not a moral value then.

But isn't that what you believe? In your view, isn't what is morally right or wrong determined entirely on the basis of what you believe the most powerful being in the universe dictates?

[Sculptor]

A right is a claim, a gambit to establish a justification to act in a certian way, which others customarily agree with.
My reservation is that the UDHR of the UN is all very well - but useless without support and sanctions.

That would mean that a "rights" claim is just an illusion.

No. It would mean that it was an empty appeal without support.
Like a man having the right to give birth to a baby; or a Martian having the right to oxygen and water.

It would mean that the truth is that those who have power can force what they want to come about, and those that lack the power cannot...and there's no moral appeal to any higher standard than that of raw power.

But that, in fact, is exactly the state of affairs.

In which case, why talk about "rights" at all? Because then, nobody has reason to believe in any. Who is powerful and who is not, in a given situation, is a mere fact, not a moral value then.

Why talk about rights? Because those without them can themselves be empowered to challenge the authorities responsible for withholding rights.
Take a look at the world.
The people of Myannmar think they have rights, and because of that they feel empowered to challenge the state. But I do not see the UN or any other government bodies throughout the world queing up to guarentee their rights.

[Lacewing]

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.

That's right.

I agree. Humans are making up all sorts of things... and then forgetting (maybe), and thinking it existed before (or independently of) themselves.

It's not that making-up stuff is bad -- it's just that we have more options when we realize we're making it up, and that it's not cast in stone.

[Sculptor]

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.

That's right.

Whatever he might mean, its a hopeless gambit on a thread discussing rights.

You don't have to like it, but a thread discussing an absurd fiction as though it were a reality on a philosophy site is exactly the appropriate place to make that observation.

This absurd fiction has led to you getting the vote. It has led to tens of thousands of people in Mynnanmar marching against the state, Eventually they will win I hope.

[Sculptor]

Rights are like currencies
They only work when people have faith in them.

[Immanuel Can]

In which case, why talk about "rights" at all? Because then, nobody has reason to believe in any. Who is powerful and who is not, in a given situation, is a mere fact, not a moral value then.

But isn't that what you believe?

Of course not.

In your view, isn't what is morally right or wrong determined entirely on the basis of what you believe the most powerful being in the universe dictates?

No, not at all.

I understand the question, and I don't make you wrong for asking it. Because one very common mistake people make about Christians is that they are just "following commands." And then, given that, the obvious thought is that it must be a fear response to power. It really doesn't help this confusion that there actually ARE religions, and not a few, who think that that is precisely how things are. So it's natural -- but unfortunately misleading -- to generalize from those other religions to Christianity, in that respect. We're not doing that.

But it is a natural mistake, because it's how most of the world does things...either by obeying or defying rules. But it's quite different from the Christian view of things, actually.

In the Christian view, what everybody else thinks are "commands" are rather "signposts to instruct us as to the nature of God Himself." And while it is true that we do better morally and personally when we follow certain rules, that's far from enough. Christianity aims at a transformation, a reclamation of our original humanity, by restoration to our original design as "image[rs] of God." (Genesis 1:27) Human beings are supposed to comport themselves in a way that is a constant reminder of the goodness, kindness, mercy, truth and righteousness of God. That's the aim and the ideal toward which Christian life is directed...not the conforming to particular commands.

That is, we act Christianly when we reflect the true character and nature of God. It's what all human beings were designed to do, intended to do, and are blessed for doing. That's a holistic goal; it can never be reduced to merely "obeying commands," far less to following "dictates." That would be to miss the point entirely. That's why, in fact, the Bible says, "By the deeds of the Law, no one will be justified in [God's] sight." (Galatians 2:16)

So much for "dictates" and "commands."

This means that the reason human beings were designed in the first place was to be reflectors of the Divine goodness -- to act as "imagers" of God. When we do our job rightly, we're not only happier and healthier than when we don't, and not only does the world go better, but we are actually achieving our telos, the very purpose and goal for which God Himself designed and blessed us. When we defy that, and go our own way, we create pain, misery, disorder and death, in addition to abandoning everything we were designed to be.

To sum up, in my view, God IS good. His very nature is good, and He calls us to be good, as He is. As He says, "You shall be holy, for I am holy." (1 Peter 1:16).

"Right," then, means "consonant with the character and designs of a good God." "Wrong" means "incompatible with who God is." And correspondingly, "wrong" means "self-destructive" and "diminishing" for humans, and "right" means "harmonious with the greatness God has designed us to have."