Philosophy Now Forum

there is no such thing as, "rights."

Not in the conventional sense of the word (as in some freefloatin' thing they can grab a'hold to and use).

What folks really mean when they say I have a right to X is I have a legitimate claim to X.

Looked at this way, when I say I have a right to my life, liberty, and property what I'm sayin' is I have a legitimate claim to my life, liberty, and property which I believe is a legit claim.

Me: I just find it cleaner, less ambiguous, to say I belong to me, my life, liberty, and property are mine, and avoid rights altogether ('cept when I get lazy, sloppy, or stupid).

And: how goes it, guy?

Long time, no see.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Thu Apr 15, 2021 6:01 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Apr 15, 2021 5:29 pm Are you advocating that there should be no such thing as rights?

Yes! There is no such thing as, "rights." It's a made-up concept which no one questions because it's what they've always been taught. Five minutes thought will convince any honest person that the idea of rights has no foundation whatsoever. Why should anyone believe something belongs to them just because they exist--even one's life must be constantly maintained by their own effort. You don't just have it.

Well, those are certainly good points. I suppose it's kind of a scary concept for many of us, though, not having rights. It seems like that could be an open invitation for the strongest to just abuse the weakest or even get together and form an alliance against the weakest. Or if a society had a successful dictator then it sounds like, without rights, there might not be a foundation for people to judge dictatorship wrong. Wouldn't it kind of lead to a "wild west" mentality where the one(s) with the biggest gun wins?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Apr 15, 2021 6:16 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Thu Apr 15, 2021 6:01 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Apr 15, 2021 5:29 pm Are you advocating that there should be no such thing as rights?

Yes! There is no such thing as, "rights." It's a made-up concept which no one questions because it's what they've always been taught. Five minutes thought will convince any honest person that the idea of rights has no foundation whatsoever. Why should anyone believe something belongs to them just because they exist--even one's life must be constantly maintained by their own effort. You don't just have it.

Well, those are certainly good points. I suppose it's kind of a scary concept for many of us, though, not having rights. It seems like that could be an open invitation for the strongest to just abuse the weakest or even get together and form an alliance against the weakest. Or if a society had a successful dictator then it sounds like, without rights, there might not be a foundation for people to judge dictatorship wrong. Wouldn't it kind of lead to a "wild west" mentality where the one(s) with the biggest gun wins?

So it sounds like “rights” are statutes and laws, which can be broken.

commonsense wrote: ↑Thu Apr 15, 2021 6:42 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Apr 15, 2021 6:16 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Thu Apr 15, 2021 6:01 pm
Yes! There is no such thing as, "rights." It's a made-up concept which no one questions because it's what they've always been taught. Five minutes thought will convince any honest person that the idea of rights has no foundation whatsoever. Why should anyone believe something belongs to them just because they exist--even one's life must be constantly maintained by their own effort. You don't just have it.

Well, those are certainly good points. I suppose it's kind of a scary concept for many of us, though, not having rights. It seems like that could be an open invitation for the strongest to just abuse the weakest or even get together and form an alliance against the weakest. Or if a society had a successful dictator then it sounds like, without rights, there might not be a foundation for people to judge dictatorship wrong. Wouldn't it kind of lead to a "wild west" mentality where the one(s) with the biggest gun wins?

So it sounds like “rights” are statutes and laws, which can be broken.

I would say that rights can certainly be defied or transgressed. I don't know if a "right" is the same as a "statute" or "law," though. I think a right is generally more fundamental than a law. A right would supersede law if a law were made such that it encroached on a right. Sort of like our laws today can be challenged if they are perceived to violate our "Bill of Rights."

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Thu Apr 15, 2021 5:06 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 15, 2021 1:35 am "Rights" are not "wishes." They are properties one inherently possesses, and which cannot be legitimately taken away ...

If one already has rights, "inherently possessed," why would laws be required to ensure we have.

Laws aren't required for us to have the rights. Laws are simply our legal recognition of the intrinsic rights human beings have by virtue of being created by God. Laws are human inventions: they are required for practical purposes, to make sure that nobody is permitted to infringe on the rights we already have, because people do that kind of thing if there are no penalties in place.

But laws cannot confer rights: they can only recognize them, or fail to do so.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Apr 15, 2021 6:11 pm Looked at this way, when I say I have a right to my life, liberty, and property what I'm sayin' is I have a legitimate claim to my life, liberty, and property which I believe is a legit claim.

If all you mean by a, "right," is, "a legitimate claim," to sustain your own life and produce wealth, both by your own effort, and to protect yourself and your property from any threats, that is true. But why would you need the word, "rights," at all for that. It's not what anyone else means.

To everyone else, a, "right to life," means they have a claim on life no matter what they do and if they do not sustain their own life, it's up to someone else, (society, the government, mankind) to sustain it for them. To most people, including you, a right to property means a claim on keeping your property without threat, and if you don't protect your own property from any threat it's up to someone else, (society, the government, or mankind) to protect it.

Those are not legitimate claims. And there is no legitimate claim on liberty (or freedom) either. If you choose to be free you must make yourself free. Freedom is not a social condition, it is the state of an individual who has learned and made the effort to live their life as they choose.

There is no such thing as a right!

Thanks for asking, you old curmudgeon. Hope you're doing well!

But why would you need the word, "rights," at all for that. It's not what anyone else means.

As I say: Me: I just find it cleaner, less ambiguous, to say I belong to me, my life, liberty, and property are mine, and avoid rights altogether ('cept when I get lazy, sloppy, or stupid).


Hope you're doing well!

I'm good.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 15, 2021 7:20 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Thu Apr 15, 2021 5:06 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 15, 2021 1:35 am "Rights" are not "wishes." They are properties one inherently possesses, and which cannot be legitimately taken away ...

If one already has rights, "inherently possessed," why would laws be required to ensure we have.

Laws aren't required for us to have the rights. Laws are simply our legal recognition of the intrinsic rights human beings have by virtue of being created by God. Laws are human inventions: they are required for practical purposes, to make sure that nobody is permitted to infringe on the rights we already have, because people do that kind of thing if there are no penalties in place.

But laws cannot confer rights: they can only recognize them, or fail to do so.

If rights are real, how can they be infringed? No matter how you turn it, a right only means, "the way one would like things to be." Since no one actually has these mythical rights, men invent governments to make the world the way they think they would like it to be--a world with, "rights."

When the light turns green, you have a right to proceed, according to the law. Just ignore the car racing toward you that obviously has no intention of stopping, and exercise your right. No one would be so foolish, you think? But everyone who pursues life thinking they have rights is doing the same thing.

There is no such thing as rights!

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 12:55 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Apr 15, 2021 7:20 pm But laws cannot confer rights: they can only recognize them, or fail to do so.

If rights are real, how can they be infringed?

Very easily.

Human beings have free will. Free will means not only that he can do the right thing, but that he can choose to do the wrong one. And his choices affect the real world, and affect other people as well. The sad thing about humans is that they don't always do the right thing, nor do they always accord each other the rights God gave them. That's just further evidence that mankind is out of step with God.

To violate willfully somebody's rights is to declare oneself an enemy of the God who made him and endowed him with those rights. It's an act of rebellion against the true moral order of things. God gave a man life, liberty and the right to behave as a steward of property entrusted to his care; and God holds every man individually responsible on the Day of Judgment for what he has done with those rights. Consequently, a person who denies those basic rights to his fellow man or woman is rebelling against God.

Locke understood this. He was very explicit. You should maybe take a look at what he says about it. His essay on toleration would be a good place to start.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 2:37 am ... the God who made him and endowed him with those rights. ... God gave a man life, liberty and the right to behave as a steward of property entrusted to his care ...

"He," did? Well I have never found that passage in the Bible. In fact, the word, "rights," does not appear anywhere in the Bible. Wouldn't you think, if rights were real and were so important they'd get mentioned at least once?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 2:37 am "Locke understood this. He was very explicit. You should maybe take a look at what he says about it. His essay on toleration would be a good place to start."

Well, I've read all of Locke. I did not agree with him the first time I read him, or any of the times I've read him since. I don't think one more time will convince me.

Perhaps you should read the Bible and see if you can find the word, "rights," mentioned.

[Please do not quote one of the, "new translations," that corrupt the original, like changing, "the manner of," to, "rights?" The concept of, "natural rights," which eventually evolved into, "human rights," did not exist as a political or social concept before the 17th century.]

Perhaps you should read some history. (Just poking fun.)

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 4:53 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 2:37 am ... the God who made him and endowed him with those rights. ... God gave a man life, liberty and the right to behave as a steward of property entrusted to his care ...

"He," did? Well I have never found that passage in the Bible.

Try the first chapter of Genesis (1:26-31). God gave mankind life, volition and stewardship.

So what do you think if one of His creatures decides to deprive another person of that life, that liberty or of accountability for his stewardship? Against Whom is his real offence, then?

Locke was not in doubt. Here is what he said:

“The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions: for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent, and infinitely wise maker; all the servants of one sovereign master, sent into the world by his order, and about his business; they are his property, whose workmanship they are, made to last during his, not one another’s pleasure: and being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us, that may authorize us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another’s uses, as the inferior ranks of creatures are for ours.”

In fact, the word, "rights," does not appear anywhere in the Bible.

Well, of course the word "right" does, and frequently, too: 949 times, in fact. But it's not the usage of "right" in the context we mean, of course. What you mean is that the term or concept "human rights" does not occur. And that's true.

In fact, "human rights" is just a term we use to summarize a deduction we get from the facts laid out in the Bible. But if you want to drop that term, it will not change the fact that the deduction is valid, obviously. And we can substitute any other label we like: let's call them "things God gives to all men," then.

Fine?

Wouldn't you think, if rights were real and were so important they'd get mentioned at least once?

No, not at all, necessarily. They could, but it doesn't have to be so.

There are other terms we have also coined to describe deductions we get from the Bible, or from other documents, or even from scientific facts. The word "gravity" does not appear in nature...or, for that matter, in the Bible. However, I think we both see the deduction, and the human coinage, as necessary and reasonable, in that case. So human beings are quite free to coin new words to describe concepts they discover from deductions.

The basic question is only this: did the fact that God created mankind in the first place, gave him life, gave him independent volition and a charge of stewardship in the world -- for which God holds mankind personally responsible at the Judgment (or, as Locke called it "The Great Day,") imply that mankind has any rights? Is it correct, then, to say that mankind was "endowed by his Creator" with "unalienable rights," which include "life, liberty and property"?

If it does imply that, then even if you insist there's no God, then you'd have to concede that people who DO believe in God are being consistent and rational to maintain their belief in human rights also. And if you believe there's no God, then a Theist will have to concede to you that you are totally warranted in maintaining your belief that no such things as human rights exist.

That seems fair, does it not? You are allowed to be rational on the terms of what you believe to be true of the origins and nature of things; and I am allowed to be rational on the basis of what I also believe to be true about the origins and nature of things.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 10:29 pm What are some basic human rights that we can all agree to?

For example, can we all agree that anyone accused of a crime should receive a fair trial?

If not, what would be some problems with the above right whereby it should not be a basic human right?

What other rights can we pretty much all agree to?

What about a right that, no one should be denied a fair means of providing basic necessities for themselves or their dependent loved ones, in order to live. Or perhaps a right to fair compensation for one's labor?

What rights do you think can be made basic to everyone?

none, unless you have an agreement that says one has the right, that is backed by the power to enforce it. otherwise you have no rights or entitlements.

those in the US have rights by virtue the constitution that is an agreement that power and people have agreed to, that is enforced by gov (the power) and or the (people)

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 5:36 pm That seems fair, does it not? You are allowed to be rational on the terms of what you believe to be true of the origins and nature of things; and I am allowed to be rational on the basis of what I also believe to be true about the origins and nature of things.

I don't know about, "fair," but since everyone must think for themselves and choose what to believe, everyone most decide what they will base their reason on, and it's not up to anyone to tell anyone else what to believe. It is not possible to believe in, "rights," in the social/political sense, without resorting to some kind of appeal to the supernatural or mystical, as Locke's, your, and even Jefferson's arguments prove. It's your choice and I have no objection to that. I just do not agree.

It's not the conclusion you draw from the premise you base your belief on, it's your premise I disagree with.

DPMartin wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 6:14 pm ... those in the US have rights by virtue the constitution that is an agreement that power and people have agreed to, that is enforced by gov (the power) and or the (people)

When did you sign the constitution?

No one ever asked me to sign it or if I agreed to anything in it, (which I don't). Since when does what someone else agree's to and signs apply to those who don't. Think I'll sign a contract with somebody obligating you to send me $1000 a week. We'll call ourselves, "the people," and since we agree you'll have to pay. Does that sound right to you?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 5:36 pm
That seems fair, does it not? You are allowed to be rational on the terms of what you believe to be true of the origins and nature of things; and I am allowed to be rational on the basis of what I also believe to be true about the origins and nature of things.

not really you may believe and trust what ever you may believe or trust, but to express that may have consequences, also if one is incorrect in what one believes or trust that also has grave consequences so "allowed" isn't really there is it? especially in the long term.