Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   radical liberals (aka liberal commies) vs ultra conservatives (aka nutjobs)
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 105 of 300 (659206)
04-13-2012 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Panda
04-13-2012 10:00 AM


Re: Human Rights
Well, if I bought some heroin for my kids from an undercover policeman, first they would take my cocaine from me (loss of property) and then they would imprison me (loss of liberty). Certain countries would then sentence me to death (loss of life).
Would that government be prosecuted for breaching my inalienable human rights?
Would the European Court of Human Rights demand I be released?
Would Amnesty International even raise an eyebrow?
Would even you object?
It has been determined that drug trafficking threatens the human rights of others, namely the increase in crime rates. This is why drug commerce is punished. As to the death penalty, many organizations do consider that to be a violation of human rights.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Panda, posted 04-13-2012 10:00 AM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Panda, posted 04-13-2012 1:39 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 106 of 300 (659208)
04-13-2012 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by New Cat's Eye
04-12-2012 4:33 PM


Re: Human Rights
And it doesn't make sense to call natural rights "unalienable" if they're just ought's... how can you loose something you never really had in the first place?
Our laws ought to be a certain way because natural rights are unalienable. You have natural rights at birth. They are intrinsic to the human condition. Natural rights define how we ought to treat each other, and how a government should be constructed.
And how can you determine that there's an ought.
Through reason and empathy. I am guessing that you don't want to be murdered, you don't want your stuff stolen, and you don't want to be put in prison for no good reason. Am I right? You are also capable of understanding that other humans have the same emotions. Therefore, it is wrong to do those things to them as well unless they threaten your life, liberty, and estate. This simple reasoning defines how we ought to treat each other.
I think its even more pretend than those.
So you are indifferent to being murdered, stolen from, and imprisoned? Do you just pretend to care about these things?
Okay, but every person has a different set of natural rights from every other person based on what they think you ought to have. I don't see how you can say those things exist independently.
Every person has the same set of basic human rights.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-12-2012 4:33 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-13-2012 1:15 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 111 of 300 (659231)
04-13-2012 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Panda
04-13-2012 1:39 PM


Re: Human Rights
So, my rights are superseded if they conflict with someone else's rights?
You can be punished if your actions harm others. What is so hard to understand here?
Perhaps I have misunderstood what inalienable human rights are.
Apparently so.
I thought that they couldn't be taken away.
Self-defense is also one of those rights, your right to protect yourself from others. This is part of Locke's view of the social contract:
quote:
John Locke's conception of the social contract differed from Hobbes' in several fundamental ways, retaining only the central notion that persons in a state of nature would willingly come together to form a state. Locke believed that individuals in a state of nature would be bound morally, by The Law of Nature, not to harm each other in their lives or possession, but without government to defend them against those seeking to injure or enslave them, people would have no security in their rights and would live in fear. Locke argued that individuals would agree to form a state that would provide a "neutral judge", acting to protect the lives, liberty, and property of those who lived within it. While Hobbes argued for near-absolute authority, Locke argued for inviolate freedom under law in his Second Treatise of Government. Locke argued that government's legitimacy comes from the citizens' delegation to the government of their right of self-defense (of "self-preservation"). The government thus acts as an impartial, objective agent of that self-defense, rather than each man acting as his own judge, jury, and executionerthe condition in the state of nature. In this view, government derives its "just powers from the consent [i.e, delegation] of the governed,".
Social contract - Wikipedia

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Panda, posted 04-13-2012 1:39 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Panda, posted 04-13-2012 3:36 PM Taq has not replied
 Message 114 by Straggler, posted 04-13-2012 3:43 PM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 112 of 300 (659232)
04-13-2012 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by New Cat's Eye
04-13-2012 1:15 PM


Re: Human Rights
"unless they threaten your life, liberty, and estate", so no, not everyone.
That is also the same for everyone. Why are people having such a hard time with this? It is very simple concept. Anyone who violates the human rights can face punishment. It is the same for everyone.
Its not that I'm indifferent, I just don't see any basis on which to claim that I intrinsically ought to not have those things done to me.
Did you just shut your brain off?
Really. You have no emotion whatsoever when it comes to someone taking your life. None whatsoever. Is that what you are telling me? If someone was standing over you with a knife you wouldn't raise a hand to protect yourself? You wouldn't feel one ounce of fear? Really?
Every person has a different set of natural rights from every other person based on what they think you ought to have,
They have the same rights. What differs is whether or not their actions have harmed others.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-13-2012 1:15 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-13-2012 3:48 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 121 of 300 (659244)
04-13-2012 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by New Cat's Eye
04-13-2012 3:48 PM


Re: Human Rights
Because that's not unalienable...
The right to self defense is unalienable, and it is the right that supersedes the right of liberty for those who violate the rights of others.
What I don't see, is any basis on which to claim that I intrinsically ought to not have those things happen.
The basis is the emotion of fear when your life is threatened. It is an emotion that you do not want to feel. Therefore, you should not cause that emotion in others.
The Law of the Jungle doesn't use those natural rights.
People in the jungle do not fear for their lives? They do not care when their belongings are stolen from them? They do not care if they are imprisoned?
Its only when we have societies that we can begin to pretend that there are natural rights.
It is only when humans interact with each other that we need to contemplate how we ought to treat each other. What is wrong with that?
No, if every person has their own opinion on what rights are natural, i.e. the things people ought to have, then they will NOT be the same for everyone.
I didn't say that determining what natural rights are or are not is an easy task, but that doesn't mean that they don't exist. At the same time, there are some very simple rights that are easy to figure out. Genocide--that is a violation of human rights. Imprisonment without habeas corpus--there are different schools of thought on this one, but most believe it to be a violation (such as Amnesty International).
No one is saying that morality and natural rights is an easy topic to discuss. What I hope people understand is that it is an IMPORTANT topic, not something to push aside as being pretend or fake.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-13-2012 3:48 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Huntard, posted 04-13-2012 5:04 PM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 122 of 300 (659245)
04-13-2012 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Huntard
04-13-2012 3:53 PM


Re: Human Rights
Not if we were to legalize drugs.
That is a very interesting discussion to have, one that has puzzled philosophers for quite some time. Should we be allowed to lock people up purely to protect them from themselves?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Huntard, posted 04-13-2012 3:53 PM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Huntard, posted 04-13-2012 5:06 PM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 139 of 300 (659523)
04-16-2012 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by jar
04-15-2012 9:40 AM


Re: A statist by any other name...
Reality shows that rights are granted through a consensus by a government within a State, society, culture.
Reality shows that governments make rules that they expect citizens to follow. This can occur through an autocracy, oligarchy, or a representative democarcy, to name a few. The government creates legal rights. These are not the same as natural rights. Whether or not natural rights exist is an argument long in the making, but I think it is important to point out that they are not the same as legal rights.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by jar, posted 04-15-2012 9:40 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by jar, posted 04-16-2012 1:11 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 141 of 300 (659528)
04-16-2012 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by jar
04-16-2012 1:11 PM


Re: A statist by any other name...
Yes, you do keep claiming that there is some difference, but so far I see no evidence of any inalienable "natural or human rights" that exist outside of those granted by consensus of a State, society or culture.
My evidence is the that you fear for your life, you don't like your stuff stolen, and you don't want to be locked up in prison for no good reason. These are universal human emotions. This is what human rights are based on. They are intrinsic to the human condition.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by jar, posted 04-16-2012 1:11 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by jar, posted 04-16-2012 1:26 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 143 of 300 (659535)
04-16-2012 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by jar
04-16-2012 1:26 PM


Re: A statist by any other name...
Sorry but again just assertion and conflation.
Yes they are normal human emotions; so are fear, love, hunger, pain ...
Those are not rights.
They are not bare assertions. They are very real emotions, ones that I think I am accurately portraying. We have empathy. We know what causes us pain and fear, therefore we know which actions will cause pain and fear in others. This knowledge forms the foundation of natural rights.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by jar, posted 04-16-2012 1:26 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by jar, posted 04-16-2012 3:09 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 145 of 300 (659549)
04-16-2012 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by jar
04-16-2012 3:09 PM


Re: A statist by any other name...
They are emotions.
The assertion is that there are "natural rights".
Where is there any evidence that there are any "natural rights?"
Emotions and empathy are the evidence. You know what causes fear in yourself, therefore you know what causes fear in others. Therefore, you should not do those things to other people. You fear death. You also know that others fear death, and the actions that cause them to fear death. Therefore, you should not do those things. The natural right is the right to not have others harm you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by jar, posted 04-16-2012 3:09 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by jar, posted 04-16-2012 3:50 PM Taq has replied
 Message 147 by Panda, posted 04-16-2012 5:39 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 148 of 300 (659612)
04-17-2012 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by jar
04-16-2012 3:50 PM


Re: A statist by any other name...
You keep repeating the same thing but never show any connection between desires and rights or the existence of any rights.
It is a conclusion that follows from the premises:
P1: You fear death.
P2: Fear is a very, very negative experience. You don't want to experience fear of death.
P3: Empathy allows you to know that others fear death in the same way.
P4: You are able to determine which of your actions creates the same negative experience in others.
C: You ought not to cause fear of death in others since it is something that you don't want to experience.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by jar, posted 04-16-2012 3:50 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by jar, posted 04-17-2012 12:03 PM Taq has replied
 Message 164 by caffeine, posted 04-18-2012 3:28 AM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 149 of 300 (659613)
04-17-2012 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by Panda
04-16-2012 5:39 PM


Re: A statist by any other name...
One word: Dignitas.
Do you want to die?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Panda, posted 04-16-2012 5:39 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by Panda, posted 04-17-2012 8:47 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 151 of 300 (659615)
04-17-2012 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by jar
04-17-2012 12:03 PM


Re: A statist by any other name...
Again, where are there any inalienable rights in what you posted?
By definition something that "ought to be" does not exist.
The "ought to be" is the right. When someone's rights are violated they are claiming that someone should not have done that to them. Through reason we can determine that humans have rights that are intrinsic to being human as laid out above.
Laws are no different. They are also a list of ought to's and ought not's. Do they exist?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by jar, posted 04-17-2012 12:03 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by jar, posted 04-17-2012 12:36 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 153 of 300 (659628)
04-17-2012 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by jar
04-17-2012 12:36 PM


Re: A statist by any other name...
Sorry but so far you have not shown any evidence that any "ought to be" is a right.
Again, the evidence are the premises and the conclusion that follows from the premises. A violation of human rights is an action that goes against what a government ought to do as defined in the conclusion.
Laws are not "a list of ought to's and ought not's ",
Yes, they are.
The fact is that throughout history the evidence shows that there are no intrinsic or inalienable rights other than those agreed to within a given State, society or culture.
What are these facts?
YOU might reason that certain things "Ought to be" rights, but that says nothing about whether or not those so called rights exist.
I was hoping that you would actually discuss my reasoning instead of bypassing it. We seem to be at an impasse. You keep claiming that there is no evidence. I then post what I think is the evidence. You look past it.
In addition, all of the evidence shows that such rights are neither intrinsic or inalienable . . .
What would this evidence be?
. . . and in fact have been taken away withing various States, societies and cultures.
As discussed before, when a government violates a person's human rights that person does not lose their human rights. You are arguing that by doing 90 mph in a 35 mph zone I have proven the non-existence of speed limits.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by jar, posted 04-17-2012 12:36 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by jar, posted 04-17-2012 4:20 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 155 of 300 (659633)
04-17-2012 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by jar
04-17-2012 4:20 PM


Re: A statist by any other name...
I look at what you call evidence and find that it simply supports the posit6ion that there are no intrinsic or inalienable rights.
How so?
I am not arguing that doing 95 in a 35 speed limit area disproves speed limits, in fact speed limits exist only within and due to the consent of a State, society or culture.
Speed limits seize to exist (whether by consent or otherwise) the second I break them, don't they? That is the argument you are making against natural rights. You are citing violations of natural rights as evidence that natural rights don't exist. That doesn't make any sense.
The evidence that there is no intrinsic or inalienable right is that States regularly revoke any right you have named so far.
States do not have the ability to revoke your human rights. That's the whole point. States can either protect or violate your human rights. They can not take them away. Human rights are a list of things a government should not do. If a government does violate human rights it in no way makes human rights go away, just as doing 95 in a 35 does not make the speed limit go away.
Leaders of governments can be and are convicted of violating human rights. Amnesty International is an advocacy group that fights for human rights in places where governments are violating them, such as in China where they are advocating the release of political prisoners. They do this because no State can take your human rights away.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by jar, posted 04-17-2012 4:20 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by jar, posted 04-17-2012 5:17 PM Taq has replied
 Message 157 by Phat, posted 04-17-2012 5:25 PM Taq has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024