I just left class after a discussion about natural rights - Page 3

ballz2wallz · 01-16-2008, 04:39 PM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

if you can't exercise the right, then it is not inalienable.

The rights never leave. That's what you're missing.

WickedLou9 · 01-16-2008, 04:54 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

The rights never leave. That's what you're missing.

Then it just becomes academic though. Yes you claim that you have a certain right but if you are unable to defend it or exercise it due to some outside influence, then do you still have it? For all intents and purposes the right no longer exists in that case. You might still believe that you should have the right but without the ability to do anything about it, whether or not you should have it becomes moot.

ballz2wallz · 01-16-2008, 05:03 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Then it just becomes academic though. Yes you claim that you have a certain right but if you are unable to defend it or exercise it due to some outside influence, then do you still have it? For all intents and purposes the right no longer exists in that case. You might still believe that you should have the right but without the ability to do anything about it, whether or not you should have it becomes moot.

You mean as long as someone/something infringes on that right, you are unable to exercise it. You still have it.

All people have the right of liberty. Just because the Chinese government opporesses its people does not take away their right to it. It just means they are kept from exercising it.

WickedLou9 · 01-16-2008, 05:08 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

You mean as long as someone/something infringes on that right, you are unable to exercise it. You still have it.

All people have the right of liberty. Just because the Chinese government opporesses its people does not take away their right to it. It just means they are kept from exercising it.

but then it's just an academic discussion. IE there is no consequence to the fact that you have the right.

ballz2wallz · 01-16-2008, 05:09 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

IE there is no consequence to the fact that you have the right.

I don't know what that means. Why should there be 'consequences' to having a right?

You have rights. You are not always allowed to exercise them.

In this case we're talking about inalienable rights. Many rights we know are man-made. In both cases things or people (who are unable to take those rights away from you) can impede on your ability to exercise those rights.

David Octavius · 01-16-2008, 05:53 PM

A "natural right" is only as important as the person happiness. If a person is happy then what will they care if they don't have the right of free speech (and others)? So at that point the right becomes more academic than required. Rights only become important when the people make it and important element for their happiness - if it is inherit by god or creation then we would always yearn for it but the fact remains that happiness trumps what we define as rights.

bheld · 01-16-2008, 06:08 PM

DOct bringing the utilitarian flava

WickedLou9 · 01-16-2008, 06:10 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

I don't know what that means. Why should there be 'consequences' to having a right?

You have rights. You are not always allowed to exercise them.

In this case we're talking about inalienable rights. Many rights we know are man-made. In both cases things or people (who are unable to take those rights away from you) can impede on your ability to exercise those rights.

By consequence I mean effect or result. If I have a right that I am unable to exercise, there is no result to the fact that I have a useless right. So why should we talk about it? You say that you still have the right, but if you can not exercise it, it becomes an academic persuit, it's an etherial idea that doesn't have any tangible result. I am just saying that it's sort of pointless to argue whether or not you have a right that you can't exercise to begin with.
If you want to say that you have the right, fine. It is of no consequence.

bheld · 01-16-2008, 06:13 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

By consequence I mean effect or result. If I have a right that I am unable to exercise, there is no result to the fact that I have a useless right. So why should we talk about it? You say that you still have the right, but if you can not exercise it, it becomes an academic persuit, it's an etherial idea that doesn't have any tangible result. I am just saying that it's sort of pointless to argue whether or not you have a right that you can't exercise to begin with.
If you want to say that you have the right, fine. It is of no consequence.

I'd argue that it's consequential in that somebody would indeed fight for a right even though they might be denied. Even if they're unsuccessful and either killed or further oppressed, that was a tangible result prompted by that belief in a right. The result might not be favorable but the fact that the "right" prompted action is what is important.

ballz2wallz · 01-16-2008, 06:14 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

By consequence I mean effect or result. If I have a right that I am unable to exercise, there is no result to the fact that I have a useless right. So why should we talk about it? You say that you still have the right, but if you can not exercise it, it becomes an academic persuit, it's an etherial idea that doesn't have any tangible result. I am just saying that it's sort of pointless to argue whether or not you have a right that you can't exercise to begin with.
If you want to say that you have the right, fine. It is of no consequence.

Now you're just asking the 'if a tree falls and nobody hears it, did it really fall' question. That's philosophical nonsense.

WickedLou9 · 01-16-2008, 06:20 PM

Originally Posted by bheld

I'd argue that it's consequential in that somebody would indeed fight for a right even though they might be denied. Even if they're unsuccessful and either killed or further oppressed, that was a tangible result prompted by that belief in a right. The result might not be favorable but the fact that the "right" prompted action is what is important.

I guess. But you would only fight for a right if it was something you valued. The fact that it may or may not be a "natural" right is really not important. You will fight if someone takes something of value from you even if it's not a right at all.

WickedLou9 · 01-16-2008, 06:20 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Now you're just asking the 'if a tree falls and nobody hears it, did it really fall' question. That's philosophical nonsense.

Well the whole idea of a natural right is fairly philosophical isn't it?

bheld · 01-16-2008, 06:30 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

I guess. But you would only fight for a right if it was something you valued. The fact that it may or may not be a "natural" right is really not important. You will fight if someone takes something of value from you even if it's not a right at all.

I think that anything that would be considered a "natural right" would be something worth fighting for. Obviously there are many other things beyond those that people consider are worth fighting for. Possessions, power, etc. don't fall under natural rights but like you said they can all inspire conflict. I think for that reason rights, whether conferred or denied, are real things that can't be extinguished through subjugation, as history has proven.

David Octavius · 01-16-2008, 07:05 PM

Originally Posted by bheld

DOct bringing the utilitarian flava

Don't get me wrong - I am not a utilitarian, far from it. I don't believe some rights should be sacrificed for total happiness cause it may only be temporary or precieved happiness. For instance sacrificing some liberty for security is not acceptable and can harm us in the long run. But I do understand that people do value happiness and security over rights

kinggovernor · 01-16-2008, 09:20 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

The rights never leave. That's what you're missing.

do you think all the framers of the Declaration of Independence would say that slaves had inalienable rights?

7960 · 01-17-2008, 02:27 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Like I said earlier, I'll explain when I get home. Just because someone else isn't there to see those morals doesn't mean they don't exist.

And it doesn't mean they do.

What morals are there? Would they be different if the person believed in a different god? Or is your god the only one who can define morality?

Kytro · 01-17-2008, 05:03 AM

In relation to rights, I certainly believe they exist, but they are man-made in the sense that man's existence creates them. Some are formalised, others are not. But not everyone recongnises rights, and that is an important fact; that there is variation from the norm.

Abilitites define possibility, and rights can suffer to them. You may have the right to life, but another takes your life anyway. Abilities always trump rights.

ballz2wallz · 01-17-2008, 11:04 AM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

do you think all the framers of the Declaration of Independence would say that slaves had inalienable rights?

I don't know about all, but I think most of them would.
I don't like using extreme words like 'all' or 'every' or 'never'.

ballz2wallz · 01-17-2008, 11:05 AM

Originally Posted by 7960

And it doesn't mean they do.

What morals are there? Would they be different if the person believed in a different god? Or is your god the only one who can define morality?

I have to address this when I get home and can write from some books I have.

Pocono Pete · 01-17-2008, 10:12 PM

We must remember that the concept of natural rights and inherent and inalienable rights was not created as a theological exercise but a philosophical rebuttal to what then existed, the unquestionable "right" of the King to rule as he pleased.

The entire discussion is just one of the extent of legitimate government.
Our government, as established by the Constitution is grounded by certain unalterable principles:

That government can not legitimately be arbitrary over the lives and fortunes of the people because government's power is only the sum of that limited amount of power each member of the society gives up to the legislative assembly. The power vested in the assembly can be no greater than that which the people had before they entered into that society and no person can transfer to another, more power than he