kilgore trout Posted August 15, 2007 Share Posted August 15, 2007 its an interesting word "rights" and an interesting question "do we have rights and if so, why?" the way i see it is this: i know that i exist. i assume that others exist and are the same as me. if others are the same as me then their wants and views are as valid as mine, therefore it is "right" for them to persue these, aslong as it does not interfere with my persuing of my own wants and views. does the idea of "rights" come from the idea of what it is "right" for a person to do, what they are morally justified in doing? if so, then community rights must stem from an agreed basic moral code, for those rights to be held as rights within a comunity so rights come from a moral code, and as this code can vary, so can rights. human beings only have basic rights if you see them all as equal. if you see might as right then ya can just take what ever ya capable of taking(which is what politics is really about), that is about power not "right" you may have the power to do something, that does not make it ya "right", or only if your moral code says it is morally right to take what you have the power to take Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gert Lush Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 Thanks to everyone contributing. Nice to see civil discussion. I don't have much time ATM, so I'll be briefer than I'd like to be. Please don't take it as rudeness if others are the same as me then their wants and views are as valid as mine, Why? I suppose it depends on what you mean by "same". There seem to be two main views about, one being that we are essentially animals, and any "rights" ae basically just succesful defence of our teritory - while others seem to favour the view of some universal moral imperative, the spiritual view, I suppose, what the Buddhist and Hindus call "dharma". I also wonder if we can say that someone relinquishes their "rights" under certain circumstances, for instance if they're not prepared to stand up for them? Perhaps "slavery" is primarily a state of mind. therefore it is "right" for them to persue these, as long as it does not interfere with my persuing of my own wants and views. Why? Because "respect" is a spiritual value, or because there will be a backlash if we don't? IOW, due to "love" or "fear"? Or both? : so rights come from a moral code, and as this code can vary, so can rights. But does a "moral code" have an ultimate anchoring in something immutable, or do we chop and change as suits us? :applause: Thanks again for all the replies so far folks, and apologies once again for my shortness. Keep 'em coming... @Hir - but if we disregard how we "won" or "lost" our rights for a moment, on what do we base the idea that we had any, anyway? Do you see it just as competing animal clans? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hir Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 Thats what im saying we have no rights, just those we won our lost. Man is born free, and everywhere is in chains. J J Rousseau Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gert Lush Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 Thats what im saying we have no rights, just those we won our lost. So you see rights as some kind of conquest that allows us to impose our will, rather than be imposed on? Maybe I'm not putting it clearly, but what do you define as a right? Regardless of how it's won or lost.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hir Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 Free expression, free association, liberties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HvyFuel Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 Rights shouldn't have to be 'imposed' upon anyone Gert. 'If it harms none, Do what thou will shall be the whole of the law.' I'm not a fan of Crowley but he summed up rights in that one sentence. One should have the right to do anything that harms no other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twenty Three Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 . 'If it harms none, Do what thou will shall be the whole of the law.' I'm not a fan of Crowley but he summed up rights in that one sentence. Only "Do What Thou Wilt Shall be the Whole of the Law" are Crowley's words (or Aiwass' as the case may be). Half a century later however,it appears that Gerald Gardener may have been influenced by them when he concocted the wiccan rede of "An it harm none,do as ye will" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
synack Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 Aren't an individuals `rights` just whatever is written into the law of any given society? I dont think anyone even has a `right` to life (except in (some)societal law). Why should we humans have any more `right to life` in the universal sense than any other animal or plant or biological entity? (whose `rights to life` most humans seem to hold in very low regard). We (humans) in the main, with the exception of the `enlightened` few still seem to be hung up on the fact we are somehow special, and somehow different to every other living thing on this planet. This is only natural, but it doesnt make it right. We are as trivial and incidental to the universe as the leaves that fall from the trees and turn to mulch, fueling future generations of life. Life is just about surviving, staying in the gene pool, and so on. That is at least my belief. The only `rights` you have as a person (or any other living thing) are provided to you by the rest of (your) society and (theoretically at least) enforced by Law. Wow sorry if that makes little or no sense I'm in a bit of a rush but just had to chip in to this interesting thread. Has anyone here read Dawkins work? (Selfish Gene, Blind Watchmaker, Unweaving the Rainbow, God Delusion etc). Make good meat for debate.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HvyFuel Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 Having checked my copy of Liber Al vel Legis, for which it seems I should be shunned, 'Those who discuss the contents of this Book are to be shunned by all, as centres of pestilence.', I apologise for mis-referencing the quote 23. It does sound a lot more like something Gardner would say when given the prefix. Thank you for pointing it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gert Lush Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 (edited) One should have the right to do anything that harms no other. Well, that's exactly my question, Hvy, thanks for helping me see it more clearly! What says that one doesn't have the right to do something, even if it appears to hurt someone else, if the person doing it believes it's for the greater good? Who's going to make that call? I don't think anyone can. It's a matter of difference of opinion! Sometimes apparently hurtful acts turn out well. Tough love, and all that... I guess my contention is that if you think you are right, then that gives you the right. (You could always change your mind later) Edited August 16, 2007 by Gert Lush Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gert Lush Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 Why should we humans have any more `right to life` in the universal sense than any other animal or plant or biological entity? Yup, that's kinda where I was going towards! You make your right by your stance! Otherwise there is an implication of a Universal Right (Dharma) - which I don't reject out of hand - but I think it's very tied up with the individual. Ultimately, it's a question of whether you believe there is such a thing as "Good", defined Absolutely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HvyFuel Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 (edited) If an action causes physical harm to a person or their property, or interferes with actions which cannot be shown to cause harm, then it causes harm. If the action merely offends someone's sensibilities, based upon their personal moral code, but does not directly obstruct or interfere with their actions, based upon the same principle, it does not cause harm. Harm is a definite article, not a concept. ps. 'Good' and 'bad' are moral decisions and are not relevant. Edited August 16, 2007 by HvyFuel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kilgore trout Posted August 17, 2007 Share Posted August 17, 2007 (edited) hi gert, firstly, what i was describing was my own personal view of what rights i and others have, based on my opinion that we are all equal(by "the same" i mean that i assume, through observation of others and using my reason, that others have a simular basic self concious entity residing in them as i have) after that, what i was getting at is that "rights" are based purely on what it is seen as right for a person to do, which is based purely on that persons morality, with no basis behind them except personal opinion. if a comunity shares certain moral values then they agree that each individual has certain rights. wether you have the right to do something is not the same as wether you have the power to do something, neccessarily. it depends on your moral view. if you believe that you can take what ever you have the power to take, then it is, according to your morla code, your right to take what ever you can. if, for instance, you believe that others are of equal value as you, then you may see your rights differently. to say it is wrong to take what you want, depends on what your moral code is, might is right is a common code which many still adhere to Edited August 17, 2007 by kilgore trout Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hitech Posted August 17, 2007 Share Posted August 17, 2007 I determine my own rights, based on my own moral center ... But I can see the need for an organized system of 'rights' to some extent, to deal with the sociopathic homodical maniacs perhaps? Or just any of the plethora of truly fucked up people on this truly fucked up planet we inhabit . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sensi_sid Posted August 24, 2007 Share Posted August 24, 2007 "Rights" seems an attractive proposition to the weak and an opportunity for spin to the powerful. How it seems to turn out is that a powerful minority dictates a set of rules to a weak majority. The degree of repression caused by these rules is inversely proportional to the ability of the majority to fight back. Democracy is supposed to sort all this out but we, the weak, don't seem to be putting up much of a fight. We might think (and act) differently if we lived in, say, Afghanistan. Peace.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now