Where do rights come from?

Great Debates
81

This nonsense may make sense for Clairobscur’s initial response (I’ll do her the honor of letting her speak for herself), but not for yours. Because your response acknowledges—even quotes from—my subsequent post to her stating that I didn’t see what gospels, scripture, or Christianity had to do with my answer to the OP. And now you attempt to justify your rude behavior. Not “Whoops, sorry, it was late and I made a mistake” or something of that ilk, but “Now do you see why * said what * said?”

Why would you do such a thing? And then try to justify it? This may point to an answer:

Posts yesterday by you: 69
Different hreads posted in by you yesterday: 31

Now since you do not believe in God I feel safe in assuming you are not one. That means you have limitations. I do not know precisely what they are, but it seems to be less than 69 sensible posts in 31 different threads in one day. Welcome to the human race.

82

Do what? The computer in front of you can taken away. Are you forced to conclude that it is a figment of your imagination?

83

That’s my point. If you’ve been following the thread, you’ve seen nearly as many interpretations of what rights are as there have been posters.

84

To violate my right is not to take it away. If rights could not be violated there would be no need for the concept.

85

I am not justifying my rude behavior in the least. I am answering your question about my reasons. See how easy it is to insert concept that you think you see?
It is fine as it is.

I didn’t believe you, when you said that by creator, you didn’t mean the Christian God. I figured you were one of those, “Oh, my Christianity isn’t a religion, it is a statement of fact” people, or maybe one of those mswas-type “I have a highly convoluted religious system that involves Christianity, the religion I was born into, along with 14 other mysticism based religions, but know, I will not give you any handle on what I believe”, people. Possibly one of those “Deism isn’t a religion kinda people, too.*”, but then again, maybe not. It was a big thread, and I haven’t reread the whole thing.

I guess the bullet point of what I am trying to say to you is that looking at past posts of yours’ seems to support this view of you.

What? You don’t like my reason why I honestly agreed with Clairobscur? Too bad. You asked. Liking the answers costs extra.

*No, wait, that was Captain Amazing.

86

How the hell did “It is fine as it is.” get there? It was meant to be at the very begining of the post. Damn you hamsters!

87

I can see that this will be fruitless. And in the spirit of allowing the thread to stay on track: Onward. My apologies for this futile diversion to all.

88

Well said. That’s the primary reason that I prefer defining rights as attributes of original ownership. If a violation of rights were a transfer of rights, then a thief would be the rightful owner of what he has stolen.

89

No problem, Magellan. Just jump right back in.

90

Arguing that attributes of original ownership as a way of defining rights is sufficient, but only up to a point, and only for a small set of rights (such as ownership of one’s own mind and body - even here it can become probelmatic if others do not recognize this as such). It becomes much more difficult to justify use of this definition when attempting to explain such things as a right to the ownership of real property.

One could argue that real property is an extension of one’s own body (and mind) by physical proximity (my body atop the land) or by a process of my labor. However, by what criteria does one determine your right to said real estate? Because you say so? Because you somehow improved the land via your own labor? By proximity? Becaue you were there first? What?

What if two people occupy the same land at the same time? Do they both have “rights” to the same land? If so, does this mean that each share the right equally? If not, by what criteria does one determine whether one has a proper claim to this “right”?

One isn’t born with the right to occupy a given parcel of land - that right only comes about as a consequence of someone else recognizing your ability/power to make a “claim” to that parcel of land (whatever that claim may be).

91

Addendum:

To add further commentary, my position on rights is similar to that of Alan Dershowitz’s in his book Rights From Wrongs (or, at least, I have found his arguments to be compelling).

Rights from Wrongs

92

Exactly. What I dont understand is what other characteristics can be honestly described as originating in nature?

This sounds like what I’ve been saying, except for the “as a result of agency” part, which I take to mean that you consider the formation of rights to be just as natural as the human agency that precipitated it.

I’m confused because “nature” is being used twice in what seem to be entirely different ways. I know that a common use of nature is akin to “the nature of a thing” or “human nature”, but I was under the impression that we were using nature to refer to the material world. Are you saying that the tendency to bring rights into existance is a natural consequence of human agency because it is hard-wired into our brain chemistry in the same way that our sentience is?

Ah, thank you. That far more accurately describes my belief. I still think it validates my proposed catch-all definition of rights. Then again I guess it would just change the argument to “Do ethics exist and if so where do they come from?”

Hey, waddaya know?

Yes humans are a part of nature. Our minds are natural, but does it follow that everything we create with our minds is natural? Are beliefs, abstractions and dreams natural? My head asplode.

That’s what we see because that’s how it works in our modern world. But that doesn’t speak to the origin of rights. Rights manifest themselves when elements of agency are challenged and, in resolving the ensuing conflicts, a sense of justice and ethics begins to evolve.

93

Not at all. In fact, I laid out three different ways — deductive logic, inductive logic, and analogic — to prove that such ownership is equally as inherent as original ownership. The onus is upon you to show a flaw in the logic.

Because it identifies you. As I said before, every copula may be expressed as possession. It is a part of the bounds of your existence. I gave an extensive reference for the concept.

Why are you asking me that? That is a question for a person who holds that rights are advantages or power. I do not believe that mere occupation confers rights. (See the various theories of rights that I laid out previously.)

The only person who has a right to occupy a parcel of land, as far as I’m concerned, is the parcel’s owner.

94

Being alive, for one. You life experiences from birth are unique to you and identify the bounds of your existence. I submit that a person who wants to live your life ought to pay your mortgage.

95

>I have the right to form my own thoughts.

Ever hear of hate crimes?

>I have the right to decide what to do with my body.

No drug laws where you live? Prostitution OK? You can sell a organ or limb?

>I have the right express myself and communicate with others.

To communicate implies that others are forced to ‘listen’, I guess you have some slaves for this.

>I have the right to lay claim to what I create.

And I have a right to lay claim to what your create also as long as I have the right to communicate with others.

>I have the right to benefit from the sweat of my brow.

This one makes no sense what so ever. If you sweated your @$$ off making a 4kb memory chip that noone could use, you have waisted your time and ability, you are not owed anything for sweat.

>I have the right to act in my own best interest.

This is basically a form of the only true right man or animals have, the right to try to survive, as such I am with you on this.

>I have the right to protect myself and my family.

See above

>I have the right to enter into agreements of my choosing.

Again you are making no sense here, there is no right that you will be offered a choice, if you are there is no right that you won’t be betrayed.

> I have the right to shape my future.

You will influence it, but so will many others, in fact if you read this, I have shaped your future, even if only in a minor way.

96

No less natural than the formation of a culture (which is not innate, but is derived from human agency - or those capacities/capabilites that make us human).

To some extent yes - rights are not of nature, but derive from it, based on those capabilities/capacities that make us human (and not some other entity). Change the bundle of capabilities/capacities that make us human (or at least distinct, in some fashion, from some other entity) and it’s quite possible that something else could be derived from them.

Good question - I’m of the opinion that they are (beliefs and abstractions), but only in the sense they are derived from nature, rather than of nature (dreams, or rather the process of dreaming, is natural in that we aren’t consciously involved in dreaming. Specific dreams? Don’t know for certain, but they are derived from our ability/capacity for dreaming).

Here’s another way of thinking about where rights come from. Steel doesn’t exist in the natural world. It is derived from the combination of iron and coke (processed coal). From where does steel originate? Not from iron, not from coke, but from the combination of the two.

97

Yes. And that is precisely why the invention of such a category of crime is a disgusting blight on human beings. It is a completely unnecessary category as the only time it kicks in is when another—actual—crime takes place.

Actually, I was thinking “mobility” when I wrote this. But you raise interesting issues. I do think that society can curtail the use of certain substances. (Whether it is wise is another issue.) In a society there is a large degree of unspoken understanding that allows us to live together with minimal conflict. For instance, I drive down roads every day with only a double-yellow line standing between me and a 80 mph head-on collision. I do not fret every inch of the trip because I expect the peope coming from the other direction to behave in a predictable manner—stayiong on their side of the line. If a substance causes one to behave in a very unpredictable manner it becomes a problem for society. The easy example is using alcohol while your driving. But other drugs can spark equally dangerous, unpredictable behavior without the benefit of two tons of metal.

The organ issue is one I’ve struggled with. On the one hand I think there’s a good argument that laws preventing you from selling your body parts protect the weakest in our society from putting their lives at risk. On the other hand, you should be able to make choices about both your health and your body. I’ve considered a hypothetical about a man born with two perfectly normal hearts. Let’s say that he’s married, his wife is in a coma, he has four kids in school, and his company gets shut down. Now let’s say there’s another person—a very rich guy who might be a few years from coming up with a cure for cancer. Why can’t the poor guy sell his second heart to the rich guy (let’s assume it’s a minor procedure) for $5 million? The poor guy gets to take care of his wife’s bills and his kids. And the rich guy lives and goes on to cure cancer. Everyone wins. Even society.

It’s a good question, which I continue to ponder.

No, it doesn’t. But some people who choose to wait on me hand and foot would be nice, particularly if they are attractive females.

Unclear what you mean.

I think you’re just trying to be argumentative here. I meant that you have the primary right to benefit from the sweat of your brow—over anyone else.

Again, it sounds like you’re just trying to be argumentative. Obviously, this assumes someone is presented with a choice. Once he is, he is free to agrre to give A in order to receive B. Being betrayed has nothing to do with my right to enter into the agreement. If I do, and I’m ripped off, I’ve just bought myself an education.

You must really be in an argumentative mood. Let’s add the word “to attempt” to get
“I have the right to attempt to shape my future.”

So, you don’t think I’ve captured the concept of rights. Fair enough. How would you define them and where do you think they come from?

98

Let’s look at each -

The logic is sound, but it hinges on the concepts of “owner” and “property”. How are each defined, and on what basis?

How does one go from “a person may be defined by the bounds of his existence” to “a person may be identified by the property he owns”. I understand, from induction, how one can conclude that one owns one’s body and mind. But I can’t quite understand the leap from owning one’s own mind and body (the bounds of one existence) to incorporate the onwership of a house.

It makes more sense to me if one means by ownership the “sense of ownership” that derives from one’s sense of owning one’s mind and body. I think I understand this - not so much ownership of a specific piece of land, but a general sense of ownership (like territoriality, which humans share with other species). If that is what is meant, then it makes more sense.

See above - still, human beings may have a sense of ownership, but I don’t see where a right to this ownership lies. Derived from it (or arises out of it), yes, I agree. Inherent (or innate) - no.

Who is the owner? Who (or what) confers ownership? If I state that the bounds of my existence encompass the world, does that mean that I actually own the world? Do I have a right merely by claiming that the world bounds my existence?

Going back to my earlier example - If two people occupy the same parcel of land and the same time, and make the same claim as to its possession, who owns it? Both employ the same logic (direct implication, inductive analysis, analogy) in their arguments.

Similarly, if there is an empty parcel of land which has not been claimed, who (or what) decides whether or not I own it? My “sense of ownership” (if I happen to claim ownership of the empty parcel and no-one else does)? What if someone else claims it? Who decides the issue of ownership?

99

Straw. Man. Or whatever your preferred term for torturing logic is.

Hoodoo Ulove, if a right can be violated, then it’s hardly a “right,” much less an inalienable right. It’s a privilege bestowed by the rest of society, or a figment of the collective imagination.

100

I will respond to the rest of your points when time permits, but I couldn’t couldnt resist pointing out that ** steel does exist in the natural world. **

It can be collected, measured, studied, and defined.

Ethics do not share that status.

Ethics are similar to steel in that human intervention is key to their existance, but that’s where the analogy ends.

Put simply. ethics (and, by extension, rights) have not yet been proven to exist in any empirical sense.