»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
Rights and Responsibilities
| Philosophy 101 |
|
Rights and Responsibilities |
|
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
This is connected to LR's thread and I posted it there but decided to give it its own thread: If someone has rights, they can lose them. If they can't lose them, they don't have rights. How can a foetus, through its own action, lose its rights? A criminal loses his or her rights by not accepting the responsibility of abiding by the law, by not respecting the rights of others. In order to have rights, you have to have responsibilities. What responsibility does a foetus have? I don't see how we can separate rights and responsibilites for that would mean that when someone abrogates their responsibilites we can't infringe upon their rights. And that's exactly what we do. Tim, in response, made the excellent point that this would also involve the mentally infirm, those incapicitated through age, disease, or accident, and infants after they were born. I agree. |
||
| © Copyright 2001 Brad - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I disagree strongly with that deduction, Brad. Although having rights does bring with it responsibility, I don't think that the incapacity to fulfill responsibility negates rights. I believe that the only thing that negates a persons rights is a willful violation of responsibiity, not an incapacity. I think we tread on very dangerous ground when we hold that the weakest, most dependent in society have no rights. Very dangerous ground. And knowing Tim, I'm think you misunderstood his statement, Brad. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
I expect many will feel the same way (and I don't think for a moment Tim agrees with me), but I've wanted to do this for a long time. I think we already are on dangerous ground, Denise, and we need to shift the debate from rights separate from anything else to rights tied to responsibilities. This is not a knock down argument for the pro-choice group by the way. In fact, it does very little except shift the terms and the agents involved. Try not to see this as RIGHTS/responsibilities but as RIGHTS/RESPONSIBILITIES. It does not mean that a doctor or family member can do what they want to someone incapacitated for that neglects responsibility. But what does it mean to have rights if those rights can't be exercised? More later, Brad |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Brad, you're building your questions on premises that haven't been established. That's like saying I can only have blue eyes if they can turn to brown. If they can't turn to brown, then they were never really blue. If that one seems absurd, let's take one closer to yours. Life cannot exist without death. Just as in your example, we're very much accustomed to seeing the two go together. But does that necessarily mean the former is defined by the latter? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I guess I'm not understanding why you assert that we are already on dangerous ground and why we need to shift from rights not tied to something else and rights tied to responsibility and why we should see RIGHTS/RESPONSIBILITY vs. RIGHTS/responsibility? Just for the sake of philosophical debate or as it may affect decision making down in the nitty- gritty of real life? You'll have to enlighten me. Perhaps I'll be better able to understand your point with a fresh mind. I'm off to bed. Check in with you tomorrow. One thought~ A person can still exercise their right to life, even though incapacitated. The quality may not be there as in a healthy person but it is still life, until death. |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Aren't our primary unalienable rights those of Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness? Fetuses, infants, and the infirm, may only be able to exercise the latter two to a limited extend, or none at all, but to the best of my knowledge, they all exercise the first one. I think your premise here is questionable in the first place. "How can a foetus, through its own action, lose its rights?" It can't. I don't see where you're going with this. Are you saying that because a fetus is incapable of losing rights on its own, it must not have them in the first place? "In order to have rights, you have to have responsibilities." No, I don't think this is true. I have several pet dogs. Now, I know this is Apples and Oranges anyway, but just because my dogs don't work for me in any way, I think they still have the right to be fed. Here's a better, much more relevant example, which has already been brought up- what responsibilities does an infant have? Do they have no rights? If so, where do we draw the line? Would it be legal to kill the child after delivery because it isn't useful enough yet to warrant having rights? I guess I don't understand the idea of resposibility being the sole (or most important) prerequisite to attaining rights. I think the two can definitely exist seperately... slavery is a prime example of this. Slaves had to bear huge responsibilities, and got no inherent rights in return- they were property. Are we reducing the fetus (or child or invalid) to property status? Is it just easier to deal with that way? "we are all citizens of the womb before we subdivide |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
In order to have rights, you must have responsibilities? Then either, everyone has equal responsibilities and equal rights or... those with more responsibility have greater rights... the logic would seem to be contrary to the prevailing view of society in most civilized countries. I suppose you could argue a threshhold exists where you meet a minimum level of responsibility, you are entitled to all rights. Or do we adopt a sliding scale of rights/responsibilities? [This message has been edited by Tim (12-19-2001 12:13 AM).] |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Brad? Me confused. Here I am holding my hand up again and saying "I don't get it." Could you explain further your intent here, SOON? (I'm soon to be off again on one of my disappearing acts.) Thanks. |
||
|
Jamie Member Elite
since 2000-06-26
Posts 3168Blue Heaven |
quote: not sure what you mean by this Brad-- but, health care professionals use implied consent laws to care for the incapacitated-- whether it be physical, mental or even from substance abuse. To fail to do so would actually be considered negligence or breach of duty. I am sure you had something else in mind when you made this statement, I am just not sure what it is.  There is society where none intrudes, by the deep sea, and music in its roar. |
||
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Brad... this was my response on the abortion thread... since we jumped threads I wanted to post it here. Perhaps more comments later, but I think I am expressing some things already said by others on this thread. Brad, you're vascillating here. 2 day old babies and the mentally infirm do have rights. And laws are set in place with intent to protect those rights. If we are to go with your theory about rights being inexorably bound to responsibilities, then we have to say that the laws are wrong which protect the "rights" of newborns (since they don't really have any, due to their lack of responsiblity ). The genial "We should care" idea, isn't enough to protect those newborns, and neither is it enough to protect the rights of pre-born human beings. You've only replaced the measure of "humanity or not" with "responsible or not"... which is not presently our standard for many other classes of people who are not capable of being "responsible", but indeed have rights... so much so that anyone violating them is subject to criminal prosecution. If your criterion isn't accepted in those areas why should it be accepted with a fetus? Another great oversight in my opinion is presuming to know when and what level at which anyone has valid "responsibility" or not. How many are in such conditions that the smallest tasks (unconsious to you and I) are their formidable responsiblities for the day... if not to someone else, then to themselves, their loved ones, or to God. For example, chewing food spoon-fed by a caretaker for some elderly persons with organic brain disorder is something that quite possibly takes more determination than you or I can know. And even if you don't concede that such things entail "responsibility", what about the kindred stock from which it springs, "responsiveness"? . . .a much better (and safer) litmus test by far. Fetuses kick and suck their thumbs in utero. They are very active and responsive... and who are we to set the event horizon of 'responsibility' and most of all, of humanity, or the rights thereof? And where you said "If they can't lose them (rights) they don't have rights"... Though rights are taken away through one's own actions or in the case of the helpless through someone else's, those rights were never granted based on any action, or lack of. Those rights were granted on the basis of being. "Inalienable rights endowed by the Creator". How responsible did you have to become before you had rights? I agree that rights are always bound to responsiblity, but in many cases that responsiblity is proxy. The preborn is one (among several) of those instances. Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (12-20-2001 01:40 PM).] |
||
|
Interloper
since 2000-11-06
Posts 8369Deep in the heart |
Brad, Please share with me at what age a person is endowed with or assumes responsibility. And, yes, I believe a fetus is a person. I always thought the "responsibility" of chilren was to grow, develop, and learn. that goes for a fetus or a 2 year old and everyting in between and beyond. Take that [This message has been edited by Interloper (12-21-2001 02:44 PM).] |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
It is an interesting premise Brad, but fallacious, as Ron has pointed out that responsibilities bestow rights. This has been a problematic discussion for some time and even the framers of the U.S. Constitution didn't get around to defining clearly what 'rights' meant in regards to personhood. The fourteenth amendment is the benchmark for this discussion legally which states: Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Note the use of the word 'born' in regards to the establishment of rights here. But the use of the word person becomes nebulous. In law it has been interpreted to mean not only natural persons but artificial persons as well (a corporation is considered an artificial person in that it is a legal entity set up to represent the rights of its owners independently from them and as a single entity). This is true for the first usage of 'person' but the latter invocation of the term in regards to citizens and legal corporations -- in regards to the 'due process' clause also extends the definition of person to non-citizens as interpreted by the courts (something that should be considered in our war on terrorism). The fact that rights can be removed via due process does speak the notion that there are responsibilities inherent to being a citizen or even a human being, but the correlation between having rights and having responsibilities is a fairly murky one at best -- it would be stronger to say that along with personhood comes rights and responsibilities. [This message has been edited by Local Rebel (12-20-2001 04:13 PM).] |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Serenity, I'm not sure. I do think that 'rights' are thrown around so much today that we've lost their meaning -- they've become a political cliche and mean nothing more than, "Don't tell me what to do." and/or the obligation to protect those who can't protect themselves. So I'm trying to rethink the idea of 'rights' so that they are both more limited in scope and, at the same time, more concrete, more easily agreed upon. Inalienable/unalienable/natural rights in the Declaration of Independence justifies fighting back, it doesn't guarantee anything. If it did, we wouldn't have had to fight a war. In other words, it's saying, "King George, you're in the wrong, we're in the right in the eyes of God," although technically, as one British friend pointed out, the Revolutionary War can be seen as Free Englishmen demanding their historically guaranteed freedoms from a German King. The Divine Right of Kings was already, if not completely demolished, certainly on its way to extinction in eighteenth century Britain. How many Americans, how many Britons believe in the Divine Right of Kings today? Today, when we say "All men are created equal" we mean something quite different from what the American Founding Fathers meant (that's not completely true, the Founding Fathers were not united in their views, they compromised). Now we mean women, Africans, everybody that is human. Except we still don't really mean that, do we? A right means little unless someone else recognizes it as a right. I can claim all the rights in the world, but if the person in front of me with a gun decides to shoot, I don't see what those claims really mean except that the shooting was unjust. At the same time, if I'm holding that person's child at gunpoint, wouldn't that justify the shooting? Regardless of my rights, regardless of my claims as a man, as a human being, that person is justified in shooting me. Unless of course, the child was trying to mug me and threatened me with a knife to the throat. We can keep spinning this hypothetical forever, but my point is that my ability to live is dependent on both my 'willful violation' of other people's rights and the recognition that I, like those other people, have rights. But isn't that recognition dependent on the belief that I also recognize their right to live? No reciprocal recognition (this is what I mean by responsible), no rights; or, if you want, no reciprocal recognition and we have to fight for those rights. This doesn't begin to address many of the important issues brought up here (and I've touched on still more in this comment), but I'll tell you what, I'll concede that there may indeed be transcendent, inalienable rights in the eyes of God, that is was an important move two hundred and twenty-five years ago to counter the transcendent, inalienable rights of Kings. But what do rights mean between people? Brad |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Damn it, LR, you're jumping ahead of me. I was going to talk about the fourteenth amendment. One step at a time, one step at a time. Brad |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
I also think the eleventh amendment is important. |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Brad- "my point is that my ability to live is dependent on both my 'willful violation' of other people's rights and the recognition that I, like those other people, have rights." Huh? Okay- I'm getting a "You don't know what you've got till it's gone" vibe from that quote... but I'm not understanding why you have to threaten or eliminate another's rights in order to live or realize that you, yourself have rights. Are you saying that you have the right to infringe on the rights of others, and you need to experience this in order to realize that you have the rights you are taking from someone? I'm not exactly catching your drift on this one. I understand the scenario you described.... I just can't quite connect the two together. "I'm thinking about leaving tomorrow I'm thinking about being on my own I think I been wasting my time I'm thinking about getting out" [This message has been edited by hush (12-21-2001 12:18 AM).] |
||
|
NapalmsConstantlyConfused
since 2001-05-15
Posts 529 |
yarrrrrrrgh. redefine "rights." you do not have a "right" to a color television. you do not have a "right" to a certain standard of living. you do not have a "right" to a certain minimum wage. you DO have a right to live your life your own way, as long as it doesn't interfere with anyone else's. you do have a right to PURSUE happiness.... no guarantee that you will catch it, but you can pursue it all you want. you have a right to freedom - you should be completely and utterly free to do anything you want to do that doesn't interfere with anyone else. there are responsibilities with those. well, responsibility, singular, really. DON'T INTERFERE WITH OTHER PEOPLE. this is a false debate, as anything that requires more responsibility than you watching your own feet is not a "right" but an agreement that you make with society, part of the social contract. RIGHTS are inherent in being a rational, thinking creature. they can only be "lost" when you have interfered with others to a point where you become a menace. PRIVILEGES are granted by the government, your parents, whoever - and can be rescinded without cause. a fetus, without the ability to make decisions, can neither ask for privileges, nor abdicate responsibilities. with regard to abortion, then, i pose this: a human's rights can only be curtailed if the person is interfering with others. a fetus cannot interfere with others, as it cannot yet make choices. a fetus is a human being and therefore entitled to the same rights and freedoms as everyone else. which all begs the question: AT WHICH POINT IS THE FETUS A PERSON? until you give me a scientifically accurate, rational, definitive answer, the whole abortion debate is a moot point anyway. -Dave [This message has been edited by NapalmsConstantlyConfused (12-21-2001 12:55 AM).] |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Okay...lemme see if I am following here... are we attempting to illustrate the difference of ability, "rights", and privelage? I am also still having difficulty with the responsibilities issue too...(The charges against Ringling Bros. for "elephant abuse" came to mind, I must admit.) But keep using visuals for me, Brad, as I think better that way. (I think, ) |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
It's not your fault, it's mine. Either I'm not clear enough on my own thinking or I'm not using the right words. Probably a little bit of both. What I mean is that to have rights, you have to have the potential ability (and therefore an inherent responsibility) to infringe the rights of others AND to be recognized as having rights yourself. Let me take the screaming, "Fire!" in a crowded theater example: 1. I can speak. 2. I am recognized by others that I can speak. 3. In order for me to have and use the right to free speech these two points are necessary. 4. As a result, I can yell, "Fire!" in a crowded theater. 5. But in order to keep my rights as a full citizen, I must restrain myself from doing just that. Thus, my right to free speech is dependent on my ability to violate it and the recognition by others that I have that ability. Now let's go back to my original example: 1. A man in front of me has a gun to my head. 2. I scream, "You can't kill me, I have my rights!" 3. But that makes no sense because, of course, he CAN kill me. 4. It is his recognition of those rights that keep me alive, nothing else. 5. But those rights are also forfeit if I have taken his child as a hostage, if I have willfully violated the rights of someone else. 6. But let's say I'm Stephen Hawking. At first glance, one might think that from my point of view, he has no rights. 7. But that's not true because he can still communicate, he can still say, "Fire!" to another person or a voice recognition computer and kill the child. 8. Therefore, he has rights. He can participate in society. ---------------------------- One distinction that I haven't made clear yet is that between active and passive 'rights'. Everything I've talked about up to now has been concentrating on active rights: the right to worship, the right to free speech, the right to assemble, the right to own a gun. This is what I mean by 'rights'. This is my fault, guys, I should have made that distinction clearer from the start. Ron's points, for example, threw me for a loop because they can so easily be dispensed with (I'll do that later), I couldn't figure out what he was driving at, but what I've neglected is stuff like the right to no cruel and unusual punishment or, as Denise, pointed out the right to life (the right not to die). These are, I contend, passive rights and therefore no rights at all. Or rather, people who have the ability to torture or to kill do not have the right to exercise those abilities. ------------------------------ So why am I torturing everybody with all this stuff? Because I think the idea of intrinsic, universal, human rights is a joke. It's untenable and nobody follows it. And I can't get all this stuff out as clearly as I'd like, because I've been watching the baby. She just woke up. Brad |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
I'll wait, Brad. Your priorities are in order...smile...and? I'm a bit envious....Babies? I LOVE babies. A belated congratulations to you. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Okay...I came back to ask, by active and passive rights am I correct in concluding you are describing "legal rights" as active, and passive rights as "morality and ethics?" |
||
|
Jamie Member Elite
since 2000-06-26
Posts 3168Blue Heaven |
and don't confuse someone's ability to deny another's rights as a right in and of itself. That is only wrong. There is society where none intrudes, by the deep sea, and music in its roar. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Serenity, The elephants at Ringling Bros. are a good example. If you look at Dave's argument above, you'll notice that he's saying that the abuse of animals cannot be interfered with because that would involve interfering with other people. He's also arguing that a doctor, anytime he or she wants, can choose not to operate or care for a patient because it doesn't involve interference with other people. This is the "your right to swing your arm ends at my nose" argument. But that doesn't protect your nose, does it? Somewhere along the line, 'rights' came to be seen as a form or protection and/or empowerment but that is a myth. They don't protect you from someone who doesn't recognize them and they don't empower you to do anything -- you still have to have the ability to do something in order to do something. When we separate rights from responsibilities, we abstract them to the point where they no longer mean anything. When we argue that rights are inherent in individuals regardless, someone still has rights even when they were placed in a Soviet gulag. That makes no sense to me. But let me try to explain what I mean by rights: 1. A right is the social acceptance (not necessarily approval) to do something. Saying someone has a right is saying that he or she can do that action and we won't interfere. 2. In order to do something, you have to be able to do that something. I suppose you could say, "Men have the right to get pregnant," but it's useless until it's possible. Uh, is it possible yet? 3. This means that if you have a right, you can also violate that social acceptance. If men have the right to get pregnant, we can interfere if the egg is stolen for example. 4. Therefore, if you have a right you also have a responsibility. 5. That responsibility or rather the choice to be irresponsible necessarily entails that a right can be taken away. 6. But that taking away is predicated on social procedures already agreed upon. A violation of one's rights is not the loss of that right but the loss of that right when those procedures aren't followed. A privilege is a 'right' that can be taken away without that procedure. 7. Rights are a social phenomenon, not a natural one. You have no right not to be hit by lightning (or, as I would say, lightning cannot take the responsibility). 8. Rights are not entitlements. You do have the right to own a TV, you are not entitled to a TV (at least for now). I probably missed something but that's where I'm coming from. I hope that at the very least everybody sees that I'm trying to de-mystify the term. Invoking rights does not give you magical powers. -------------------------------- So, who gets rights? 1. They have to be able to do something. 2. They have to be seen as able to do something (society's acceptance). 3. In order for that to happen, you have to participate in that society or be seen as having the potential to participate in society. 4. I think that potential can be defined by the ability to use language. Not just language however, rights should be given to people who can talk about rights. If they can't talk about rights, they can't accept the responsibility that comes with them. Be back later and try to deal with Interloper's excellent point about age. Brad |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
We keep changing our definitions and premises. For a society to function, there must be basic inherent rights. Responsibilities cannot exist without rights. How can you be responsible for something that does not exist? If you do not believe in a god, then rights are not divine. The rights are then inherently human. If these inherent rights do not exist, then humanity is no more than a feral creature. To some extent, I think we are playing semantics. Cognitive ability may be an integral factor, but is not equated to responsibility. While you may need awareness to understand you responsibilities and rights, it does not follow that your rights do not exist if you do not have such awareness. I fully agree with the concept of the perceived mushrooming of rights. That is why I was somewhat confused when in another thread you defined political correctness merely as euphemistic speech, but that is another matter. Bottom line, your points are still not clear, although I think I see the general direction from whence you come, but still having a difficult time making the leap of logic that rights only exist if you recognize their existence. As an aside, some would disagree that you have an inherent right to kill in self-defense. |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
and please do not forget the XI amendment. I look forward to your thoughts on that subject. |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
"Somewhere along the line, 'rights' came to be seen as a form or protection and/or empowerment but that is a myth. They don't protect you from someone who doesn't recognize them and they don't empower you to do anything -- you still have to have the ability to do something in order to do something." I disagree. The freedom of speech, the constitutional right to speak our minds, gives us the ability to fight censorship. Now, saying you have the freedom of speech doesn't protect you from someone with a gun who doesn't like what you have to say- but there are rules that protect us from people with guns. Which I guess leads to this- a rule saying we have the right to do something (freedom of speech) protects an active right. A rule that forbids someone harming us is protecting a passive right- the right to live, or pursue life. Does one take more importance over the other? Is my right to not be shot more important than my ability to shoot? I mean, if we all exercise our right not to be shot (as most of us do every day), our race stays alive a hell of a lot longer than if we all exercise our ability (right? is an ability a right, or vice-versa?) to shoot. Maybe it's just a common sense thing, or even a concern for the welfare of others thing. I think that somewhere along the line, logic gives way (or simply becomes intwined with) human feelings. I have the physical ability to buy a gun and shoot someone with it- but I seriously doubt that I have the emotional ability to go through something that needlessly cruel. "I'm thinking about leaving tomorrow |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Does it really? --If we just look at the texts: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." and "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." --and compare the similar points in the Soviet constitution: "Article 50. In accordance with the interests of the people and in order to strengthen and develop the socialist system, citizens of the USSR are guaranteed freedom of speech, of the press, and of assembly, meetings, street processions and demonstrations. Exercise of these political freedoms is ensured by putting public buildings, streets and squares at the disposal of the working people and their organisations, by broad dissemination of information, and by the opportunity to use the press, television, and radio. Article 51. In accordance with the aims of building communism, citizens of the USSR have the right to associate in public organisations that promote their political activity and initiative and satisfaction of their various interests. Public organisations are guaranteed conditions for successfully performing the functions defined in their rules. Article 52. Citizens of the USSR are guaranteed freedom of conscience, that is, the right to profess or not to profess any religion, and to conduct religious worship or atheistic propaganda. Incitement of hostility or hatred on religious grounds is prohibited. In the USSR, the church is separated from the state, and the school from the church." --As well as the one from the PRC: "Article 35 Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration. Article 36 Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of religious belief. No state organ, public organization or individual may compel citizens to believe in, or not believe in, any religion; nor may they discriminate against citizens who believe in, or do not believe in, any religion. The state protects normal religious activities. No one may make use of religion to engage in activities that disrupt public order, impair the health of citizens or interfere with the educational system of the state. Religious bodies and religious affairs are not subject to any foreign domination." --and since I'm quoting, I thought I'd give a quick one from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: "The General Assembly, Proclaims this Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction." This is already long enough, I'll try to get back with more stuff later. Brad |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Also, for anyone interested, this is a great thread to read the constitutions of different countries. http://confinder.richmond.edu/ I found the Iranian and Iraqi constitutions quite interesting in their take on 'rights.' Thanks, Brad |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Hmmmmm, got a little time before my daughter wakes up. Hush said: "I disagree. The freedom of speech, the constitutional right to speak our minds, gives us the ability to fight censorship." --But that's not what the first amendment says. The constitution says that the government shall not make laws to prohibit your speech except in certain cases (those certain cases are defined in the preamble). --The ability to fight censorhip is inherent in speaking a language, you already have that ability. The American government has decided not to interfere with that ability, but because you can fight censorship doesn't always mean you are free from it. "Now, saying you have the freedom of speech doesn't protect you from someone with a gun who doesn't like what you have to say" --I agree, but isn't that how people seem to interpret it? Perhaps few would put it like that but how many times have you heard, say in the poetry forums (and not just here), someone argue that they have the right to free speech, you can't say what you said? People, not all of course, interpret it as protection, not as freedom. "but there are rules that protect us from people with guns." --There are rules that punish the use of violence or the threat of violence, but that doesn't protect us. "Which I guess leads to this- a rule saying we have the right to do something (freedom of speech) protects an active right." --I would say that a right is the ability to do what you can do without interference without due process of law -- without a procedure. "A rule that forbids someone harming us is protecting a passive right- the right to live, or pursue life." --But life isn't always dependent on another individual, natural disasters or what have you. I think it's simpler to say that agents cannot murder without punishment. "Does one take more importance over the other? Is my right to not be shot more important than my ability to shoot? I mean, if we all exercise our right not to be shot (as most of us do every day), our race stays alive a hell of a lot longer than if we all exercise our ability (right? is an ability a right, or vice-versa?) to shoot." --Yep. An ability is not a right by the way, it is, I think, a presupposition of having a right, but a right without an ability is no right at all. "Maybe it's just a common sense thing, or even a concern for the welfare of others thing." --Yep. I think that's exactly what it is. Somewhere along the line, we've lost this idea that in order to exist in any society, you must maintain a moral/ethical responsibility to others. --It doesn't work without it. "I think that somewhere along the line, logic gives way (or simply becomes intwined with) human feelings. I have the physical ability to buy a gun and shoot someone with it- but I seriously doubt that I have the emotional ability to go through something that needlessly cruel." --I don't think the two are separable. No logic without human feelings, no specifically human feeling without logic (that is, only instinct). Thanks, Brad PS Anybody notice the interesting difference placed on freedoms in the old USSR, the PRC, and the USA? I don't mean to say that this is why the systems are different but I thought it was interesting. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Hmmm...Oh, hey, I'm back! And yet something is still not clicking in my head regarding this relationship between rights and responsibilities. But it's Christmas eve...oops, actually early morn! Yikes...and I feel I have the right to get some sleep, but alas seem to be lacking the ability, and as the kids will be up before the sun today, I would certainly consider it a privelage!  (Brad, is this stuff SUPPOSED to keep ya up nights?  )Have a happy holiday! |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
Constitutions (when listing rights) of most countries are similar because as humans we recognise certain basic human rights. The difference in the constitutions may well represent the differences in our views on rights. The United States Constitution recognises the inherent, or inalienable rights of a people. We as a people accept we have the rights and empower a government, preventing it from interfering with those rights. Russia and Chinese constitutions do not comprehend a people empowering a government, the government is the power which allows rights to the people. "A right without an ability is no right at all." That is the heart of the discussion. Did the women of Afghanistan, those locked in the Gulags, or individuals in any number of hypotheticals not have rights, because they could not exercize them? I say yes. You say no. Again, I suspect it is somewhat a matter of semantics. We fight for our rights. Do they not become rights until we have the power, or ability to exercise them? I hope not. |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
I agree with the originator of this thread 100% Rights & Responsibilities go hand-in-hand. I have taught the Navy Rights & Responsibilites seminar for over 10 years now. However, I should say that rights and responsibilites SHOULD go hand-in-hand, because in many cases they do not. I have read recently that certain criminals who are serving life terms are suing the state/federal goverment because they want the RIGHT to procreate. I say they lost that right among many others because they weren't RESPONSIBLE. Also, there are double standards in the military, where higher ranking officials are not held RESPONSIBLE as junior members are held and the RIGHTS of the junior members are taken away, yet the RIGHTS of these senior members are not. |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Brad: quote: I guess what I said wasn't exactly what I meant to say here. Of course we all have the ability to protest censorship (or anything, for that matter.) I could protest an "F" in a class with the argument of "but I have to pass, this isn't fair" etc. However, when faced with a series of "F"s in the gradebook, I have no leverage. Leverage is the word I should have used instead of ability. It gives us power- when Americans protest something on the grounds that it threatens their constitutional rights (and especially when those are first amendment rights) people are more inclined to listen than when you just whine and say "Yeah, well, yelling 'fire' seemed fun at the time..." and yeah, sometimes the violation of rights argument is stupid, like a frivolous lawsuit ("It's my freedom to tell the officer he's a fat pig and he can F-off if he wants to tell me I've had too much to drink...") and that's where responsibility is a factor. So-and-so chose to ignore his right to remain silent, in light of the warning that anythihng he says can be used against him. But we're not talking about a fetus' (or invalid's) right to cuss somebody out. We're talking about a right to life. Let's look back at the beginning of this thread. "If someone has rights, they can lose them. If they can't lose them, they don't have rights. How can a foetus, through its own action, lose its rights?" You are saying that we can only have rights if we can willfully lose them. How do we gain them in the first place then? By virtue of being an American? By being born? We've been through this already- and nobody's going to agree. Fetuses lose their right to life through abortion. They don't violate anybody else's rights. You say rights and responsibilities are connected: "I don't see how we can separate rights and responsibilites for that would mean that when someone abrogates their responsibilites we can't infringe upon their rights." If a fetus doesn't have any responsibilities, it can't fail to live up to them. If it doesn't break any responsibilities, what gives us the right to infringe upon their rights? The rationalization that they are not yet born? "I'm thinking about leaving tomorrow |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Hush said: "You are saying that we can only have rights if we can willfully lose them. How do we gain them in the first place then? By virtue of being an American? By being born? We've been through this already- and nobody's going to agree." --We gain them by being recognized as a member of a society. This is generally seen as being a human being but 'human' and 'personhood' are too malleable. Dave talks about a scientific explanation but we're not talking about science, we're using our ability to recognize another person as a person, as 'one of us' and that can mean anything to anyone. Your earlier point about slavery is right on the money. Want to have slaves but believe in human rights, presto, an African man or woman becomes a sub-man or sub-woman. You don't like Jews? You do the same thing. Don't like Bin Laden, he's no longer human. --So, you're right we won't agree on what is human, but is there another way that makes it extremely difficult to make these arbitrary disctinctions? I think the ability to speak a language, the ability to talk back, to disagree, to engage in conversation is a factor that we recognize even if we don't want to recognize them as human. --In "Silence of the Lambs" there's a scene where the wannabe transexual talks to his victim as if it were a thing, but he loses it, and talks to his victim as if she were a human. At that moment, it is a recognition of a common factor, he's not crazy, as Hanibal Lector pointed out, he's trying to be crazy. Intuitively, he knows that what he does is something he's doing to someone like him. --It is extremely difficult, I think, to maintain the mirage of a non-language user when they can talk back to you. Not impossible but extremely hard to do. As you point out, a slave has responsibilities but no rights; in order to deny rights, you also have to deny the ability to speak and understand to a slave and that, by definition, severely limits his responsibilities. --If you do talk to a slave as a member of a language community, it becomes a self-performative contradiction. He can't be a slave by this approach. The same goes for women and/or any other ethnic group. Opeth is correct, however, that this rights/responsibilites coin if you will is not currently abided by. I think it should. "Fetuses lose their right to life through abortion. They don't violate anybody else's rights. You say rights and responsibilities are connected:" --But I think Serenity's point, "as long as there are coat hangers" is extremely poignant. A woman has the ability to terminate a fetus, the question is should she have the right? It's not a case of conflicting rights but a case between a woman's ability and society's acceptance. If abortion were illegal, what do we do to the woman if she breaks the law. That is the issue. As a member of a language community she can make the case for a right, but it's the society of language users that ultimately determine whether she should have that right (and she's a member of that society). I agree that the 'rights' of a fetus have a tremendous 'leverage' ability; but I suggest that that 'leverage' is based on an untenable thesis. It falls apart when looked at closely. "If a fetus doesn't have any responsibilities, it can't fail to live up to them. If it doesn't break any responsibilities, what gives us the right to infringe upon their rights?" --But a fetus doesn't have any rights because it can't do anything with them. 'A right to life' is the responsibility of others not to kill (Tim would argue that this is semantics and it is but it shifts, I think, the debate in a clearer direction). A society can certainly restrain the ability of it's members but it can't control a 'right to life' because a society can't control the world: a hurricane, an earthquake, lightning, a wild bear etc. What is a right to life mean except in a social context? The rationalization that they are not yet born? --birth, in this approach, does not confer rights. Rights are given to members of a language community. --This is where Interloper's point about age comes in. By this approach, a four year old can have rights but an infant cannot. But can you have meaningful debate on rights with a four year old? Should we? In order to be a recognized member of a language community, it has to take time. How much time is arbitrary, society decides by making a rough guess as to where someone has had enough training to be recognized as a member of a community (passing or failing is dependent on your ability to participate and training is based on age or length of time agreed upon). But that can be 21, 18, 16, 13 -- any age is possible. If, for example, we could have a conversation with dolphins, with elephants, AI or ET, then all these, by definition, would be let into the community. But of course this would have to be a community recognized conversation. We already have people who have imaginary conversations with soccer balls. But soccer balls don't talk back. Brad |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
"But soccer balls don't talk back." Brad, maybe you're just not kicking them hard enough! Okay, okay, I'm SORRY...last joke, and I have been reading, and I think I'm finally getting it! So...thank you for your patience, and will be reading of course, and I will pop in when I feel another tangent coming on! But for now, all of this THINKING is interfering with my writing...but I did want to thank you for putting up with my confusion! Ta Ta for now! |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Brad- "But a fetus doesn't have any rights because it can't do anything with them." I guess I agree with Tim's earlier comment that people who are unable to exercise their rights still have them. "'A right to life' is the responsibility of others not to kill (Tim would argue that this is semantics and it is but it shifts, I think, the debate in a clearer direction). A society can certainly restrain the ability of it's members but it can't control a 'right to life' because a society can't control the world: a hurricane, an earthquake, lightning, a wild bear etc. What is a right to life mean except in a social context?" This is a very good point... I guess I should clarify again. By "right to life" I guess I meant a right to not be aborted intentionally by the mother. Right to life was just more concise. Still- you call it the responsibility of others not to kill... the real center of this is how do we decide what responsibilities we assign in order to ensure our citizens their rights? Which all leads back to determining exactly who is a "recognized member" of society. I guess I see it in terms of the age problem. If language really is the determinate factor, how is killing a 2-month-old any different than aborting a fetus. I think that the potential for future communication from the form of life should be considered. No... soccer balls don't talk back... neither do newborns. The difference is, in ten years, the soccer ball still won't talk. The child will. I'm not arguing for illegalization of abortion here. I personally agree with Serenity's "As long as there are coat hangers" point. But someone (it might have been Serentiy) made a point in the abortion thread- someone can be pro-life and pro-choice at the same time. I am pro-life because I feel that terminating a human life (or potential for human life) is wrong under any circumstance. However, just because it is wrong doesn't mean it can't be justified. I also feel that a lot of women get abortions because society makes it inconvenient for them to have children... but I'm not blind to the fact that even if women dominated in society, some would still not want to have their babies. When we take away the freedom of choice in our society, we a) impose a certain morality or ideaology on everyone, which is very anti-American b) show that we have no compassion for the plights of unfortunate women who may have been taken advantage of or honestly see no other way out and c) eliminate the ability for our citizens to set their own standards of right and wrong... which I guess is just me repeating a)... lol. "I'm thinking about leaving tomorrow |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
I think hush makes some good points but loses me in her last paragraph. I want to make it clear, I am not criticizing anyone's position, but trying to comprehend. I find her thoughts interesting, because it explains how an individual who is morally pro-life can also morally accept the pro-choice position. I would suspect a significant number of people in that position just don't let their morals get in the way. The one sentence I have the most difficulty is the sentence that it is very anti-American to impose a certain morality or ideology on everyone. Realizing that I am not the brightest bulb in the string, that seems to me to be getting pretty close to anarchy when you include morality. What is the moral difference between a seventeen year old girl getting an abortion on a Sunday while the fetus is still in utero, or waiting til Monday, immediately following birth, and terminating the life of the baby? Society and government impose vastly different moral values and consequences on that decision. We do not want to go back to coat hangers, but sadly, infanticide is still present in far greater numbers than most would want to believe. Does an individual have a right to protest against capital punishment? Certainly. Does a person have a right to protest against abortion? Certainly. It has always been interesting to me, that the underlying issue in both is the taking of a life. In one situation, the question is the forfeiting of life, and the other, does life exist? In both instances, a significant number of people feel it is proper to protest against one and not the other, depending on their moral views. Should not those on each side of both issues, abortion and capital punishment, not only be allowed to protest, but be morally expected to protest? Whether you want to call it a right, or responsibility, does not a person have a moral obligation? [This message has been edited by Tim (12-30-2001 12:20 PM).] |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Tim and Hush, Everything seems to revolve around the 'right to life' for a fetus but I think what we actually do is quite different when we compare this with other rights. I think we're confusing (yes, we, it's easy to fall back on these terms) the idea of protection and/or entitlement with rights. If we accept this, I think we follow down a dangerous path. We confuse the difference between 'freedom to' and 'freedom from'. I still think it helps to say that I have a right to speak my mind, a right to assemble, to protest, to participate in a society partially because others in that society can make the choice to listen or not to, to join or not to join, to agree or disagree. But once we move to freedom from poverty, from danger, from the intent of others, it's just a hop, skip, and a jump to more irresolvable conflicts between passive and active rights. Who wins? As I said before, a fetus and a two month old infant do not have rights but does that mean they shouldn't be protected? Not at all, we who can participate in the discussion determine whether they should be protected or not. Social services can take away a newborn from a woman hooked on heroin without her consent, she fails in her responsibility to be a mother she loses that right to be one (not arbitrarily but procedurally). At what point can a fetus be successfully transferred to another womb (artificial or natural), how much would that cost, and are we as a society and as individuals willing to pay for that? I don't hear many people discussing this because I think the issue of rights has muddied the issue. Is it really about the life of the fetus or is it a belief that one should live with the consquences of his or her actions? The abortion debate is often amended to 'except in cases of rape, incest, or the life of the mother' but this exception seems to indicate that the life of the fetus is less important then the mother taking responsibility for her actions (and one would think the father but that seems to be an issue, if not completely ignored, less touched upon). Let's not call protection a right, but decide as those people who can protect, how best we should or shouldn't protect. What are we going to do about it? And what do we do to the mother and the doctor when they break the rules we decide upon? If you call abortion murder, shouldn't the price be the same as murder? ---------------------------- Tim, You mentioned capital punishment and it seems that's always in the background as well. But I don't think the issue is the right to live but what we should do to prisoners. Prisoners, by my way of thinking, have no more a right to life than a fetus (they've lost them), but does that mean we should kill them? I don't think so. I don't think so because the government can make mistakes and should hold off on final solutions whenever possible. It's not the prisoner who has rights, it's our responsibility to get it right. Brad [This message has been edited by Brad (12-31-2001 12:04 AM).] |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
