»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
Do we have fundamental rights?
| Philosophy 101 |
|
Do we have fundamental rights? |
|
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration 
|
I was asked that question in this thread and when I answered an unequivocal "no," Ron suggested a new thread, anticipating some disagreement. What are your thoughts? |
||
| © Copyright 2007 C.G. Ward - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Edward Grim Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154Greenville, South Carolina |
Good question, let's look at the definition: A fundamental right is a right that has its origin in a country's constitution or that is necessarily implied from the terms of that constitution. These fundamental rights usually encompass those rights considered natural human rights. Some rights generally recognized as fundamental are: · Right to life · Right to marry · Right to procreate · Right to raise children free from unnecessary governmental interference · Right to freedom of association · Right to freedom of expression · Right to equality of treatment before the law (fair legal procedures) · Right to freedom of thought · Right to religious belief · Right to choose when and where to acquire formal education · Right to pursue happiness · Right to vote I would say yes, we all have those rights except a few. I would say no to "Right to life" because as long as euthanasia and abortion are around our "Right to life" isn't totally respected. Unborn children and dying elderly people apparently don't have that right. In the 40's and 50's, people didn't have the "Right to freedom of association" because HUAC was targeting any "Communists" in America, mostly in the Screenwriter's guild. But that is not so today. Other than the above, I would say yes that we have fundamental rights. Head Cheese & Chicken Feet |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I think Ed worded it well. |
||
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration |
I don't think Ed's right at any point in his post, up to and including the definition of a fundamental right. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Freedom "A man can never take away your Freedom," he told me. "They can only take power and make you pay a higher price when you choose to exercise it." ... When he finally continued, Grandfather's voice was almost a whisper. "It works both ways," he said, leaning closer, his minty breath an envelope around my face. "A man can never take away your freedom, and a man never grant it either." ... "But you must always remember that its Constitution, and all the laws Congress has passed since then, don't give you one bit more Freedom than you already have. Laws are made by men. Laws change. Your Freedom is part of you. It's forever." |
||
|
Edward Grim Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154Greenville, South Carolina |
"I don't think Ed's right at any point in his post, up to and including the definition of a fundamental right." Care to say why, amigo... |
||
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration |
Very romantic, Ron, but it sounds more like a state of being to me than a right, which is something that has to be afforded to you by another or others. Ed, I will, but it probably won't be until next week. Sorry. |
||
|
Edward Grim Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154Greenville, South Carolina |
lol, ok. Oh and I got the definition from Wikipedia so you can take it up with them.  Have a nice weekend comrade  Head Cheese & Chicken Feet |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
What's the difference between a 'fundamental' right, and an 'inalienable' right? Ron... I never knew you were an anarchist at heart I enjoyed reading that -- and it's true -- we are 'free' to do whatever we can get away with -- but, that begs the question. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Ed, they are ignoring you too.   |
||
|
Edward Grim Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154Greenville, South Carolina |
It was only a matter of time my friend... They only listen when I have my giant foot in my mouth. LOL Head Cheese & Chicken Feet |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"Fundamental" doesn't mean the same as "inalienable" See here , particularily the literal meaning "pertaining to a foundation" [This message has been edited by Essorant (03-08-2007 09:27 PM).] |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: When you quote a source verbatim and extensively, Ed, it's customary for a writer to cite the source and, on the Internet, provide a link. I'm sure you wouldn't want someone using your words and appearing to take credit for them. quote: But that's exactly the point, Christopher. If it has to be afforded to you by another then it's a privilege, not a right. Driving is a privilege, and so, too, is voting. Working for another man, in the exchange of sweat for goods or money, is also a privilege in the sense that you can't claim it without another's agreement. Telling your boss what you think of him, however, is a right that none can deny you. You just have to be willing to pay the price. Think of it another way. At what point would you stop trying to protect your child from physical harm? Is there a point at which the price would be too high to pay? Is it a privilege that can be given or revoked? Or is it a right you claim without reserve? One of the biggest issues I have with current American thought, especially as it relates to Iraq, is that we have the power to free another culture. I don't think we do. At best we can lower the cost of exercising freedom, which is certainly something worth doing, but we can never give a man what he already has, and never lower the cost of claiming it to zero. A man who doesn't want freedom, who is unwilling to pay a price for it, can never be "given" freedom. It's always there, always has been there, but it must be claimed. quote: Good question, LR. While there's certainly a semantic difference, as Essorant points out, I'll readily admit that I'm treating them as interchangeable terms. A fundamental right can't be revoked. quote: LOL. I honestly never thought of it that way, LR, but I guess maybe you're right, at least in some sense of the word. While I don't believe in the absence of rules, I also don't believe that all rules are created equal. I think most Americans agree with me, else we'd probably still be paying an unjust tax on imported tea. I recognize no moral obligation to obey laws simply because they are laws, and indeed, think we are obligated to actively disobey any law we are convinced is wrong. Of course, that's where we start getting into murky depths very quickly. When one man ignores the law, we have crime. When every man ignores the law, we anarchy. Somewhere in between there, and I honestly don't know where, we should find the genesis of Revolution. And while it inevitably carries an extremely high price, that too, is a fundamental right. |
||
|
Edward Grim Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154Greenville, South Carolina |
"When you quote a source verbatim and extensively, Ed, it's customary for a writer to cite the source and, on the Internet, provide a link." lol, ok sorry about that. The fact is that despite my youth, I am pretty ignorant to the workings of the computer (I still prefer my old Olivetti typewriter). So providing a link is not in my range of expertise, I can't even get the quote bars that everyone uses, lol. "I'm sure you wouldn't want someone using your words and appearing to take credit for them." Since it was a common definition I didn't think it'd be a problem. But here's where I got it from anyway (I don't know whether or not it will hyperlink but here it is anyway. )http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_right Head Cheese & Chicken Feet |
||
|
Edward Grim Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154Greenville, South Carolina |
Well what do ya know, it did hyperlink. Groovy... |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
What would Stalin's answer be . . . |
||
|
Edward Grim Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154Greenville, South Carolina |
I'd imagine he'd say something similar to: "Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas." Oh wait, he did say that, my bad. Just replace "ideas" with "rights" and there ya go. Head Cheese & Chicken Feet |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. The reality is no document about rights without the will to expend blood and or a bullet to back it has proven worth the paper it was written on. . |
||
|
ChristianSpeaks Member
since 2006-05-18
Posts 396Iowa, USA |
I agree with Yu. The only way that "fundemental rights" work is if they lie in the construct of similar views. There are some in Baghdad that think it is their fundemental right to buy fruit without being blown up until someone who doesn't share that view walk up with a bomb straped to their chest. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: No. They believe (and I agree) they have a fundamental right to buy fruit (assuming someone else is willing to sell it.) They can choose to exercise that right or not, depending on the cost involved. The potential for being blown up is the cost they must bear. You and I bear exactly the same cost for shopping, though we have managed to so far mitigate the cost with better law enforcement. There will never exist a fundamental right to make others do something you want them to do. Not even when that something is to abstain from killing you. |
||
|
Edward Grim Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154Greenville, South Carolina |
Where'd Chris go? He still needs to explain what's wrong with my first post. lol Head Cheese & Chicken Feet |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Um ... the source of our "fundamental rights" in the U.S. is the Constitution. Are you asking us whether the Constitution exists? Put simply, fundamental rights are those rights deemed essential for the protection of society and, thus, the violation or restrictions of fundamental rights would be detrimental to society. In short, The U.S. Constitution exists. Fundamental rights are granted to us by the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, we, in the U.S., have fundamental rights. Jim |
||
|
Angel4aKing Senior Member
since 2006-09-27
Posts 1372USA |
Depends on where you are doing your poles.... Check the Metropolotians one by one.... ~~~kingsangel~~~ |
||
|
Edward Grim Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154Greenville, South Carolina |
The fact is that we obviously have fundamental rights. I think Chris just saw the leak in the boat and decided to jump ship. And I agree with Huan, that no freedom is worth having if we're not willing to die for it. But luckily they have an organization for that specific purpose: it's called the military. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Jim, are you suggesting that America is the only country where anyone has fundamental rights?  |
||
|
Edward Grim Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154Greenville, South Carolina |
I think you mean "America" dude. Head Cheese & Chicken Feet |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Ron: I don't think I suggested anything of the sort. I could probably research the Constitutions and laws of other countries that grant their respective citizens fundamental rights (and I would expect to find such declarations in Western European countries, numerous countries in Africa, and India, to name a few). In countries without such laws, I suppose you have to ask yourself whether certain rights are fundamental apart from the laws of the land. That raises the question I think Chris was really getting at ... apart from legal declarations of fundamental rights, are there certain rights all human beings have solely on the basis of their being human beings. The framers of the U.S. Constitution and its source documents (e.g., the Declaration of Independence and the Magna Carta) seemed to attribute the source of our "unalienable rights" to be the Laws of Nature and the Laws of Nature's God (althought I believe the latter to be more philosophical than theological). But it is difficult to argue even from a Biblical standpoint that people have fundamental rights apart from the declaration of a lawgiver (or Lawgiver). I would argue that there are certain countries where fundamental rights of their citizens ought to be granted for the benefit of the citizens and their society, but that, under tyranical regimes, either the recognition of fundamental rights or fundamental rights themselves do not exist. Jim |
||
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration |
quote:That's definitely more the direction I was looking at - one can argue on a country-by-country (perhaps city-by-city as some basic laws may differ even there) basis and provide some evidence that IN THAT COUNTRY, there are what could be called fundamental rights... within that framework. But I was thinking in more base and global terms. I apologize for starting something and not returning in full. We had a a big scare with my son. He's ok now, but it was touch-and-go and really scary there for a moment. I'll try to get back in when I get a bit more caught up here at work. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: My argument isn't Biblical, guys, but simply pragmatic. China has no such laws guarding free speech and, indeed, has been well known to suppress free speech at every turn. What is to stop you, however, from flying into Beijing, crawling up onto a handy soap box, and denouncing their government to anyone willing to listen? Free speech is a fundamental right. As long as you live, no one can take that freedom away from you without your cooperation. All they can ever do is make the price of exercising that freedom higher than you are willing to pay. The choice is still, and always, yours to make. The only difference between America and China is that we try alleviate (never eliminate) the cost. We try to make it easier (never easy) to exercise the right of free speech. We acknowledge the right, we don't create it. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
