What is a right?

[Accountable]

Define fundamental human right in your own words, please, then let's try to boil it down to something we can live with.

 

[Springsteen]

Human rights, well I think that if we are in our own homes we should be able to do whatever we want as long as it's not too extreme (Looking at kiddy porn, learing how to make a bomb on the Internet - stuff like that), but normal stuff sure, walk around naked if you want to, it's your space.

If we're in public I think we should be able to walk around and not be harrassed (Street sellers for example) and as long as we're not breaking any laws then sure, if you want to drink beer in the street then you should be able to.

 

[Accountable]

I understand, but what I'm really looking for is a formula - a set of criteria that we can agree establishes what a right is and is not.

For instance, a right should not obligate another person to action.

 

[Lord Stanley]

life
liberty
freedom of speech
drinkable water
safe food

 

[Accountable]

Your last two violate the obligation I mentioned. Do you disagree with my post #3?

 

[Burntblood]

life
liberty
freedom of speech
drinkable water
safe food

And internet access.

 

[catisland]

Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness.

Wait a minute! didn't somebody already say that a while back? Yikes!

 

[Brujahpriest]

Honestly I had a social studies teacher who put it perfectly for me.

Stand up in the middle of the room and extend your arms out.
Now swing your arms around you. (These symbolize any action you can take in life)

Now imagine yourself in a room full of people doing the same thing. Is your arm going to hit someone else?

Its at that point that the idea of "right of self" gives way to the idea of the "right of society". Basically meaning as long as you do not affect the right of someone else's actions, you can be free to do as you will.

Almost like the Wiccan Rede "And you harm none, do as you will" but more generic... almost "As you affect none, do as you will"

 

[ssl]

a concept, whether purported by the elite, designed by the impoverished, or compromised by both, that all who subscribe to said belief, enables one and all to engage in whatever deemed necessary, but only as the individual or group respects others and said activity or belief does not impose restrictions of others to engage in same activity or hold in belief of the same ideology.

 

[Tim]

a concept, whether purported by the elite, designed by the impoverished, or compromised by both, that all who subscribe to said belief, enables one and all to engage in whatever deemed necessary, but only as the individual or group respects others and said activity or belief does not impose restrictions of others to engage in same activity or hold in belief of the same ideology.

You work WAYYY to hard at sounding intelligent and it renders your posts unpleasant to the reader... IMHO


I think this discussion has been around as long as there has been language. From the Cáin Adomnáin written in 697 and the Magna Carta in 1215 there have been many national human rights law proclaimed and written.
If you haven't read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, I suggest you do. It's a great starting point for this discussion.

 

[Lord Stanley]

Your last two violate the obligation I mentioned. Do you disagree with my post #3?

yes I suppose I do.....not sure we can rely on our own skills, abilities to find clean water and safe food in every case, so I would say there are times when others are olbligated to action in this regard...i think a scoiety that is to progress for the betterment of all demands this much from it's citizens

 

[nova]

Honestly I had a social studies teacher who put it perfectly for me.

Stand up in the middle of the room and extend your arms out.
Now swing your arms around you. (These symbolize any action you can take in life)

Now imagine yourself in a room full of people doing the same thing. Is your arm going to hit someone else?

Its at that point that the idea of "right of self" gives way to the idea of the "right of society". Basically meaning as long as you do not affect the right of someone else's actions, you can be free to do as you will.

Almost like the Wiccan Rede "And you harm none, do as you will" but more generic... almost "As you affect none, do as you will"

Thats a good definition although a bit incomplete so I'd like to expand upon it.

Philosophically rights fall into two basic categories, natural rights and civil rights. I'll expand upon each of these individually.

Natural rights are those things which you can do without interference from others by the simple virtue of the fact that you are a human being. Natural rights all devolve into one of three basic categories,

• life - the right to exist
• liberty - the right to act as you please
• property - the right to do with what you own as you please

Natural rights are bounded by a couple things.

The first is what I call the desert island test. If the conceptual right makes sense in the context of you being all alone on a desert island, then it is a natural right. Freedom to speak your mind, practice your religion, defend yourself from danger, these all make sense whether you are in society or not.

This test also precludes rights that require someone else to provide you with something from being natural rights as if you're all alone on a desert island, how can someone else provide them to you.

The second boundary is the idea that you are not allowed to infringe upon anyone elses rights to life, liberty and property. I can't use my liberty rights, to shoot you (unless you attack me first) ending your life and infringing upon your right to life. The same goes for shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, religion that requires human sacrifice and any number of other examples.

The second category of civil rights, is those rights that only make sense in the context of living within society. These rights typically must be enumerated in the founding documents (if any) of the society and are generally designed to ensure a good relationship between the gov't and the citizenry. The right against self incrimination and the right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure are good examples.

Civil rights can result in the gov't being required to provide certain resources to the citizenry. The right to an attorney at trial is a good example of this. If the gov't brings you to trial for crimes, in order to maintain a good relationship with the citizenry, the gov't has to provide you an attorney if you can't afford one, in order to help maintain the fairness of the trail system.

In theory, anything can become a civil right, even one that requires providing of resources by someone else, if the right is enumerated in some founding document.

 

[ssl]

You work WAYYY to hard at sounding intelligent and it renders your posts unpleasant to the reader... IMHO


I think this discussion has been around as long as there has been language. From the Cáin Adomnáin written in 697 and the Magna Carta in 1215 there have been many national human rights law proclaimed and written.
If you haven't read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, I suggest you do. It's a great starting point for this discussion.

I'm sorry. I believe he asked for an opinion, and therefore I rendered mine.

If it seems too intelligent for my internet persona, my apologies.

 

[Accountable]

Honestly I had a social studies teacher who put it perfectly for me.

Stand up in the middle of the room and extend your arms out.
Now swing your arms around you. (These symbolize any action you can take in life)

Now imagine yourself in a room full of people doing the same thing. Is your arm going to hit someone else?

Its at that point that the idea of "right of self" gives way to the idea of the "right of society". Basically meaning as long as you do not affect the right of someone else's actions, you can be free to do as you will.

Almost like the Wiccan Rede "And you harm none, do as you will" but more generic... almost "As you affect none, do as you will"

I've heard that analogy before, similar to "your right to swing your fist stops at the end of my nose."
I like the swinging arms idea. It fits well.

 

[Accountable]

yes I suppose I do.....not sure we can rely on our own skills, abilities to find clean water and safe food in every case, so I would say there are times when others are olbligated to action in this regard...i think a scoiety that is to progress for the betterment of all demands this much from it's citizens

But doesn't imposing on one person to fulfill the"right" of another, mean that the second person loses the right to act as he chooses? If a person has a right to safe food, for instance, he need not make any effort at all to obtain that safe food yet must by right be provided it from someone. He effectively has the right to do nothing. If no one volunteers to provide the clean food, then someone must be forced to. Doesn't that make the right of the provider to do nothing, less than the right of the eater to do nothing?

 

[Accountable]

Thats a good definition although a bit incomplete so I'd like to expand upon it.

Philosophically rights fall into two basic categories, natural rights and civil rights. I'll expand upon each of these individually.

Natural rights are those things which you can do without interference from others by the simple virtue of the fact that you are a human being. Natural rights all devolve into one of three basic categories,

• life - the right to exist
• liberty - the right to act as you please
• property - the right to do with what you own as you please

Natural rights are bounded by a couple things.

The first is what I call the desert island test. If the conceptual right makes sense in the context of you being all alone on a desert island, then it is a natural right. Freedom to speak your mind, practice your religion, defend yourself from danger, these all make sense whether you are in society or not.

This test also precludes rights that require someone else to provide you with something from being natural rights as if you're all alone on a desert island, how can someone else provide them to you.

The second boundary is the idea that you are not allowed to infringe upon anyone elses rights to life, liberty and property. I can't use my liberty rights, to shoot you (unless you attack me first) ending your life and infringing upon your right to life. The same goes for shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, religion that requires human sacrifice and any number of other examples.

The second category of civil rights, is those rights that only make sense in the context of living within society. These rights typically must be enumerated in the founding documents (if any) of the society and are generally designed to ensure a good relationship between the gov't and the citizenry. The right against self incrimination and the right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure are good examples.

Civil rights can result in the gov't being required to provide certain resources to the citizenry. The right to an attorney at trial is a good example of this. If the gov't brings you to trial for crimes, in order to maintain a good relationship with the citizenry, the gov't has to provide you an attorney if you can't afford one, in order to help maintain the fairness of the trail system.

In theory, anything can become a civil right, even one that requires providing of resources by someone else, if the right is enumerated in some founding document.

Two question:

1. Do you see a civil right as a fundamental right?
2. When a natural right conflicts with a civil right, which one takes priority?

 

[Lord Stanley]

But doesn't imposing on one person to fulfill the"right" of another, mean that the second person loses the right to act as he chooses? If a person has a right to safe food, for instance, he need not make any effort at all to obtain that safe food yet must by right be provided it from someone. He effectively has the right to do nothing. If no one volunteers to provide the clean food, then someone must be forced to. Doesn't that make the right of the provider to do nothing, less than the right of the eater to do nothing?

i see your point, just will say that without safe water, safe food we perish

 

[nova]

Two question:

1. Do you see a civil right as a fundamental right?
2. When a natural right conflicts with a civil right, which one takes priority?

Tough questions...

1. For civil rights that provide for a good working relationship between the gov't and the citizenry I would say yes. For certain "positive" entitlement rights like the USSR used in its founding documents I would say no because the end result was to degrade the relationship between the gov't and the people.

There's also the issue that different societies will value rights differently. Something like the right to vote might not be fundamental in say a benevolent monarchy...

2. I don't think either takes priority. You can't use your natural rights to infringe upon another's civil rights and even when the state is using its power to legally and properly restrict your natural rights, they still have to abide by your civil rights.

 

[nova]

But doesn't imposing on one person to fulfill the"right" of another, mean that the second person loses the right to act as he chooses? If a person has a right to safe food, for instance, he need not make any effort at all to obtain that safe food yet must by right be provided it from someone. He effectively has the right to do nothing. If no one volunteers to provide the clean food, then someone must be forced to. Doesn't that make the right of the provider to do nothing, less than the right of the eater to do nothing?

I would say yes. You only have the right to attempt to acqure these things.

Back to my desert island test. If you're all alone on a desert island, how does the right to clean water make any sense? The answer is it doesn't.

You could enumerate such a right as a civil right, but you would be outside the typical historical bounds of civil rights and treading into dangerous territory. Most of the nations that espoused the "positive" theory of rights, have not been nice places to live...

 

[Minor Axis]

I understand, but what I'm really looking for is a formula - a set of criteria that we can agree establishes what a right is and is not.

For instance, a right should not obligate another person to action.

But a "right" effects the actions of others.

Wiki Human Rights.