The Concept of Rights

If there is any difference, then presumably "rights" are unconditional, or at least more strongly guaranteed.

EDIT: I suppose a right is something that you are owed, either in your own opinion or someone else's. It's a moral opinion.

Definitely, and I think that sense of responsibility is sorely lacking in secular society.

 

The Declaration of Independence described rights as unalienable, meaning they can be neither given nor taken away, which I think is fairly accurate. Society does agree to suspend certain of them where required, for example convicted criminals being locked away. I'm not sure that you could describe them as conditional though.

Specific rights are determined by each society or culture - a western definition of what our rights are would differ from the view in China, for example, and are given expression by the government. When a government rides roughshod - which they all do at one time or another - over the perceived rights of its citizens, that government tends not to last very long.

Where they differ from privilege is that we think of rights as applying to all people, whereas privilege is earned, or inherited by a specific group of people.

Please leave religion out of this, a lack of 'human responsibility' is not particular to non-religious people. There a great many religious people who are the most judgemental, uncaring and hypocritical people out there.

 

The willingness to be judgemental is a part of being responsible. Always shrugging your shoulders and saying, "live and let live" is irresponsible. You are certainly willing to be judgemental of my posts.

Hypocrisy is often a result of taking responsibility. I advocate for people to avoid pornography, yet I still watch it occasionally, some would call that hypocritical.

Yes, some people are uncaring, regardless of creed! So what?

 

I agree with everything you just said here, I'm just pointing out that in your original post you appear to lay the blame solely at secular society, when religious society can be just at fault.

 

I'm glad we can agree. I certainly have my problems with religious communities too, but I think the religious more often have a sense of responsibility extending beyond themselves.

 

Your rights are owed and can't be revoked. Your privileges are on loan.

The two concepts depend on contracts between you and the other party. I'm using the term contract loosely.

Those contracts aren't immutable. Any government can be overthrown. Any business can fail. What you define as yours; your land, your house, your car, are defined by legal documents somewhere and nothing else.

If I transport you back in time, space, and social status, and you're now a slave in a viking village, the idea of what your rights and privileges are becomes very different to what you feel they are now.

 

I think in a practical sense you have no rights unless they can be defended or you can convince enough people to respect them voluntarily.

 

...I've had this conversation before. I think I know where we'll end up, but let me just throw the argument out there for consideration:

1) Rights do not exist. If there is no material entity, there is no existence. "Rights", as I understand the definition, are those statuses which are due to a person or governmental body by law or tradition, usually abstract but are sometimes declared natural. I think you can make contracts, but those would only bestow privileges upon the individuals involved. There a no "natural or universal" rights, and anything said to be representative of such concepts are illusory.

2) If rights do not exist, the state has no claim to preserve or defend or install rights. Any such claims are irrational.

3) "Conditional rights" might be the only form of "rights" that can be said to exist, at least those, as I have said, those that are dependent upon contractual obligations between consenting, sane parties.

Those are my two cents. No one owes you anything, and you owe no one anything, unless you physically (legally) bind yourself to do so. "Rights" are fiction, written on mere paper, so as to give debt slaves a sense of freedom while oligarchs claim their resources and sell their children off to foreign banks, broadly speaking. It's just all smoke and mirrors.

 

I agree with lots of this but with a couple of caveats. I believe we have a moral responsibility to treat other humans as we would like to be treated and to limited all personal actions/freedoms to remain within the NAP. I believe this as a christian but I couldn't stand by and oppress others or coerce people to believe it without violating the principles themselves. If you have any abstract right that is inalienable it would be something like your free will or ability to form choices within your own mind (although even that is debatable scientifically). Again, it doesn't even need articulation or labeling as a right until a person or a group begins to interfere. Then it a helpful word to explain why you want access/permission to the actions you wish to keep permissible.

I disagree with the assertion that things that are immaterial do not exist. Negative space around a sculpture is as import to defining shape as the material comprising the sculpture. Ideas actually do exist and can sometimes take material form like the paper you mentioned. I think you are saying, that without any action whatsoever they have no meaningful value or purpose, which I do agree with. Remember the concept of intellectual property. These are ideas, captured, given communicatable form and monetary value and then they are defended. If it's all smoke and mirrors, it's some really big mirrors and some crazy thick smoke (probably gun smoke).

 

I believe that rights can be granted, but they cannot be guaranteed.

 

You can have whatever moral responsibilities you like, but, as you say, to enforce that responsibility breaks your moral convictions. There is no justification of enforcement that does not come with contradiction, if the enforcement claims to be moral. Though, I do not know why something like free will would be inalienable as a right? You couldn't give it up if you wanted to (if we have it), and you cannot revoke it from another because it is specific to the subject's perception as a concept (if we do not have it). But, yeah, permission and access would be the only coherent avenues through which rights can be established.

I would say, though, that on the question of materialism -- even negative space is material. I mean "material" in a very general, very basic way, in that everything that can be observed is a reaction of matter -- is a reaction to energy. The negative space around a sculpture is comprised of material (air itself holds mass; the elemental components that form air have, themselves, mass) which exists.

But, I would go a step further from the observation "without any action whatsoever [ideas] have no meaningful value or purpose" and say that "ideas" themselves, as concepts, only exist as responses in the brain, which then direct responses in the body. "Ethics" for example, is not to be found anywhere in the known universe, except in the actions derived from the thought patterns of a human being; eliciting "kindness" can be ethical, but merely thinking of the word "ethical" (or thinking about how nice it would be to be kind) would not be.

"Intellectual property" does not exist, but people can draw a contract on rational grounds and say that one can claim a dominion on a conceptual idea and not have that idea stolen.

 

Are rights ideas? Because if they are....

So they become material and thus actually do exist?

An idea, formulated by responses in the brain, articulated as a right, defended or put into action, becomes material.... then it does exists...

This is the bill of rights no?

I'm enjoying the thread btw.

 

I think that right and privilege in general is very individualistic. And usually people in upper rank has much of them.

 

Well, then, see? It depends what you mean by "rights."

If I tell you to point to a right that exists, can you? No, you can only point to actions derived from thought, or impulse. You can say "ideas" exist, in that they can be actualized, but is this the technical definition of ideas? Ideas are the cognitive contents existent in the mind. I would say ideas, actions and rights all exist separately as concepts (otherwise, why have different words for them?).

You can say "you have freedom of speech"... But then what does that mean? "Of course I have freedom of speech; I can say whatever I want, as long as I have the vocal capacity and can articulate the thoughts being formed in my head." However, this does not make "freedom of speech" physical, unless you then mention it, contextualize it, comment upon it, and hold people accountable for it -- all material actions.

You can have ideas of ideas, e.g., thinking about the word "idea" and having a mental grasp of what an idea can be. But, if I told you that I put an "idea" in a room and I was going to let you in the room, and you have to find the "idea", you would be quite confused. If I told you I put "thoughts", "privileges" or "rights" in the room, you would be equally confused. That is the technical problem with rights.

You would be right, though, in saying that the Bill of Rights are just possible actions to be derived from the thoughts formulated upon reading said document; the real problem, then, is how to interpret those thoughts and actions accordingly, which is where the Supreme Court enters in, and our entire judicial system (and all the local problems of that system).

 

This is a noodle scratcher. Cheers! I'll enjoy chewing on this over the weekend. Discussions like this keep my mind off porn better then almost anything I know.

 

Rights are simply a product of the values we hold as a society. They exist in potentia until we act (or desist from acting) in accordance with them. Rights themselves will change over time, as do our values, and will always be interpreted accordingly.

 

By the same logic, then:

Math does not exist.
Thoughts do not exist.
Feelings do not exist.
Dreams do not exist.
Information does not exist.
Time ( which is not to be confused with entropy ) does not exist.
Truth does not exist.
Lies do not exist.
Morality does not exist.
Logic does not exist.
Fallacies, like your argument, do not exist.
Arguments do not exist.
Faith does not exist.

None of these have a material, in other words, a physical entity in the world nor have any of these caused any kind of observable phenomenon or anomaly. Even if some of them could, they'd need a medium to cause a phenomenon.

 

This is false. An idea is a thought. For something to be material, it has to consist of physical objects as opposed to the mind or spirit. An idea is not material, especially since those outside of the person having the idea have no way to observe the idea itself inside the brain at all.

Until the idea is applied to some kind of physical entity, such as a piece of paper or a text document, it is not material. They do not have substance.

 

Love this example.