Where do rights come from?

[NKBJ]

So, to borrow a phrase, it might be healthy to sometimes sprinkle the genetic tree with the blood of those of certain... characteristics?

Naturally, that begs the question of which characteristics should be removed. Any particular ones come to your mind?

I'm not remembering or concerned with where else that phrase may have come from. Please, enlighten us.
As concerns your baiting question of characteristics which come to mind, what was it once upon a time that our creator wanted wiped clean?
Does He still want it wiped out?
If you don't know then hit the books.

 

[jamil]

Isn't there already a religious discussion thread?

 

[2A_Tom]

He won't give it up.

Maybe he will melt down.

 

[NKBJ]

Oh, OK, no enlightenment.
Nice attempt at baiting.
Nice buck an'a wing and a dosie-doe dodging a question.
Hey, you're doing pretty good.
Except for that truth thing.
Oh, but that thing doesn't matter.

Well, there's a novel waiting on me.
G'nite.

 

[2A_Tom]

Getting close.

 

[churchmouse]

 

[T.Lex]

I'm not remembering or concerned with where else that phrase may have come from. Please, enlighten us.
As concerns your baiting question of characteristics which come to mind, what was it once upon a time that our creator wanted wiped clean?
Does He still want it wiped out?
If you don't know then hit the books.

hahaha

That "hit the books" comment is ironic, since you don't appear to recognize an admittedly bastardized key quote in US history.

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

And as for characteristics that our creator wanted to wipe clean, none of those were particularly genetic. Those were choice-based issues.

Your (apparently rhetorical) question about whether he still wants it wiped clean would appear to be answered in Genesis 9:11.

"Hit the books...."

 

[BugI02]

So, to borrow a phrase, it might be healthy to sometimes sprinkle the genetic tree with the blood of those of certain... characteristics?

Naturally, that begs the question of which characteristics should be removed. Any particular ones come to your mind?

Perhaps we could use the example of Theodore Edgar McCarrick for guidance in that question?

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Naturally, that begs the question of which characteristics should be removed. Any particular ones come to your mind?

people that do mobile orders at starbucks

like, i ****in' take the time to walk in and order my coffee, but i still have to be behind 10 invisible customers in line to wait for my stuff? nah man, I ain't about that. priority should go to people in the store.

yeah, remove those people.

 

[T.Lex]

people that do mobile orders at starbucks

like, i ****in' take the time to walk in and order my coffee, but i still have to be behind 10 invisible customers in line to wait for my stuff? nah man, I ain't about that. priority should go to people in the store.

yeah, remove those people.

Exactly.

Morality issues are rarely ever genetic ones (some autism/brain disorder issues notwithstanding). "Genocide as the chlorine for the gene pool" only makes sense for genetic characteristics. Otherwise, it is a pretext for "people we don't like."

 

[Libertarian01]

Sorry I am late to this...

(Cracks knuckles)

On Rights

"Rights" are our intellectual acknowledgement of a sentient, individual organisms need to try to fulfill biological needs/drives. Every living thing has a need to feed, ergo every living thing has a right to try to feed. The wolf is never guaranteed success in catching the rabbit or deer, but it has the right to try.

Every living thing has the need to survive, ergo every living thing has the right to try to survive. The above mentioned rabbit or deer can try to get away from the wolf, but there is no guarantee of success.

Every living thing has the need to express itself, ergo every living thing has the right to "speak" its mind. If I strap a person down and begin to torture them they will feel the need to cry out, to beg me to stop, to tell me they will kill me, etc etc etc. There is some biological need to do so. Even if I simply strap a person in a chair and bring in another person in front of them to begin torturing, the witness (barring sociopaths) will feel compelled to cry out and express their displeasure at my actions.

If there is a God then one can say that due to his design of us these are "divine" rights. If there is no God then we are the product of simple natural selection and these are "natural" rights. Same ending, different sources. Either word can work for me.

On Rights and Governments

(Clears Throat...)

Governments are instituted to fulfill a variety of functions. Depending upon your philosophical view this will include more or less responsibility foisted upon the government. One generally universal view of government is to make certain all the little citizens play nice with one another in the sandbox.

In order to fulfill the playing nice rules/laws/ordinances are created so that everyone knows what they must do or not do to stay out of trouble with big brother. Notice that these rules are not necessarily fair or unbiased over the centuries but they are generally known by the people. This isn't to be fair but simple laziness of the government so that it isn't having to exert more effort than necessary to enforce said rules.

In the best government system (in my opinion) the government oppresses every citizens rights to the minimum necessary in order to achieve the maximum protection of all of the rights of the people. The first step to this is acknowledging property rights and the right to own property, and thus protecting this right. Now the government can oppress everyone's rights on their property to a minimum by saying, for example, that you cannot make extremely loud noises during certain times, so that everyone can enjoy sleep. This isn't saying you can't make loud noises, and this isn't saying what the loud noise may be caused by, only by limiting the times to the minimum degree possible so that the majority can enjoy sleep, or simply a quiet evening on their back porch, or whatever.

The government has no "right" to do this, as we have already covered that rights are derived of biological needs. The government has lawful "authority" to do this. The government gains this authority from the consent of the governed. Even evil tyrants can go too far and face rebellion. This represents the loss of consent, or ability to endure further abuses. See Russia 1917 for further reading.

On Rights Oppression v/s Suppression

This is predominantly an external v/s internal deprivation of the exercise of a right.

We may often have our rights oppressed. I am in the mall shopping. There is a couple with a newborn in a stroller. The man of the couple is about 6'9" tall, built like a linebacker. When I look in the stroller I see the ugliest child in the world. The kids face could stop Big Ben. The guy, seeing me observe the child, gives me a look that says that if I do or say anything to upset his wife he is going to rip off my head and throw it into next week. He is oppressing my right to express myself.

Same situation but he is looking away and she looking elsewhere. Upon seeing the ugly child I choke down a natural response knowing that it will cause them pain, and probably myself in return due to his size. I have willingly suppressed my right to express myself. Even though no one is telling me not to say anything I choose not to express any revulsion. I am told by my married friends that this happens often, especially where inlaws are involved.

On the United States Government

Our Constitution, the highest law of the land, recognizes the pre-existance of rights. It is not the source of our rights, but it does promise that it will do what it can to protect them.

That's my

Regards,

Doug

 

[numbaonecoltsfan]

Did they declare it or did they understand it? “Endowed by their Creator” makes me think the latter.

This, more specifically the Constitution doesn't grant us our rights but specifically enumerates them as a way to protect them from government infringement.

 

[Leadeye]

Telling people their ugly children are attractive is just being polite. No rights suppressed or oppressed in my book and everybody parts happy.

I like polite.

 

[chipbennett]

Had he said Life, Liberty and the right to work. I think it would have been more correct.

I think this is splitting hairs a bit. Property could be seen as equivalent to the right to work; the underlying right is owning the fruit of one's own labor. That is, one has the right to own and to be secure in property acquired through the fruit of one's labor. (Money merely facilitates the exchange of goods, property, and services.)

 

[chipbennett]

Isn't there already a religious discussion thread?

This topic is inherently a religious discussion. Rights are either an inherent endowment from our Creator (God, Supreme Being, etc.), or else they are merely a social construct created by man. There's really no middle ground. The argument that rights derive from morals must presuppose the existence of absolute morals - an argument that must ultimately rely on the existence of a moral Lawmaker.

 

[2A_Tom]

Yes, but the digression to whether God was just in his decree to eliminate the Canaanites does not seem germane.

 

[chipbennett]

Yes, but the digression to whether God was just in his decree to eliminate the Canaanites does not seem germane.

If the assertion holds that rights are a specific, human endowment from God, then the question of whether that God is himself (herself/itself) a wholly moral being is valid. If the God who endows humans with rights is not wholly moral, then the morality of the rights endowed to humans is potentially suspect.

 

[T.Lex]

If the assertion holds that rights are a specific, human endowment from God, then the question of whether that God is himself (herself/itself) a wholly moral being is valid. If the God who endows humans with rights is not wholly moral, then the morality of the rights endowed to humans is potentially suspect.

That's a anthropomorphic view, which is both understandable and flawed.

There remains the chance that the Supreme Being has a rationale that is unknown (or unknowable) to us, that appears to lack morality, but actually does not.

Regardless, I remain unconvinced of the binariness you present: either endowed by a creator or wholly social compact. I think there's enough evidence of a kind of utilitarian evolution that says humans that practice certain things - teamwork, self-sacrifice, good of the many - survive to procreate better than "lone wolf" mentalities. To me, that presents something in between social compact and creator given. This idea that humans can have an innate sense of what is right and wrong based on what has been successful in the past.

"Sense" as in a personal sense. People can have different views within a common spectrum of rights/obligations.

Among humans, consistency in any rights/obligations is hard to find.

 

[chipbennett]

That's a anthropomorphic view, which is both understandable and flawed.

There remains the chance that the Supreme Being has a rationale that is unknown (or unknowable) to us, that appears to lack morality, but actually does not.

Oh, I agree with you here. As it so happens, I believe that this explanation, IMHO, applies to some of the harder text in the Old Testament. I'm merely defending the salience of the discussion.

Regardless, I remain unconvinced of the binariness you present: either endowed by a creator or wholly social compact. I think there's enough evidence of a kind of utilitarian evolution that says humans that practice certain things - teamwork, self-sacrifice, good of the many - survive to procreate better than "lone wolf" mentalities. To me, that presents something in between social compact and creator given. This idea that humans can have an innate sense of what is right and wrong based on what has been successful in the past.

"Sense" as in a personal sense. People can have different views within a common spectrum of rights/obligations.

Among humans, consistency in any rights/obligations is hard to find.

When taken to logical conclusions, any existence of absolute truth, absolute morality, etc. lead to the existence of a Supreme Being as Lawmaker. It is illogical to believe that a universe that results from, what is in essence, a series of cosmic accidents and serendipitous coincidences would yield the formation or existence of such absolute truths or absolute morality. The idea of an "innate sense" of what works based on what has been successful in the past is similarly illogical. One must study and understand the past in order to analyze and evaluate the success of what has been tried in the past.

Further, millennia of human history disprove that humans do any kind of good job of executing such utilitarian evolution.

 

[AlVine]

I think this is splitting hairs a bit. Property could be seen as equivalent to the right to work; the underlying right is owning the fruit of one's own labor. That is, one has the right to own and to be secure in property acquired through the fruit of one's labor. (Money merely facilitates the exchange of goods, property, and services.)

I think that’s what it originally was, the right to life, liberty, and property, and you described ‘property’ well. Jefferson changed ‘property’ to ‘the pursuit of happiness’ for some reason. I guess it’s sort of the same, but encompasses more, property plus whatever else will fulfill your life.