More "Politics as Philosphy " (less math)

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Mrsilence raised an interesting question in the comments on the Gun Control Post last week and I feel that in light of recent discussions about "Getting People To Eat Right" and "The Government Controlling Your Life" it deserves a post of it's own.

The Libertarians, Tea-Partiers, and Threepers, often say that the constitution does not "grant" rights it "secures" them. The idea being, that such our rights are inherent and thus exist independantly of the government.

So the question is... Do you believe in the existence of inherent human rights that exist independently of any political or legal construction?

Why, or why not?

I think that this is one of those issues that tends to get lost in the traditional Left/Right political divide, but is important to adress because it directly influences someone's understaning of, or assumptions regarding more specific political issues.

Personally I agree with policraticus' assesment. I believe in the existence of "inherent human rights" but lack any objective base for this belief, thus making it a matter of faith. Something that tend to get one in trouble on political forums.

Personally I find the alternative's implications frightning. If what rights we do have can be freely taken away it almost becomes preferable to have a system that subjugates individual desires to the will of society as a whole. As someone who believes in free will, such a position seems practically alien to me but I'm interested to hear where the rest of you stand.




PS: I wish a Happy Easter to all those observing it.

Comments

[penguin42.livejournal.com]

That's immaterial to the question the post asks.

A question I already answered above. The comments I wrote that you are railing against were in a tangent, triggered by a response to me. Specifically, the response that if I don't believe there are inherent rights then OMG ANYBODY COULD JUST BELIEVE ANYTHING AND WE'D HAVE NO IDEA WHAT'S RIGHT. It's very similar to the arguments by religious folk against athiests/agnostics. In fact, most of the classical works that talk about "natural rights" justify them on the basis of a creator/God giving those rights to us.

Guess what: ANYBODY CAN BELIEVE ANYTHING AND WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT'S RIGHT. That's the nature of being human. It doesn't mean that people can't develop a personal philosophy and their own ideas of what's right or wrong, and that people with similar ideas can't group together and enforce those ideas amongst themselves while protecting themselves from those who don't agree. Or even going out into the world to help those who are stuck in a society of people who are exploiting/hurting them when they don't want to be in that situation. But it's foolish to think we have any way of knowing that our set of morals is the "right" one.

(Natural rights having been freely acknowledged as a moral groundwork for the basis of rights, whereas the alternative is being presented as simply a practical social tradeoff)

Here's that false dilemma again. I don't understand why the only alternative to natural inherent rights is an amoral world of only practical concerns.

Why is it wrong? What is the calculus of 'wrong'?

My own personal philosophy is that conscious, rational beings are special, and that each of us has the obligation to fulfill our potentials, while also helping others to fulfill their potentials. My ideals of right and wrong come out of that.

I'm even less certain in how you arrived at ascribing a purpose for society while at the same time acknowledging that it has not consciousness apart from the consciousness of the individual.

This doesn't follow. Individuals create society amongst themselves for a purpose. The society doesn't need a consciousness for that. My hammer has the purpose of hitting nails, but it's not conscious.

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

My own personal philosophy is that conscious, rational beings are special, and that each of us has the obligation to fulfill our potentials, while also helping others to fulfill their potentials. My ideals of right and wrong come out of that.

Absolutely.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Here's that false dilemma again. I don't understand why the only alternative to natural inherent rights is an amoral world of only practical concerns.

Because without the frame-work of "Inherent Rights" the difference between Right/Wrong becomes arbitrary.

I.E. If there is no "inherent right to live" why is murder wrong?

The only answers immediatly apperant to me are "Because the big Bogey-Man in the sky said so." (Religion) or "Because He/She is more valuable alive." (Practical concerns)

If you have an alternative I'd like to hear it.

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

Q: Is killing a Palestinian terrorist good/bad?

A: (Israeli) It's good, because it saves Israeli lives.

A: (Palestinian) It's bad, because it's an act against our freedom.

As you may've noticed, God wasnt mentioned.

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

Guess what: ANYBODY CAN BELIEVE ANYTHING AND WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT'S RIGHT. That's the nature of being human. It doesn't mean that people can't develop a personal philosophy and their own ideas of what's right or wrong, and that people with similar ideas can't group together and enforce those ideas amongst themselves while protecting themselves from those who don't agree. Or even going out into the world to help those who are stuck in a society of people who are exploiting/hurting them when they don't want to be in that situation. But it's foolish to think we have any way of knowing that our set of morals is the "right" one.

I'm adding you for this comment.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

"Guess what: ANYBODY CAN BELIEVE ANYTHING AND WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT'S RIGHT."

This is true, and I'm sorry for not having gone through the entire thread before responding.

That being said, while anyone can believe anything they want, ideas can and should still be weighed against observation. And what I have observed on this topic as a whole seems to me that those arguing against natural rights have not done much in the way of vetting their thoughts on the matter in relationship to what we can observe about the limits of human nature. Some may have given a great deal of thought to this, but as of yet I have seen nobody put such vetting to words on this post.