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]

We're just bags of chemicals and electrical impulses unlucky enough to be aware of ourselves. So, we make the most of it.

Should we defer to the will of society as a whole? No -- society isn't conscious. We are. The purpose of society should be to help maximize every individual's potential.

Can you derive "inherent rights" from this point of view? Maybe, but I haven't figured out how yet.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Nor have I wich is why I have classified it as a matter of faith than an objective truth.

That said the alternative would be to accept that African Americans weren't People till the Federal government said otherwise. Likewise we that shouldn't "give a shit" about the people in Darfur, Isreal/Palestine, or anywhere else because "Hey that's just the way the world is".

Personally I find such a position untenable.

But then I suppose that's the price we pay for being "bags of chemicals unlucky enough to be self-aware"

[penguin42.livejournal.com]

I don't think that's the only alternative. No one says we have to listen to what the government proclaims in terms of who should be treated like a person or not. Could the government make laws that treat some people as unhuman? Yes, but it can do that whether rights are inherent or not, and I believe it would be in the wrong to do so in either case.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

Nobody is arguing that it ("it" being inhuman treatment) doesn't happen regardless. That's immaterial to the question the post asks. The question is rooted in the philosophical basis of rights and the repercussions of such , not in how well or poor they are managed in reality.

In democracies, the government is typically a sample of society's virtues and vices, so there is little reason to expect that if the government such as it is would be more or less virtuous on the whole than the composition of the public which elected it, being a sampling of their attitudes and prejudices.

You even acknowledge that it would be 'wrong' to do so in either case, but here we have come to a terminus without a logical or practical conclusion, but rather a moral one of the type which you are arguing against. (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) Why is it wrong? What is the calculus of 'wrong'? 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.

[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.

[torpidai.livejournal.com]

The purpose of society should be to help maximize every individual's potential.

Sure as hell that's not the way nature works, and by attempting to fight the natural laws we're doomed to fail, try re-routing a river if you don't believe me :)

Can you derive "inherent rights" from this point of view? Maybe, but I haven't figured out how yet.

Rights have to be earned in any hierarchical(sp) group, except it seems societies formed by groups of humans where rights tend to come before responsabilities, No other natural group would put up with this sort of system, yet we, as humans have "evolved" to expect it this way, It's not natural, but hell neither is this artform we've developed of building metal boxes for us to travel even more rapidly to our one real certainty in this life...