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

Re: Divine rights and wrongs

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

But where does that leave you?

If there is no "right to life" how do you justify defending yourself from agression?

If you do not have the "right to an opinion" why have one?

Re: Divine rights and wrongs

[kardashev.livejournal.com]

If there is no "right to life" how do you justify defending yourself from agression?

There is no need to justify defending aggression. If she has the power to defend herself and her attacker turns out to be weaker than her, why justify her defense at all? He goofed by grabbing a tiger by the tail. Now she only decides whther or not to grant mercy or to turn her attacker into Darwinism in action.

If you do not have the "right to an opinion" why have one?

Because her opinions may be of benefit to others and because others want the same legal right to an opinion for themselves. It's not moral to allow freedom of speech and thought. But since most people in our society want freedom of speech, their power outweighs the minority of people who hate such things.

Re: Divine rights and wrongs

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

As I see it if there are no "Inherent Rights" the only two alternatives that I can see are...

A: You have no rights but those that you can take by force.

or B: You have no rights but those granted to you by the State/Society.

You seem to be advocating A, and Sopia seems to advocate B. Both have a signifigant flaw that has already been touched upon in other comments.

It's not moral to allow freedom of speech and thought. But since most people in our society want freedom of speech, their power outweighs the minority of people who hate such things.

Are you saying that if "most people in our society" wanted to kill all redheads you would accept/support such a position? Like wise if The State/Society decided that left handed people weren't actually "People" that such a position would be acceptable?

Re: Divine rights and wrongs

[kardashev.livejournal.com]

Are you saying that if "most people in our society" wanted to kill all redheads you would accept/support such a position?

No. But my reasons for opposing it have nothing to do with morality or rights. I would oppose it simply because I felt like doing so. Personal mental aesthetics do not equal morality.

Conversely, is someone who hates disdains the killing of redheads but keeps silent over it for fear of retribution by the opposition somehow morally wrong? Would you have him risk not only his life but also the lives of his family, especially his children? This is the downside of your argument for inherent rights and virtues. Just as there is a downside to A and B.

They don't need a justification to kill redheads. However, I need no moral justification to oppose them. And if they're weaker than I(despite their greater numbers), they lose. This is what truly drives our society, wins and losses. Desire and power.

Not that such matters ultimately. The universe is doomed. A zero-sum game. Entropy will one day overtake everything and then even power will vanish.

Re: Divine rights and wrongs

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

I have the right to defend myself from aggression as long as society says I do. It is society which grants that right, not some external entity. You can't say that an infant has a right to defend itself from aggression since an infant has no capacity to do so. Any right that cannot be exercised is merely an illusion.

As for the right to an opinion, there are people who have been incarcerated for expressing their opinions. As for the unexpressed opinion, it is still difficult to persecute someone for that which goes unsaid.

Re: Divine rights and wrongs

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

No, you have the right to defend yourself regardless. Society itself is not supreme in its abilities, because it itself is necessarily subservient to the limits of fallible, imperfect human nature, which are recognized by limiting government from transgressing the rights inherent by virtue of our humanity.

Yes, people have been incarcerated for expressing opinions. It represents one of the more serious transgressions against humanity as historically demonstrated. To the extent society exceeds these limiting bounds, it creates anything from chafing under excessive legislation, to civil strife and unrest on the other end.

Re: Divine rights and wrongs

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

You may see the assertion that I have a right based on humanity to be logical and consistent, but it comes across to me as rather pedantic. The legal basis for my right to self defense has little or nothing to do with my humanity. In fact, humans defend themselves quite frequently and are punished for their actions.

Re: Divine rights and wrongs

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

Why do you describe the way we all know things play out in reality when what we are discussing is what we measure those things against, and how?

Do you not also measure the way things are in reality against some way they are not currently observed? What is your particular measure?

Correct me if I have misunderstood but...

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

...Your position is that "You have no rights but those granted to you by the State/Society"?

If so that seems incongruous. Your posts on this forum seem to advocate a "Free-Thinker" mindset, to wich this would appear in direct oposition. How can you decry "illiteracy" if that is what society demands? And while I am inclined to agree with you that "Any right that cannot be exercised is an illusion." I think that we would differ in exact implications there of. Personally I would rephrase it as "Any Right that cannot be exercised is a Right that has been lost."

As for the second paragraph...

...there are people who have been incarcerated for expressing their opinions. As for the unexpressed opinion, it is still difficult to persecute someone for that which goes unsaid.

I'm going to paraphrase Jersycajun (http://community.livejournal.com/talk_politics/476472.html?thread=33991224#t33991224)...

How well a Right is administered/exercised in reality is immaterial. This post is about the philosophical basis of said right and the implications there of.

Re: Correct me if I have misunderstood but...

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

What you said is why I think this is effectively a stalemate. It seems that the basis of rights which is being argued against us is not philosophical, but born out of some sentiment of pragmatism. In other words, we're arguing from principle against an argument of "WYSIWYG".

Re: Correct me if I have misunderstood but...

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

Not all segments of society promote illiteracy. Fortunately, there are islands of literacy into which one can retreat when things heat up. As for dealing with the philosophical basis of any right, to assert that the basis of rights lies with society is a philosophical argument. It is quite germane to the topic.

Re: Correct me if I have misunderstood but...

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

to assert that the basis of rights lies with society is a philosophical argument. It is quite germane to the topic.

I never said that it wasn't, I was mearly pointing out that doing so seems to conflict with positions you have taken in the past.

Hense the title, correct me if I have misunderstood your position but...

How do you reconcile being a "free-thinker" with the belief that a society's desires/opinions take presidense over those of an individual?

Re: Correct me if I have misunderstood but...

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

You've taken my argument into territory in which it does not belong. Rights are social, but society is a collection of individuals. Sometimes the opinion of an individual can make a profound impact on the structure of society. Where would we be without Galileo standing up for his ideas without standing up for any right to express those ideas? Galileo had no right to express heretical concepts, but he did so regardless. When put on trial, he denied even espousing the ideas he promoted so publicly.