Freedoms

Yes, all because they weren’t treated the same as others, which is my main point. It’s this inequality that gives the powerful their power. That’s why the oppressed have to fight for rights, as they are claiming back power, which the others don’t wish to give up. Take slavery for example: this cost the slave owners a lot of money, as they now had to find other paid workers who would earn money, while the slaves would have only worked for food and other basic needs.

To have a Right and use it is to exercise a form of power. Those that have power don’t want to lose it. That is why “human rights” violations occur throughout the world. Everybody wants power as it brings freedoms, rights are the common persons only real form of power. Which can only stem from personal interest, as any God given rights are usually revoked for heretics.

Pax Vitae

My own thinking goes along the lines of Uccisore–rights are absolute, and a government’s refusal to recognize a right does not mean that it does not exist.

sedan1800: What right(s) is/are the right of discrimination opposed to? The right to force someone to offer you a paycheck against his will? The right to force someone to serve you a hot meal on that person’s own property, just because he’s willing to do it for others?

Actually he’s probably talking about the right of autonomy. Being forced to treat someone different to how you wish to is violating your autonomy, without a doubt.

And autonomy is pretty much the fundamental ‘right’ if you look at moral philosophy. Not that I think rights are in any way absolute, but if you do hold absolute rights it’s usually grounded on autonomy, e.g. Mill’s liberty principle.

Wtf? Need a better monitor there m8?

Discrimination - negative implies a positive. As soon as you try to counter racsim/sexism by positve discrimination then you are negatively acting against someone else. Better to tolerate and educate than forcibly try to correct things by law.

Pax Vitae: You say rights come from how man wants to be treated.

 I would disagree, because rights as such don't exist, like I was saying. Or, perhaps, there is one right.  Every person is born with the right to do whatever they are capable of doing, good or bad. That's a natural thing, or it comes from God. Declaring that such a 'natural person' has the right to freedom of speech is meaningless- they were saying what they wanted to say anyway. A person can't give another person a right, nor can society decide on them.  The only right there is (The right to do whatever you are capable of) is there no matter what we think.
 People excersise this one right in all sorts of unsavory and destructive ways, so we create restrictions and obligations to keep society functioning well. These are what is created by people, and agreed on by people, not the right. What you think of as rights stem from a history of cultures so restrictive that the areas that aren't restricted become the exception and not the rule.  Thus, it becomes simpler to list those things that a person still *can* do freely, because the list of restrictions and obligations would be far too long. Hence the Bill of Rights. Even more specifically, though, the Bill of Rights aren't freedoms at all, but yet more restrictions, against the Government itself, regarding what things it may and may not control.

I don’t believe rights come from God. But I do believe there is such a thing as a natural right, but it’s based off the idea that we all want to be treated fairly.

“Every person is born with the right to do whatever they are capable of doing” How do you arrive at this conclusion? While I agree with this, I come to this conclusion because this is how I would want to be treated. But what do you base this right off? All rights have an origin, what’s your origin for this right?

Any fair right I can backup with what I’ve said above, which is: We all want to be treated fairly. This is the only logical basis I can see for rights.

You talk about governments, I believe where there is power there must be accountability and transparency. The people who control the power must be seen to do this under the scrutiny of the general public. People who hold power should not be above the law; they’re the ones that need to be control the most by the law. As its very common in trying times that human rights get forgotten in the name of security. Like in WWII when the Americans rounded up Japanese people and place them in camps. Or currently camp X-Ray in Cuba. Where’s their right to a fair trial, or the right to be seen innocent until found guilty by a trial by jury. It’s wrong to have rights for some people, and different ones for others. Rights are all or nothing, once you questions someone else’s rights, you really are questioning your own.

Pax Vitae

sedm1800: sorry, I didn’t have my glasses on when I typed that

Anyway, either you don’t understand what I’m saying or I don’t understand what you’re saying. I’m saying that every individual has every right to discriminate based on whatever criteria he chooses for whatever he wants, whether it’s hiring/firing, deciding who to serve at a restaurant, deciding who to let in to his club, etc.

I think in practice that is right, although there should be efforts made to educate people to ensure that the discrimination is logically founded.

My point was that efforts to counter racial/sexual discrimination are hindered by granting everybody a legal right not to be discriminated against. Helping one group harms another, and so is in effect illegal. Granting rights in these cases makes resolution near impossible.

new prescription?

I’m not going to say such educational efforts should or should not be made…if there are individuals out there who want to do that, more power to them. But it is neither the purpose nor the obligation of society as a whole to make such an effort.

What I disagree with, though, is your last paragraph. You are implying that, while in one particular case it should not be done, rights can in fact be “granted” or “taken away”. It is my position that rights are absolute and exist independent of their being recognized by government or any other societal entity wielding coercive power over others.

A society that fails to address the views of its members is often rendered ineffective/destroyed by revolution. The race protests in America proved that the government must listen to the people. South Africa provides precidence of a society being forced to cooperate with others due to the pervading world view.

For rights to be legal they must be recognised by society. They are meaningless if not employed.

How do I come by my conclusions…let me think of how to explain it.

  Well, basically, I look at the way people behave. Very rarely do I see someone afraid to perform some new activity because they haven't been told that they have a right to do it. Also, in primitive cultures where 'rights' aren't well thought out or developed, people still do things, even though they haven't been given permission. In other words, there seems to be a natural understanding within all humans that if they want to do something, they can.  That's what I mean when I say the 'right to do whatever you are able' is natural, or given by God. 
 The thing that is created are restrictions and obligations on that natural state. Some of these, too, may be created by God, but they aren't our natural state.

uccisore says:

First off: Many social rules control individuals in primitive societies. That is, all primitive cultures that I have read about have a quite complex set of unwritten laws that define the set of choices that each individual makes in that society. To me, social control over the individual is as “natural” as your assertion of individual self-autonomy.

Secondly, I have to agree with PV when he says that a right “has an origin”. The extent of freedom of the individual in a society is not god given or natural but a product of the historical time of the culture in which the individual lives. The extent of this freedom is understood in terms of the parameters of the country. Freedom from slavery, for example, is not an absolute. It is an historical reality in many countries. It was fought for, it was resisted, it is now written in the constitution. Slavery in America is not Slavery in Russia, or in parts of Africa. The meaning of the freedom of the 13th amendment of the US constitution is not a natural right against slavery but the result of hundreds of years of fight and resistance.

I guess my problem with the word natural is that it means nothing to me in terms of understanding the meaning and history (which is often the same thing) of a specific right. But I would agree that it is a useful persuasive device to suggest universality. But universality is not the same thing as natural.

Just to clarify in my own words what I think you’re saying: I have the right to do anything I’m able to do, as this is my natural state. Anything that limits my ability to do something is going against my natural state. Would this be a fair way to express your thoughts?

If so, I could go out and kill the first person I meet, as “this is what I’m able” to do if I wished. But then there are restrictions and obligations on this natural state. Which could be said is going against my right to do anything. People who live together in a group or society need public order. Meaning if I were to go around doing anything that I’m able to do, after some time I’m bound to make enemies. As carrying out actions without any thought for other peoples opinions will lead to conflict. So my right to do anything must be weighed beside another persons right to do anything. At this point we make a compromise. I will not do X, Y, and Z if you also promise not to do X, Y, and Z. While I would like to go out and steal from another person I don’t as each person has the right to own items, which others can’t take without permission. This is because I also don’t want people taking my items without my permission.

As far as I can see logically, the only grounds for Rights, Morals, and fair Laws, come from the desire to be treated fairly. But in order that I can be treated fairly, everybody else must also be treated fairly. We can’t have one rule for some and a different one for others, as this will lead to conflict. The people on the raw end of the deal will want this imbalance to be corrected. This is where Morality and Rights come in, as they are used to weigh up peoples cases and pass just judgements.

Pax Vitae

Yes, but I’d like to point out there’s no moral claim in there. I’m definately not saying that the natural state is ideal or preferred, just that a creatures willingness and ability to act is natural, and not provided by rights.

I agree with this whole paragraph. We definately need restrictions and obligations, and those are definately put on us by intelligent authorities to keep us stable and happy.

  I point out this distinction to show why the concept of Rights is so limited.  Under my idea of the natural state of people, if you tell me,  "You have the right to free speech", it does nothing for or against me- I was speaking freely anyway, what do I care that you've said I'm allowed to? A statement like that has absolutely no effect on my life *until* I mentally re-structure the statement into something like "The Government may not keep me from speaking out", which is not a right but rather a Restriction.  The restriction changes the permittable behavior-set of officials, gives me liberty, and etc.  The right does nothing at all. 
  Similarly, I cannot live my life by rights. Going through life with the "Freedom of Speech" as my creed doesn't shape me, or say anything about my behavior. I could use my speech for good or evil, or not speak at all. If, on the otherhand, I live by the Obligation to "Only Speak the Truth", suddenly I have moral ground (leaving alone the question of it speaking the truth is always good), and a belief that will shape my behavior. In other words, it has meaning. 
 I think there is a real danger is looking for ethics in a rights based system, because it encourages people to do whatever they like, not being mindful of their own actions, while being ever vigilant of a chance to claim someone else has violated their rights. Also, Rights are handy things to have when you want to defend obviously immoral behavior. "Doing this sleazy reprehensible thing is protected by the Xth Amendment, so nyah." Obligations and restrictions don't have these problems.

This implies that individuals are inherently free. It’s a pleasing beginning. But it needs an argument. That we have a “freewill” - here defined as “willingness and ability to act” isn’t at all obvious, or self-explanatory. I will grant that common sense would tell me that I am free, that when I decide to raise my arm, or start walking, it is me who has the capacity to will that kind of movement. But common sense aside, what is the argument that states that individuals are essentially free and that any restriction over their behaviour is external to this inner freedom?

Defining freewill as an inner movement principle (one can effectuate movement, one can decide), I have an alternative beginning to explain human behaviour: Namely, that an individual naturally behaves in conformity to social rules. A human is a social construction and is not free to transcend its social and/or historical determined inner movement principles. We can act to differentiate ourselves, but this is not the kind of freedom that you are talking about.

I think this changes things. No longer is the individual the first principle. The focus then becomes a focus on the consciousness of the social rules and the individual within that.

My point then would be that you are never speaking freely. That you are speaking in a way that is determined by unknown external forces. With this in mind, the law then becomes a balance of differing social or group interests not a balance of individual interests. Rights and restrictions are understood then as the right of differing social groups in one government, and the restrictions are the result of the competing needs of each group.

At least I think this explains the majority of the real events in the past that have had major effects on notions like freedom of the press, of travel, of association, of voting, etc…

I guess it depends on what you mean by ‘natural’. I use natural as a contrast to ‘man-made’. In that sense, social control is certainly not natural. If social programs are natural, what isn’t?

Not in the context of the conversation. I’ll I’m really saying is that to whatever extent rights give us freedom, that freedom was already present in us before the articulation of the ‘right’. If we have no freewill, then it’s really moot.

I don’t think a discussion of freewill vs. determinism is nessicary, unless you mean to say that articulation of rights somehow creates freewill where it wasn’t before? I will answer the question, though, to be sporting. My argument for free will is that ‘common sense’ you refer to. Essentially, the experiential evidence for every person on Earth (as far as I know) of their own free will is so constant, abundant, and strong, that the onus is on determinists to prove their case, and I consider the experiential evidence of free will to be aso compelling that it ranks up with
1 + 3 = 4 and “Something cannot be both A and not-A at the same time and in the same sense”. In other words, someone arguing that I don’t have free will would be very much like someone arguing that I’m not sitting in a chair. My senses will always trump their reasoning, as far as I can tell.

Assuming that’s true, I think it’s out of the scope of a conversation about rights, since the articulation of a right won’t change the fact. A right in that case would just be an acknowledgement that a certain kind of social event occurs, and a statement that the Government won’t inflict consequences when it does. In that case, the ‘right’ aspect is still just an acknowledgement of an already existing state of affairs, and the ‘restriction’ aspect is the part actually created by people.

The existance of social behaviour can be looked at in two very different ways: (1) as you say, man made; and (2) as organic. or natural. Social organization in the form of laws and government, while being facially man-made, are actually explained in a deeper way as being a manifestation of the organic or natural state of affairs of a particular social time and place. This is what I meant when I said “To me, social control over the individual is as natural as your assertion of individual self-autonomy”. The “social control” here meant that it is natural for a society to form and to organize itself, to make and follow very specific written and unwritten rules. (For me to say “It’s all organic” might be an extreme statement given the compromises that take place in a representative democracy. But for purposes of argument, I want to push the point.)

The “naturalness” of “individual autonomy” must then be seen in this context. The idea of the individual is a social rule, or a construct, or a belief and understanding, or even better, it is a social rule to follow.

This is not the chicken and the egg problem - Which came first, the individual or the society. At least I don’t think so. This is more an argument about definition: The meaning of “individual” is a socially constructed idea. Thus Individual liberty is only sought out in societies under which the underlying idea reaches some (logical) point of saying “The individual must be left free” - the implication of “being left” to be free is that the individual starts out as free and the society takes some of its freedoms away. The “free” in fact is merely a tautology on the meaning of the idea, “Individual”. Thus, as a contrast, if you define the actors that make up the society as merely “parts of a whole,” then individual freedom either means nothing, or it is a contradiction.

Long-winded as all that is, and as contradictory to both of our common sense notions of freedom, it needs to be seen as an explanation of the problems we have in actually defining Rights and Restrictions. Individual Rights are no longer rationally or naturally necessary properties of the Human. They are the merely definitional of what it means to be human in a given society at a given time. As a definition, it can change tomorrow, or yesterday, as it has over the last 200 years of American constitutional history.

Restrictions are the other side of the same coin, but they are in a sense deeper and perhaps more primary: The social needs will define that what it needs in order to function; these social needs then become, in the eyes of the conscious individual who is taught to consider such things as liberty and freewill as a restriction.

As for freewill, I think it is a concept determined by the above social argument. As an implied premis of your argument, it needed to be mentioned and treated as such. But I agree that to get into the discussion of freewill and determinism is beyond the scope of this debate.

Well, then we haven’t much use for the word ‘natural’ at all, in that case. If social behavior is natural, then so is nylon, microchips and rocket ships by this reasoning, right? I can agree that social control is natural, in that humans have a natural tendency to do this when they get together. I still don’t think, though that social controls are ‘in the person’ the way freedoms are. It is true that every person, if not taught about rights or restrictions, will do as they please to satisfy themselves. As far as I know, no person, if not taught about rights or restrictions, will sit and waste away because they haven’t been told about a ‘right’ to feed or entertain themselves. That distinction tells me that a belief in one’s own rights is an initial or ‘natural’ state, and that restrictions are a force that comes in from the outside (unnatural) to moderate the behavior. Rights as we think of them now are a kind of list of restrictions on governing bodies, or if you prefer, a statement of what kinds of restrictions to the individual should not exist.

To an extent, all ideas are socially constructed. But I think the idea of an individual is a little more obvious than this. Can’t I, through use of my senses, discern that society is composed if discrete creatures with their own wills? That seems to be a matter of simple observation, not subjective social definition. Seeing ‘all humans as part of a greater whole’ could very well be a social statement of an ideal, or a theory that a government system is based on, but I don’t think it could be the conclusion of any unbiased person that actually observes human behavior.

We’ve probably reached an impasse. But maybe not. I am pushing my argument to reveal the excess of yours. Man-made means simply that man has willfully created something, or willfully produced it, etc… It is always related to the Will and often to Intention. Man-made products serve a social as well as individual purpose. Everything man-made reveals something of the social and the individual. What it reveals is what we are talking about here.

For starters, the most that our senses can tell us is this: That the discrete elements of a social whole have the power of self-movement. This is the least controversial part of the question of freewill. The more difficult part is whether those self-movements are free or determined.

Where is this Truth coming from? How do you know this? Have you ever seen a person so separated from society in such a way that you can derive a necessary truth that a person’s primary reason for acting is their self-determined will? Isn’t it equally possible, as well as common sensical, to conclude that no society would survive if too many of its consituent parts (humans) stopped eating? Couldn’t this latter observation lead to a contrary set of necessary truths putting the social-preservation as the more natural and the individual preservation as a mere consequence. (Of course social darwinism makes me want to avoid this conclusion, but I’ll just mention that despite the social determinism in my statements, I also have a lot of confidence in such things as reason and the power of groups within society to affect moral changes.)

When you say:

Here what you are doing is guessing the cause or meaning of an inherently ambiguous natural fact (self preservation). Then you are taking your conclusion and making it a primary fact in nature.

Instead, (a) consider that all individuals are a part of a social whole and (b) that each individual has a natural power of movement (that is, its ‘will’ separate from the question of free or determined). Lastly, (c)consider that the sole motivation of the willful act is to preserve the social whole.