Society/Culture Rights. What are they? Where do they come from?

[FireKrakouer]

I once pretended to be a Bernie supporter in order to sleep with this far left chick from Tinder. She comes around to my joint and as I pour her a glass of cask wine she asks "What are your thoughts on women's rights?"

I said "Well they're better than women's wrongs, amirite???"

Like a frog in a sock she was.

 

[Number37]

You can call them 'rights' if you want. As others have pointed out, in the absence of inalienable rights, every supposed 'right' we have can easily be taken away by someone with enough power to do so. To me, that makes them entirely illusory, and impossible to argue for having if they don't already exist, because how can one say they have the right to anything if someone stronger than them says otherwise?

For a right to truly exist, it must exist in all circumstances. If there is a right to freedom, and there is a government preventing freedom, then something greater than the government must have granted that right, so that people can fight for it as a right, as something they deserve. Otherwise, it's simply a desire - a good desire, but a desire nonetheless.

Number37 has discovered the difficulty of this, because natural rights are essentially God-given, inalienable rights, with God removed from the picture, leaving behind a creator-shaped hole.

I'm glad at least one person gets my POV.

 

[RobbieK]

You can call them 'rights' if you want. As others have pointed out, in the absence of inalienable rights, every supposed 'right' we have can easily be taken away by someone with enough power to do so. To me, that makes them entirely illusory, and impossible to argue for having if they don't already exist, because how can one say they have the right to anything if someone stronger than them says otherwise?

For a right to truly exist, it must exist in all circumstances. If there is a right to freedom, and there is a government preventing freedom, then something greater than the government must have granted that right, so that people can fight for it as a right, as something they deserve. Otherwise, it's simply a desire - a good desire, but a desire nonetheless.

Number37 has discovered the difficulty of this, because natural rights are essentially God-given, inalienable rights, with God removed from the picture, leaving behind a creator-shaped hole.

If you think for a right to "truly exist" it must exist in all circumstances... do you believe anyone has any rights at all?

And if the answer to that is no... one has to wonder if maybe you ought to revisit the definition. Why define the word in such a way that renders the concept an impossibility?

Why do you think a right must exist in all circumstances in order to have a real existence in some instances?

A right is just a freedom or an entitlement. Something that I can do or claim, and have that act or claim respected. That these freedoms or entitlements might not be guaranteed for all people in places at all times doesn't change the fact that at particular places and particular points in time there is a socially constructed institutional framework for ensuring people have those freedoms and entitlements, even in the face of potentially more powerful others who would want to limit their claim.

If I find myself in one of those places and times and I make the claim to one of those freedoms or entitlements and the institutions are in place to support that claim... is it really correct to say that the right is "illusory", as you claim?

It seems to quite concretely exist for me in that instance.

 

[Number37]

It seems to quite concretely exist for me in that instance.

It's the logical conclusion that follows from your definition.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

You can call them 'rights' if you want. As others have pointed out, in the absence of inalienable rights, every supposed 'right' we have can easily be taken away by someone with enough power to do so. To me, that makes them entirely illusory, and impossible to argue for having if they don't already exist, because how can one say they have the right to anything if someone stronger than them says otherwise?

Its about having a functional society. Like laws, rights are an essential part of any large group of humans trying to live together. Without them there is chaos. The idea of human rights is one that ideally puts us all on the one page. If person A is worth of existing, then so should persons B through Z. Criminal law exists, among other things, to try and prevent rights being trampled arbitrarily by individuals (States and their monopoly on violence are the double-eged sword here as they become the protector OR the taker of all rights of the citizenry)

To me that strive for equality amongst humans IS something worth fighting for, and if a State, any State, uses their monopoly on violence to TAKE rather than DEFEND those rights, then that government needs to be overthrown.

Or voted out if your democracy is functional.

 

[The Speaker]

If you think for a right to "truly exist" it must exist in all circumstances... do you believe anyone has any rights at all?

And if the answer to that is no... one has to wonder if maybe you ought to revisit the definition. Why define the word in such a way that renders the concept an impossibility?

Yes, because I believe that the God who created us did so in his image (thus making us all equally valuable, regardless of our individual qualities), and has told us what that means for how we should relate to each other. However, given the vast numbers of people in our society who do not agree with this concept, it would be strange indeed to base that society on an idea for which the foundation doesn't exist.

Why do you think a right must exist in all circumstances in order to have a real existence in some instances?

A right is just a freedom or an entitlement. Something that I can do or claim, and have that act or claim respected. That these freedoms or entitlements might not be guaranteed for all people in places at all times doesn't change the fact that at particular places and particular points in time there is a socially constructed institutional framework for ensuring people have those freedoms and entitlements, even in the face of potentially more powerful others who would want to limit their claim.

If I find myself in one of those places and times and I make the claim to one of those freedoms or entitlements and the institutions are in place to support that claim... is it really correct to say that the right is "illusory", as you claim?

It seems to quite concretely exist for me in that instance.

See, I think you are conflating separate, useful terms into one grand idea. What you are talking about are freedoms, or if you prefer a different word, liberties.

 

[RobbieK]

Yes, because I believe that the God who created us did so in his image (thus making us all equally valuable, regardless of our individual qualities), and has told us what that means for how we should relate to each other. However, given the vast numbers of people in our society who do not agree with this concept, it would be strange indeed to base that society on an idea for which the foundation doesn't exist.

See, I think you are conflating separate, useful terms into one grand idea. What you are talking about are freedoms, or if you prefer a different word, liberties.

Thanks for this response. We are going to have to agree to disagree on a few things, I suspect.

I can see that you believe that the word "right" should be properly limited to the rules of God (moral rules), while the rules of people (legal rules) should be given another similar but not equal term. To you the rules of God and the rules of people have a fundamental difference. The former are eternal and unchanging, the latter are mutable and dependent on context. It makes sense that you think these different things should have different terms.

There were a lot of "shoulds" in that paragraph. While you are entitled to this belief of how language should be used, it is not, however, accurate to say that this is how language has been and is used.

The use of the word "right", and its etymological forbears, to refer not just to moral duties/freedoms/obligations/liberties but also to legal ones predates the development of modern English.

Considering that, and also considering that you yourself acknowledge that God's moral laws can not be the foundation for a society that does not acknowledge their legitimacy (or even existence)...

It seems to me that it is not incorrect to use the term right to describe as rights, those rules/duties/obligations/freedoms we create and enforce through social institutions within our community, which are actually at the foundation of our society and determine how people in our community engage and interact with each other.

We have called them by that term for hundreds of years, and it appears to me we have reason to do so.

 

[The Speaker]

Thanks for this response. We are going to have to agree to disagree on a few things, I suspect.

I can see that you believe that the word "right" should be properly limited to the rules of God (moral rules), while the rules of people (legal rules) should be given another similar but not equal term. To you the rules of God and the rules of people have a fundamental difference. The former are eternal and unchanging, the latter are mutable and dependent on context. It makes sense that you think these different things should have different terms.

Yes and no. Number37 is also arguing for the same concept of rights - eternal and unchanging - without them being connected to any God. I would claim them as being from God, but that is not actually the important quality when discussing it in a forum such as this. Their nature is what matters, and as I have previously explained, they have no foundation if that are not eternal and unchangeable. You have not actually been able to explain how a right exists in a state or society that rejects it, unless it is from something greater than a state or society. If it doesn't exist in a state or society that rejects it, there is no basis for talking about human rights abuses in those places, because they don't exist (by your logic). Only if they are eternal and unchanging do we have any justification for talking about them.

There were a lot of "shoulds" in that paragraph. While you are entitled to this belief of how language should be used, it is not, however, accurate to say that this is how language has been and is used.

The use of the word "right", and its etymological forbears, to refer not just to moral duties/freedoms/obligations/liberties but also to legal ones predates the development of modern English.

Considering that, and also considering that you yourself acknowledge that God's moral laws can not be the foundation for a society that does not acknowledge their legitimacy (or even existence)...

It seems to me that it is not incorrect to use the term right to describe as rights, those rules/duties/obligations/freedoms we create and enforce through social institutions within our community, which are actually at the foundation of our society and determine how people in our community engage and interact with each other.

We have called them by that term for hundreds of years, and it appears to me we have reason to do so.

We have also called the things you are referring to freedoms and liberties for hundreds of years, and that creates a useful distinction. There is no reason for you not to use those words instead - unless you just like arguing and don't want this thread to have a conclusion to the initial questions.

 

[RobbieK]

Yes and no. Number37 is also arguing for the same concept of rights - eternal and unchanging - without them being connected to any God.

But when asked to provide any sort of definition or explanation for his position, that rights exist in nature even without some sort of divine creator, he didn't even make an attempt. It is hard for me not to conclude he didn't make the attempt because his position is something he believes without any real basis.

I would claim them as being from God, but that is not actually the important quality when discussing it in a forum such as this. Their nature is what matters, and as I have previously explained, they have no foundation if that are not eternal and unchangeable. You have not actually been able to explain how a right exists in a state or society that rejects it, unless it is from something greater than a state or society. If it doesn't exist in a state or society that rejects it, there is no basis for talking about human rights abuses in those places, because they don't exist (by your logic). Only if they are eternal and unchanging do we have any justification for talking about them.

I think I have been quite clear on this point: a right does not exist within a state or society that rejects it.

For the most part, the concept of "human rights" is aspirational. When we talk about human rights as something universally applicable we are talking about what rights we think people "should" have rather than what rights they "do" have.

That is largely because our global supra-national legal institutions are weak or non-existent. We do have documents like the UN Declaration of Human Rights which outline what are commonly considered to be human rights, we do have some international courts, but for the most part these rights will continue to be potential rather than actual until there is a proper institutional apparatus in place to ensure they are respected.

Absent those global institutions, the highest power in determining the rights within a community tends to be the state, or a regional grouping of states. The European Union, for example, has a court that that citizens of European states can appeal to if they feel that the state is not respecting rights that are outlined in the European Convention on Human Rights.

So, we have taken steps towards the formation of a global community that defines and enforces a set of rights for all, but we aren't there yet. If we do get there, though, I would again reiterate my point: the human rights that such a community defined and enforced would not be eternal and unchanging.

When we talk about human rights abuses in states or communities that do not acknowledge or enforce the particular rights we are concerned about, the problem is not that the citizens of those states or members of those communities have rights that are not being respected but that they do not have rights that we think they should have. They will only have those rights if the state or community changes its institutions in such a way that those rights are respected and enforced or if there is some body external to the state or community that exists that can override the state or community and hold it to account.

We have also called the things you are referring to freedoms and liberties for hundreds of years, and that creates a useful distinction. There is no reason for you not to use those words instead - unless you just like arguing and don't want this thread to have a conclusion to the initial questions.

The problem we have is that you feel there is a need to make a distinction beween two types of rights, moral rights that come from God/nature and are unchanging and eternal and the legal rights that come from human society and its institutions and are therefore mutable and contingent, while I see no reason to believe that the former category exists (I don't see any reason to believe in a creator God who established rules for us and I have not had anyone explain to me how such natural rights would exist absent such a God), and so the only type of rights that actually exist are legal rights.

There is no reason for me not to call these legal rights rights. We have been calling them rights for centuries. They are the only rights that actually have any sort of existence or impact on our lives.

I understand the desire to have a firm foundation upon which to build our society. It would be great if there was one. But there isn't. In the absence of such a foundation I think it is better to acknowledge the precariousness of our rights rather than maintain a misplaced confidence that there is some sort of eternal and unchanging safety net under us when there isn't one.

 

[Thegibbsgamble]

Cool thread bro..

Right now, the Chinese trust thier gov more than ever, while we distrust ours more than ever.

Thier gov delivets an effective health care suyem, ours doesn't. Thier gov send thier citizens all over the world to get an education, ours doesn't.

Thier gov invests in food security, ours doesn't.


Wuhan almost open for business again, we're miles and miles in more debt and everybody fighting and arguing. Our football players just screwed us all over with thier pay demands.

We have the right to an effective government

 

[Number37]

But when asked to provide any sort of definition or explanation for his position, that rights exist in nature even without some sort of divine creator, he didn't even make an attempt. It is hard for me not to conclude he didn't make the attempt because his position is something he believes without any real basis.



I think I have been quite clear on this point: a right does not exist within a state or society that rejects it.

For the most part, the concept of "human rights" is aspirational. When we talk about human rights as something universally applicable we are talking about what rights we think people "should" have rather than what rights they "do" have.

That is largely because our global supra-national legal institutions are weak or non-existent. We do have documents like the UN Declaration of Human Rights which outline what are commonly considered to be human rights, we do have some international courts, but for the most part these rights will continue to be potential rather than actual until there is a proper institutional apparatus in place to ensure they are respected.

Absent those global institutions, the highest power in determining the rights within a community tends to be the state, or a regional grouping of states. The European Union, for example, has a court that that citizens of European states can appeal to if they feel that the state is not respecting rights that are outlined in the European Convention on Human Rights.

So, we have taken steps towards the formation of a global community that defines and enforces a set of rights for all, but we aren't there yet. If we do get there, though, I would again reiterate my point: the human rights that such a community defined and enforced would not be eternal and unchanging.

When we talk about human rights abuses in states or communities that do not acknowledge or enforce the particular rights we are concerned about, the problem is not that the citizens of those states or members of those communities have rights that are not being respected but that they do not have rights that we think they should have. They will only have those rights if the state or community changes its institutions in such a way that those rights are respected and enforced or if there is some body external to the state or community that exists that can override the state or community and hold it to account.



The problem we have is that you feel there is a need to make a distinction beween two types of rights, moral rights that come from God/nature and are unchanging and eternal and the legal rights that come from human society and its institutions and are therefore mutable and contingent, while I see no reason to believe that the former category exists (I don't see any reason to believe in a creator God who established rules for us and I have not had anyone explain to me how such natural rights would exist absent such a God), and so the only type of rights that actually exist are legal rights.

There is no reason for me not to call these legal rights rights. We have been calling them rights for centuries. They are the only rights that actually have any sort of existence or impact on our lives.

I understand the desire to have a firm foundation upon which to build our society. It would be great if there was one. But there isn't. In the absence of such a foundation I think it is better to acknowledge the precariousness of our rights rather than maintain a misplaced confidence that there is some sort of eternal and unchanging safety net under us when there isn't one.

In practice, rights, human or otherwise, are far different to what they are in theory, nobody disputes that.
That doesn't mean that they only exist in practice, which seems to be your position.

Human Rights are not aspirational, there is a UNIVERSAL Declaration of Human Rights.

How does a person in country A have a human right where that human right is acknowledged by their govt and a person in country B doesn't have that human right because their govt doesn't acknowledge it....when there is a UNIVERSAL Declaration of Human Rights?

 

[Power Raid]

In practice, rights, human or otherwise, are far different to what they are in theory, nobody disputes that.
That doesn't mean that they only exist in practice, which seems to be your position.

Human Rights are not aspirational, there is a UNIVERSAL Declaration of Human Rights.

How does a person in country A have a human right where that human right is acknowledged by their govt and a person in country B doesn't have that human right because their govt doesn't acknowledge it....when there is a UNIVERSAL Declaration of Human Rights?

You are referring to a non binding agreement

 

[Number37]

You are referring to a non binding agreement

Yes, that's part of the point.
Nations sign/ratify the declaration but pick & choose when it applies.
So are we to believe that those human rights only exist on a whim, not at all, or something else?




BTW,
How's those Myer shares going?
Let me guess, you bailed out and made a fortune and now you're looking for 'other buying opportunities'?

 

[Power Raid]

Yes, that's part of the point.
Nations sign/ratify the declaration but pick & choose when it applies.
So are we to believe that those human rights only exist on a whim, not at all, or something else?




BTW,
How's those Myer shares going?
Let me guess, you bailed out and made a fortune and now you're looking for 'other buying opportunities'?

Human rights only exist when society holds a government to account, to ensure they ratify laws and respect those laws. So you could say the exist on a whim when you look across the globe and look at how many nations don't enjoy human rights as we expect as Australians today. You can also say that even nations with a good human rights record shouldn't take it for granted, as they do disappear permanently or for unfortunate periods in history.

I guess that means human rights are only rights if we invest time and effort to enshrine and enforce them.




In regards to your last paragraph you really are turning yourself into a dill who has a habit of reinventing history. perhaps you get so emotional, your brain can not separate emotion from reality. Perhaps this is a medical condition, so I won't say anything more other than suggest you seek medical advice.

Just as you were pulled up on your false claim I attacked labor on a $19b figure, I will pull you up on this MYR false claim. Go back and read my post again re shares and it does not say what you falsely claim. Please cease making s**t up in your head.

 

[Power Raid]

Yes, that's part of the point.
Nations sign/ratify the declaration but pick & choose when it applies.
So are we to believe that those human rights only exist on a whim, not at all, or something else?




BTW,
How's those Myer shares going?
Let me guess, you bailed out and made a fortune and now you're looking for 'other buying opportunities'?

oh and if it did say what you thought it said

Qantas - up 45%
Myer - up 0%
Village - up 32%

So you would have been up $26k on a $100k portfolio. Not bad for 10 days of no work.

but let's be clear, that's not what the post said

 

[Number37]

In regards to your last paragraph you really are turning yourself into a dill who has a habit of reinventing history. perhaps you get so emotional, your brain can not separate emotion from reality. Perhaps this is a medical condition, so I won't say anything more other than suggest you seek medical advice.

Just as you were pulled up on your false claim I attacked labor on a $19b figure, I will pull you up on this MYR false claim. Go back and read my post again re shares and it does not say what you falsely claim. Please cease making s**t up in your head.

What?
When I asked what shares you bought, you said Myer.
So you didn't buy Myer shares?

In regards to day trading, I picked up some bank stocks for a long term hold. However they jumped 10+%, so I sold them paying for my holiday.
I’ve picked them up again and will buy more as the prices continue to decline. Banks are my preferred but insurance and down the track qantas, Myers and village roadshow.

Slowly in and never be shy taking dividends or profits off the table.

Let me guess, you bailed out and made a fortune and now you're looking for 'other buying opportunities'?

That was just poetic license. Hence the "Let me guess..."

 

[RobbieK]

In practice, rights, human or otherwise, are far different to what they are in theory, nobody disputes that.
That doesn't mean that they only exist in practice, which seems to be your position.

Human Rights are not aspirational, there is a UNIVERSAL Declaration of Human Rights.

How does a person in country A have a human right where that human right is acknowledged by their govt and a person in country B doesn't have that human right because their govt doesn't acknowledge it....when there is a UNIVERSAL Declaration of Human Rights?

Do you think just calling something "universal" makes it so?

That label of "universal" is just an aspirational as the very concept of human rights. You or I could write up our own document outlining the rights that we think should be fundamental human rights for all people at all times, we can even call it the Universal Declaration of Human Rights too... but it would be worth nothing to anyone in the world if the community did not create an institutional framework for ensuring that these rights were upheld and enforced universally.

So, why does the UDHR not provide consistent rights to all people in all countries of the world? Because there isn't a global universal framework to uphold it.

And again, I would stress, that even if there was such a framework, these rights would still not be eternal and unchanging, because their existence would continue to rest on the persistence with which those institutions defined and protected them.

You seem to think there is some sort of Platonic idealism in play here, that somewhere in "the ether", wherever that is, there is an ideal form or idea of the true and essential human rights which is universally true for all people at all times. You seem to think that the UDHR is the concrete manifestation of that form, as if the authors of that document were able to get direct access to this form in the ether and simply transcribed it directly to paper. Neither of these positions stands up to any sort of critical scrutiny.

 

[Number37]

Do you think just calling something "universal" makes it so?

Umm...you have read the declaration?

Each article begins with variations of "Everyone has the right..."

Kinda sounds like it doesn't leave anyone out. But that might just be my misinterpretation.

 

[RobbieK]

Umm...you have read the declaration?

Each article begins with variations of "Everyone has the right..."

Kinda sounds like it doesn't leave anyone out. But that might just be my misinterpretation.

This is my Universal Declaration of Rights.

Everyone has the right to live in a free, open and democratic country.
Everyone has the right to believe whatever they want to believe.
Everyone has the right to whatever medical treatment they want whenever they want it.
Everyone has the right to have a pizza every day.
Everyone has the right to a premium Spotify account.
Everyone has the right to go over the Number37's house and borrow anything they want whenever they want it and don't have to give it back until they want to.

I could go on, but let's stop there.

Does everyone in the world have these rights now?

I mean, look at this document, it says it is universal, it says everyone has these rights...

 

[Number37]

This is my Universal Declaration of Rights.

Everyone has the right to live in a free, open and democratic country.
Everyone has the right to believe whatever they want to believe.
Everyone has the right to whatever medical treatment they want whenever they want it.
Everyone has the right to have a pizza every day.
Everyone has the right to a premium Spotify account.
Everyone has the right to go over the Number37's house and borrow anything they want whenever they want it and don't have to give it back until they want to.

I could go on, but let's stop there.

Does everyone in the world have these rights now?

I mean, look at this document, it says it is universal, it says everyone has these rights...

In relation to declaring universal human rights...
Who has more cred?

The United Nations or
RobbieK on Bigfooty.

Tough choice.

Everyone has the right to go over the Number37's house and borrow anything they want whenever they want it and don't have to give it back until they want to.

Have you been talking to my sister?

 

[RobbieK]

In relation to declaring universal human rights...
Who has more cred?

The United Nations or
RobbieK on Bigfooty.

Tough choice.

Why does the UN have more credibility than me? Do they have superior access to the ether?

 

[Number37]

Why does the UN have more credibility than me? Do they have superior access to the ether?

Besides La-La Land and Fantasy Island, how many countries have signed your declaration?

 

[RobbieK]

Besides La-La Land and Fantasy Island, how many countries have signed your declaration?

You have a problem here.

You say that human rights are universal, natural, immutable, inalienable.

But now you are telling me that the legitimacy of the UDHR comes from the fact that member states to the UN have signed on to the declaration. That the legitimacy of the UDHR, and the illegitimacy of my declaration, is a matter of social consensus.

But... that just confirms what I have been saying about human rights! They are only as good as the institutional support they have. They only exist on account of that institutional support. When that institutional support is absent, the rights are absent.

The member states that have signed on the the UDHR do not have superior access to the "ether" where you say natural human rights reside, permanent and unchanging through all time. The UDHR was not like the mythical ten commandments, given to Moses already fully formed and whole by God so that he could bring it to the Israelites. The contents of the UDHR is entirely the work of people, representatives from the member states in the UN, who engaged with each other to come up with a document that more or less all could agree too. It involved negotiations, compromises. It was a human construction.

The rights contained within the UDHR only exist as a result of the formulation of the document, its ratification by member states of the UN and the implementation of institutions in order to uphold its contents. They did not exist prior to its construction. If it is decided to change the document, through the institutional process of the UN, then these rights can and will change. If at some point these institutions fail or are abandoned, these rights will cease to exist.

Anyone can write a document claiming to list universal rights that every person in the world has. But it won't be worth the paper it is printed on unless it is backed up by social consensus and institutions for enforcement and it will only be worth anything as long as that consensus and those institutions continue to exist.

 

[Power Raid]

What?
When I asked what shares you bought, you said Myer.
So you didn't buy Myer shares?











That was just poetic license. Hence the "Let me guess..."

Please re-read my post and read the facts rather than what you want to see.

For clarity, can you confirm whether
a) it is a health issue that gets you so excited you create a narrative in your head when you read my posts;
b) just get caught out bull shitting and recreate history thinking no one will request you post support for your position
c) you are infatuated with me and possibly want to be me, based on your irrational posts about my posts.


either way, it is really creepy and you should seek help

 

[Power Raid]

Australia is not only breaching its constitution but breaching the non-binding declaration of human rights re freedom of movement

I think this highlights rights, even if enshrined are in fact grey rather than black and white