rights...

[lazysmurff]

i wasnt sure if i should put this in the political forum or in here, sice it fits under the "political philosophy" catagory. if a mod finds it fits better elsewhere, i guess they'll move it.

anyway, what do you believe to be the original origin of rights. do we have an inate understanding of our rights, or are rights something created by governments at the demand of the people, or are rights something created by governments as an opiate to the masses?

i know thats confusing, so id like to clarify. in the social contract situation proposed by locke and hobbes, we entered into society out of a state of nature in order to protect our self and our stuff from attack. was that out of an inherent understanding of rights? or were rights created in that social contract?

[Prelewd]

There's so much to think about when it comes to political philosophy and rights. When I first read sections of Hobbes' Leviathan, I thought him to be really correct and accurate, but then I got more into other philosophies..

I'd read up a little on Adam Smith's wealth of nations, Plato's Republic (which i still have yet to look at), Aristotle, and even some Marx and Machiavelli.

[lazysmurff]

well, ill pose a theory to see if i get a coversation going.

rights, as we understand them, are not anything but writings provided by governments to help satiate the masses. by providing "rights" the government provides something for them to protect, and thus legitimize their power.

any takers?

[Prelewd]

Originally Posted by lazysmurff

rights, as we understand them, are not anything but writings provided by governments to help satiate the masses. by providing "rights" the government provides something for them to protect, and thus legitimize their power.

That might be true, but what other options are there? On one hand, there's complete chaos, where the government has no power. On the other hand the population has no rights at all.

Hobbes says that the government has legitimate power anyway, because the people want protection from it. But the people have to sacrifice complete freedom to gain that protection. The way I see it, there will always be a sacrifice, no matter what you do. You sacrifice safety for freedom, and freedom for safety. It's all about a balance.

This is why I don't like the quote. It provides a problem with no solution and doesn't really point you in any direction to come up with one.

I think what really needs to be addressed is the greed that takes rights and also the consideration for the minority.

[lazysmurff]

ah, but if their were no government, would their be rights? like, the right to life. does it exist outside of a government? the right to property? im actually fairly certain that this right came after government.

and is it necessary to sacrifice freedom for safety? and if it is, is that always wise?

btw, im trying my best to play the devils advocate here.

or is it that the population of the world understands certain "rights" that everyone has regardless of government. the basis for this being the universal right to life granted by all major religions of the world, at different times, in different places, by people who had no contact with each other.

[Prelewd]

Originally Posted by lazysmurff

ah, but if their were no government, would their be rights? like, the right to life. does it exist outside of a government? the right to property? im actually fairly certain that this right came after government.

and is it necessary to sacrifice freedom for safety? and if it is, is that always wise?

btw, im trying my best to play the devils advocate here.

or is it that the population of the world understands certain "rights" that everyone has regardless of government. the basis for this being the universal right to life granted by all major religions of the world, at different times, in different places, by people who had no contact with each other.

This really depends on which philosopher you talk to. Some say that humans are inherently evil, some say that they are inherently good. I think they are both, but as is the case in why most laws are made, the evil overshadow the good, and the good, in turn, get punished.

Personally, I don't think that it's always wise to sacrifice freedom for safety, especially since, in this day and age, people misconstrue safety as what looks good. A classic example of this is people having to remove their old parts cars from their property because the neighborhood snoots do not like the way it looks. The cars aren't hurting anybody, and they actually serve a purpose to create a greater beauty. I'm sure I can dig up several laws like this all over the world.

I also think that being born, we automatically have a right to life. A less intelligent Joe caveman, on the other hand, could think otherwise, and club me to death for my female. This is where us more intelligent humans get together to protect our worldly possessions, and civilization is born. The less intelligent get weeded out by being shunned from the group and humans evolve from rogue beasts to societal beings.

My opinion/theory is that it's human nature to congregate and organize into a complex group. Many times it's animal nature as well, but we just happen to do it better.

[lazysmurff]

interesting

im taking a course on just this next term, and wanting to kind of get an intro into the topic (not that im new to it, but its always been in the context of political arguement)

what you say makes sense, and it does depend on the philosopher. thanks for entertaining me

[Prelewd]

Originally Posted by lazysmurff

interesting

im taking a course on just this next term, and wanting to kind of get an intro into the topic (not that im new to it, but its always been in the context of political arguement)

what you say makes sense, and it does depend on the philosopher. thanks for entertaining me

The course will definetly be an eye opener. Still one of the best courses I have ever taken in college.

I'm sure there's many people with things to add, as it's a deep subject.

Your welcome for the entertainment.

[chaser29]

society out of a state of nature in order to protect our self and our stuff from attack

That is one theory.

Kant
“Nothing can possibly be conceived in the world…which can be called good, without qualification, except a Good Will.”

Innocence and dependence must be replaced with the concept of good will if humans are to avoid the misfortune of being misguided. Freedom of thought, therefore, is essential, and this can only lead to freedom of action. When the latter freedom occurs, then, the government would react in kind, hence the concept of universalism, particularly universal law.

[carnut]

"Rights" are what people in power say you have, or don't have.