3 ms·
I'd make it a bit more specific - human rights are things that you have in the absence of society, as they are universally applicable, but they don't encompass
by ameister14 9y ago
I'd make it a bit more specific - human rights are things that you have in the absence of society, as they are universally applicable, but they don't encompass all rights. A citizen can have a right to something provided by their society.
- msla 9y agoRights only make sense in the context of a society, because they can only govern the actions of fellow humans. Animals know nothing about rights. Non-living matter knows nothing at all, and so certainly nothing about rights. Therefore, rights only exist to guide and constrain what humans do, and any group of humans living together is a society.
- ameister14 9y agoI don't agree that rights only make sense in the context of a society, as rights may exist without being codified, it's just significantly more difficult to assert them without societal assistance. I can assert rights to other people without being a member of human society. My right to the apple on the ground is the classic example.
- msla 9y agoIf you're talking to other people, you're a member of a human society. The only people who aren't members of society live entirely alone 100% of the time. Edited because I can't reply: We've hit a definitional issue, and we're not going to be able to resolve it. You know what definition I used, I know what definition you're using, so continuing is pointless.
- ameister14 9y agoNo, if you're interacting with other people persistently or associated with people you're a member of society. If you interact with people sporadically, you're not necessarily a member of a human society. If we're talking state of nature here, even persistent interaction doesn't necessarily mean society - that generally requires cooperation.