4 ms·

> The point is that _rights_ ought to be things that, in the absence of a society, you already _have_. That's simply just an absurd and frankly silly point. S

> The point is that _rights_ ought to be things that, in the absence of a society, you already _have_. That's simply just an absurd and frankly silly point. Stop arguing about what words should mean and pay attention to the message people are communicating. Rights are whatever society agrees they are, it's as simple as that, nothing more and nothing less; no rights are inherent. There is not "should", there is only what is.

gipp 9y ago
Sure, words mean whatever the consensus is that they mean. My definition above is just the original one. If we decide it's this new, broader thing, then so be it. But if "rights" encompass things that a perfectly just, well-intentioned society might very well _not be physically capable_ of providing, simply due to lack of resources, then what the hell is the point of calling something a "right" at all? What does that accomplish? What does that mean? All I'm saying is that this new, pretty much meaningless definition we've given it of "stuff we want" is much less useful than the original.
- gnaritas 9y ago
  > My definition above is just the original one. And outdated and not accepted one. Don't be a prescriptivist, words don't have a single fixed meaning, just because Lock defined right to mean something long long ago doesn't mean that's what people mean when they use the word. > If we decide it's this new, broader thing, then so be it. That was decided by the masses long ago. Language evolves. This is not "new" nor is it meaningless. Rights means stuff we as a majority agree everyone should have, it's not less useful, and it's what rights have always actually meant. Anyone arguing about natural rights vs whatever is having a meaningless semantic argument with no one who matters. There are no natural rights, the concept is frankly silly; rights are inherently social in nature and have always been simply what people agree on.
  - gipp 9y ago
    > Don't be a prescriptivist, words don't have a single fixed meaning, just because Lock defined right to mean something long long ago doesn't mean that's what people mean when they use the word. Yes, I know. I agreed with that in the comment you're replying to. > Rights means stuff we as a majority agree everyone should have, it's not less useful, and it's what rights have always actually meant. If "rights" are just "things we want people to have", then why is "internet access" a right, but not a yacht or a penthouse apartment? Wouldn't we be happier if everyone had those? I don't give a shit, really, if people go for a "Locke conception" of rights or whatever. I just don't really have a clue what it means anymore to say something is a "human right," if it includes super expensive stuff that a lot of countries can't afford.
    - gnaritas 9y ago
      > If "rights" are just "things we want people to have", then why is "internet access" a right, but not a yacht or a penthouse apartment? Wouldn't we be happier if everyone had those? Things we "agree" people should have. You won't find a majority of society agrees everyone should have a penthouse or a yacht, why... because rights are determined by reason and it's unreasonable to provide everyone with a penthouse and a yacht, it is not unreasonable to provide everyone with internet access. How do we define reasonable... through thoughtful discussion, debate, and law. You're trying to cut the human out of the equation and have some way to define right that's internally logically self consistent, but people don't work that way. Agreement that something is reasonable is how humans work. > I just don't really have a clue what it means anymore to say something is a "human right," i I don't think that's true, I think you can perfectly well see how these things are defined, you just don't like it for some reason.
lliamander 9y ago
If rights a merely a social contract, then what is absurd about trying to negotiate the terms of that contract? The parent's definition of rights may not be what people often mean; that doesn't mean their definition isn't useful.
- gnaritas 9y ago
  > then what is absurd about trying to negotiate the terms of that contract? Nothing, that's rather the point I'm making, rights are not inherent, they are social agreements and are thus always up for renegotiation. You are agreeing with me. That's not what the OP is doing, the OP is trying to claim something isn't a right because it doesn't fit his definition of the word, he's pulling a no true Scottsman on a thing saying it's not a right even though society agrees it is.
  - lliamander 9y ago
    I mean no disrespect, but I don't agree with you. My claim is that the OP, by haggling about definitions, is trying to negotiate the meaning of the word. edit: and by that, I mean that it doesn't make sense to call the OP's argument absurd. I don't believe that the OP is pulling a No True Scottsman. A No True Scottsman is really all about shifting your definition of a category in unprincipled ways in response to counter-examples. The OP is simply saying that many things other people call rights should not be. I do think it's a fallacy to claim that, given the fluidity of language, there is therefore no meaningful concept that we might be trying to point to. I do think there is a meaningful concept that the OP is trying to bring clarity on by restricting the meaning and usage of the word rights. I think the way the word "rights" is used today unhelpfully equivocates between different concepts and thus impoverishes our ability to think clearly about legal and policy issues. Language may something that is negotiated, a social construct, but it is not arbitrary.
    - gnaritas 9y ago
      > My claim is that the OP, by haggling about definitions, is trying to negotiate the meaning of the word. Oh, ok, yes he is and that's the problem, he's wrong. It's a stupid semantic debate where he's arguing over a word and everyone else is discussing what things we should guarantee everyone has. We call those things rights, whether the OP likes it or not, the issue at hand is what those rights should be, not what the word rights means.

gipp 9y ago

Sure, words mean whatever the consensus is that they mean. My definition above is just the original one. If we decide it's this new, broader thing, then so be it. But if "rights" encompass things that a perfectly just, well-intentioned society might very well _not be physically capable_ of providing, simply due to lack of resources, then what the hell is the point of calling something a "right" at all? What does that accomplish? What does that mean? All I'm saying is that this new, pretty much meaningless definition we've given it of "stuff we want" is much less useful than the original.

gnaritas 9y ago
> My definition above is just the original one. And outdated and not accepted one. Don't be a prescriptivist, words don't have a single fixed meaning, just because Lock defined right to mean something long long ago doesn't mean that's what people mean when they use the word. > If we decide it's this new, broader thing, then so be it. That was decided by the masses long ago. Language evolves. This is not "new" nor is it meaningless. Rights means stuff we as a majority agree everyone should have, it's not less useful, and it's what rights have always actually meant. Anyone arguing about natural rights vs whatever is having a meaningless semantic argument with no one who matters. There are no natural rights, the concept is frankly silly; rights are inherently social in nature and have always been simply what people agree on.
- gipp 9y ago
  > Don't be a prescriptivist, words don't have a single fixed meaning, just because Lock defined right to mean something long long ago doesn't mean that's what people mean when they use the word. Yes, I know. I agreed with that in the comment you're replying to. > Rights means stuff we as a majority agree everyone should have, it's not less useful, and it's what rights have always actually meant. If "rights" are just "things we want people to have", then why is "internet access" a right, but not a yacht or a penthouse apartment? Wouldn't we be happier if everyone had those? I don't give a shit, really, if people go for a "Locke conception" of rights or whatever. I just don't really have a clue what it means anymore to say something is a "human right," if it includes super expensive stuff that a lot of countries can't afford.
  - gnaritas 9y ago
    > If "rights" are just "things we want people to have", then why is "internet access" a right, but not a yacht or a penthouse apartment? Wouldn't we be happier if everyone had those? Things we "agree" people should have. You won't find a majority of society agrees everyone should have a penthouse or a yacht, why... because rights are determined by reason and it's unreasonable to provide everyone with a penthouse and a yacht, it is not unreasonable to provide everyone with internet access. How do we define reasonable... through thoughtful discussion, debate, and law. You're trying to cut the human out of the equation and have some way to define right that's internally logically self consistent, but people don't work that way. Agreement that something is reasonable is how humans work. > I just don't really have a clue what it means anymore to say something is a "human right," i I don't think that's true, I think you can perfectly well see how these things are defined, you just don't like it for some reason.

lliamander 9y ago

If rights a merely a social contract, then what is absurd about trying to negotiate the terms of that contract? The parent's definition of rights may not be what people often mean; that doesn't mean their definition isn't useful.

gnaritas 9y ago
> then what is absurd about trying to negotiate the terms of that contract? Nothing, that's rather the point I'm making, rights are not inherent, they are social agreements and are thus always up for renegotiation. You are agreeing with me. That's not what the OP is doing, the OP is trying to claim something isn't a right because it doesn't fit his definition of the word, he's pulling a no true Scottsman on a thing saying it's not a right even though society agrees it is.
- lliamander 9y ago
  I mean no disrespect, but I don't agree with you. My claim is that the OP, by haggling about definitions, is trying to negotiate the meaning of the word. edit: and by that, I mean that it doesn't make sense to call the OP's argument absurd. I don't believe that the OP is pulling a No True Scottsman. A No True Scottsman is really all about shifting your definition of a category in unprincipled ways in response to counter-examples. The OP is simply saying that many things other people call rights should not be. I do think it's a fallacy to claim that, given the fluidity of language, there is therefore no meaningful concept that we might be trying to point to. I do think there is a meaningful concept that the OP is trying to bring clarity on by restricting the meaning and usage of the word rights. I think the way the word "rights" is used today unhelpfully equivocates between different concepts and thus impoverishes our ability to think clearly about legal and policy issues. Language may something that is negotiated, a social construct, but it is not arbitrary.
  - gnaritas 9y ago
    > My claim is that the OP, by haggling about definitions, is trying to negotiate the meaning of the word. Oh, ok, yes he is and that's the problem, he's wrong. It's a stupid semantic debate where he's arguing over a word and everyone else is discussing what things we should guarantee everyone has. We call those things rights, whether the OP likes it or not, the issue at hand is what those rights should be, not what the word rights means.