5 ms·

>Societies should define what is a privilege and what is a right. That's a hard no. I see where you're going with this, and we likely agree on 90% of this topi

>Societies should define what is a privilege and what is a right. That's a hard no. I see where you're going with this, and we likely agree on 90% of this topic anyway, but the issue with society defining rights is that you end up letting the mob decide the "right" of green eyed people to live has just become a privilege. Rights stem from nature, and exist with, or without society. If a society wants to add to the list, they're more than welcome to do so. Those are usually called privileges and its up to the society to attach proper protections to them.

coldtea 8y ago
>but the issue with society defining rights is that you end up letting the mob decide the "right" of green eyed people to live has just become a privilege. That's what those in power try to sell, who think they know better, and that the people are savage animals that need to be kept in place. In reality, the worse atrocities have been performed not by mobs, or at least not by mobs on their own, but by well educated, powerful people. All those gentlemen slave owners in the South, all those smooth talking Nazi higher ups (with support from Germanys financial elites), the higher echelons of USSR Party power, colonial gentlemen, and so on. Mobs have nothing on them. >Rights stem from nature, and exist with, or without society. There are no rights in nature -- something anyone who ventures outside of society (in a jungle, in the woods, etc) will very soon find out. Nobody in nature (outside of a human community) will ever protect their live to live, property, or anything else. Rights are a social contract, made because man is a conscious, social, animal. The problem is that the contract is more often than not, presented like Terms of Use, already written from those in power.
Frondo 8y ago
I don't mean this in a trollish way, but can you show me a "rights" molecule? Or explain what it would mean for rights to exist outside of a society?
- walshemj 8y ago
  Has the whole "inalienable rights" thing passed you by - given we are talking about the USA
  - coldtea 8y ago
    Those are just words on a document some old people wrote. Not a law of nature. The only thing keeping then "unalienated" is actual people, with guns and jails, etc, to prevent others from alienating them. And even so, those people keep unalienated whatever they're ordered to keep by those who pay their salaries. In practice those rights have been alienated time and again, whenever those wanted it.
  - Frondo 8y ago
    Yes, and I'm of the position that there is no such thing as an inalienable right; that that too is a human invention and that that too is entirely up to people to defend. I also think this is a defensible position, hence my request to see the "rights molecule". That isn't to say I don't think certain rights should be held as universal, or that some aren't worth dying for, I certainly do. I just think there isn't a facet of human society that is not, in fact, ultimately a human invention (within the constraints of the pressures evolution has wired into our brains, like proscriptions on incest.) And, frankly, we should all be proud of what we can build, as a species.
- yepguy 8y ago
  Legal rights are things that society decides you're entitled to. Natural rights are basically theological in origin. Violating them transgresses the natural law regardless of what society decides (or even whether society exists, I guess). It seems you're only considering legal rights, possibly because natural rights are difficult to justify from a secular perspective.
  - ericd 8y ago
    The secular version of those "natural rights" is probably that they're ideas that are baked into most peoples' sense of morality by evolution.
  - Frondo 8y ago
    I'm not actually trying to distinguish at all -- the OP spoke of rights stemming from nature, and, as you said, any you'd describe as such are basically theological in nature. The thought experiment I'd run is, just like the one of science vs religion: start from scratch, look for the rights that every society has in common. Property? Nope. Freedom of speech, association, whatever? Nope. The one I think might be universal would be the right to marry someone; I can't think of ever reading about a society where the right to marry and start a family was not a part of it. (Which we also don't really recognize as an explicit right anywhere in modern society, do we?)
    - coldtea 8y ago
      >I can't think of ever reading about a society where the right to marry and start a family was not a part of it There are societies (studied by ethnologists) that don't marry -- the children are raised by the community.
      - Frondo 8y ago
        Wow! That's pretty interesting. Do you happen to remember the names of any? And maybe there isn't anything universal to societies that's considered as "right". Sort of opposite -- things forbidden -- I've heard from some biologist that the only universally forbidden behavior (no society has ever generally permitted it) is incestuous relationships. Everything else, you'd find some society somewhere that's okay with it. That makes sense from a biological perspective, too, that we as a species would be hard-wired not to allow it. That might be as close as an "in nature" thing as you might find, something our brains are hard-wired to discourage.
- asark 8y ago
  It's a US thing. Most folks here have very little exposure to political philosophy unless they seek it out or major in something at least adjacent to it in college, and the bit they do is almost all Locke's concept of natural rights, by way of Paine. Neither figure is typically read, only mentioned and briefly summarized. Like, that's it. Beginning and end. Whole thing. That the concept is... not trivial to defend, in these our modern times, and further that it may not have much practical use beyond its value in propaganda (which is real and shouldn't be dismissed and, I suppose, is furthered by the sort of education above) isn't really covered.
dnautics 8y ago
There are definitely rights which are artificial and not natural, for example the right to be free from prosecution without a trial jury. The right to vote is kind of in there too. I think it's more accurate to say that rights (in the original setting) are a list of things that the law cannot prohibit you.

coldtea 8y ago

>but the issue with society defining rights is that you end up letting the mob decide the "right" of green eyed people to live has just become a privilege. That's what those in power try to sell, who think they know better, and that the people are savage animals that need to be kept in place. In reality, the worse atrocities have been performed not by mobs, or at least not by mobs on their own, but by well educated, powerful people. All those gentlemen slave owners in the South, all those smooth talking Nazi higher ups (with support from Germanys financial elites), the higher echelons of USSR Party power, colonial gentlemen, and so on. Mobs have nothing on them. >Rights stem from nature, and exist with, or without society. There are no rights in nature -- something anyone who ventures outside of society (in a jungle, in the woods, etc) will very soon find out. Nobody in nature (outside of a human community) will ever protect their live to live, property, or anything else. Rights are a social contract, made because man is a conscious, social, animal. The problem is that the contract is more often than not, presented like Terms of Use, already written from those in power.

Frondo 8y ago

I don't mean this in a trollish way, but can you show me a "rights" molecule? Or explain what it would mean for rights to exist outside of a society?

walshemj 8y ago
Has the whole "inalienable rights" thing passed you by - given we are talking about the USA
- coldtea 8y ago
  Those are just words on a document some old people wrote. Not a law of nature. The only thing keeping then "unalienated" is actual people, with guns and jails, etc, to prevent others from alienating them. And even so, those people keep unalienated whatever they're ordered to keep by those who pay their salaries. In practice those rights have been alienated time and again, whenever those wanted it.
- Frondo 8y ago
  Yes, and I'm of the position that there is no such thing as an inalienable right; that that too is a human invention and that that too is entirely up to people to defend. I also think this is a defensible position, hence my request to see the "rights molecule". That isn't to say I don't think certain rights should be held as universal, or that some aren't worth dying for, I certainly do. I just think there isn't a facet of human society that is not, in fact, ultimately a human invention (within the constraints of the pressures evolution has wired into our brains, like proscriptions on incest.) And, frankly, we should all be proud of what we can build, as a species.
yepguy 8y ago
Legal rights are things that society decides you're entitled to. Natural rights are basically theological in origin. Violating them transgresses the natural law regardless of what society decides (or even whether society exists, I guess). It seems you're only considering legal rights, possibly because natural rights are difficult to justify from a secular perspective.
- ericd 8y ago
  The secular version of those "natural rights" is probably that they're ideas that are baked into most peoples' sense of morality by evolution.
- Frondo 8y ago
  I'm not actually trying to distinguish at all -- the OP spoke of rights stemming from nature, and, as you said, any you'd describe as such are basically theological in nature. The thought experiment I'd run is, just like the one of science vs religion: start from scratch, look for the rights that every society has in common. Property? Nope. Freedom of speech, association, whatever? Nope. The one I think might be universal would be the right to marry someone; I can't think of ever reading about a society where the right to marry and start a family was not a part of it. (Which we also don't really recognize as an explicit right anywhere in modern society, do we?)
  - coldtea 8y ago
    >I can't think of ever reading about a society where the right to marry and start a family was not a part of it There are societies (studied by ethnologists) that don't marry -- the children are raised by the community.
    - Frondo 8y ago
      Wow! That's pretty interesting. Do you happen to remember the names of any? And maybe there isn't anything universal to societies that's considered as "right". Sort of opposite -- things forbidden -- I've heard from some biologist that the only universally forbidden behavior (no society has ever generally permitted it) is incestuous relationships. Everything else, you'd find some society somewhere that's okay with it. That makes sense from a biological perspective, too, that we as a species would be hard-wired not to allow it. That might be as close as an "in nature" thing as you might find, something our brains are hard-wired to discourage.
asark 8y ago
It's a US thing. Most folks here have very little exposure to political philosophy unless they seek it out or major in something at least adjacent to it in college, and the bit they do is almost all Locke's concept of natural rights, by way of Paine. Neither figure is typically read, only mentioned and briefly summarized. Like, that's it. Beginning and end. Whole thing. That the concept is... not trivial to defend, in these our modern times, and further that it may not have much practical use beyond its value in propaganda (which is real and shouldn't be dismissed and, I suppose, is furthered by the sort of education above) isn't really covered.

dnautics 8y ago

There are definitely rights which are artificial and not natural, for example the right to be free from prosecution without a trial jury. The right to vote is kind of in there too. I think it's more accurate to say that rights (in the original setting) are a list of things that the law cannot prohibit you.