5 ms·

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?

by Frondo 8y ago

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.
  - anoncake 8y ago
    Serfs had to ask their lord for permission to marry.
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.

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?

by 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.
- anoncake 8y ago
  Serfs had to ask their lord for permission to marry.

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.