3 ms·

Why can you say that someone harming you is violating your rights? That presumes there is some objective truth determining what rights you have. Even if you bel

Why can you say that someone harming you is violating your rights? That presumes there is some objective truth determining what rights you have. Even if you believe in God or a creator or similar, that everyone has certain inalienable rights granted by that God/creator, there is quite a bit of difference over what those rights are, or how they're to be carried out, and -certainly- claims of "my rights!" don't seem to invoke that God/creator to do anything for you. Governments upholding 'rights', then, only makes sense to talk about from a social contract perspective; what do we, as a society, decide people have a right to. We can decide people have a right to freedom from harm, or we can abridge that right (as we do when punishing someone). We can decide kids have a right to education, a right to clean drinking water, etc, or not. "Healthcare is a right" is, obviously, not a statement of fact (it currently is not), but a statement of what should be, an implicit belief of what society should adhere to. It's no more and no less accurate to say it's a right than to say "a right to liberty" is a right; it's up to society to adopt any such claim and adhere to it. And that distinction is true whether it's a positive or negative right, and a completely different discussion.

Dracophoenix 6y ago
>>Why can you say that someone harming you is violating your rights? That presumes there is some objective truth determining what rights you have. Your claims are self-refuting. You don't need to believe in speech or a right to it in order to speak. You have to right to free speech because because you are able to speak without the interference or involvement of others. This is an objective right because it is predicated on objective concretes (i.e. the ability to communicate). If there are no objective rights then there is no such thing as a harm or benefit. Only an empty act devoid of all meaning on it's own. >>Even if you believe in God or a creator or similar, that everyone has certain inalienable rights granted by that God/creator, there is quite a bit of difference over what those rights are, or how they're to be carried out, and -certainly- claims of "my rights!" don't seem to invoke that God/creator to do anything for you.Governments upholding 'rights', then, only makes sense to talk about from a social contract perspective; what do we, as a society, decide people have a right to. We can decide people have a right to freedom from harm, or we can abridge that right (as we do when punishing someone). We can decide kids have a right to education, a right to clean drinking water, etc, or not. A "social contract" is only as good as the awareness/belief of its existence. In your world of social contracts, rights are determined by mystical belief, mass delusion, or the will of the mob. Not objective circumstances. Social contracts as such are neither provable nor enforceable. They are elements of a civil religion or a civil superstition. >>"Healthcare is a right" is, obviously, not a statement of fact (it currently is not), but a statement of what should be, an implicit belief of what society should adhere to. It's no more and no less accurate to say it's a right than to say "a right to liberty" is a right; it's up to society to adopt any such claim and adhere to it. And that distinction is true whether it's a positive or negative right, and a completely different discussion. Society can't adopt a negative right because a negative right can't be enforced. It can only be observed, enumerated, and built upon. A right to liberty is a right because (I know I'm repeating myself) the existence of said right is predicated on your concretes of being able to live freely in the first place. And doing so without the interference or intervention of others.

Dracophoenix 6y ago

>>Why can you say that someone harming you is violating your rights? That presumes there is some objective truth determining what rights you have. Your claims are self-refuting. You don't need to believe in speech or a right to it in order to speak. You have to right to free speech because because you are able to speak without the interference or involvement of others. This is an objective right because it is predicated on objective concretes (i.e. the ability to communicate). If there are no objective rights then there is no such thing as a harm or benefit. Only an empty act devoid of all meaning on it's own. >>Even if you believe in God or a creator or similar, that everyone has certain inalienable rights granted by that God/creator, there is quite a bit of difference over what those rights are, or how they're to be carried out, and -certainly- claims of "my rights!" don't seem to invoke that God/creator to do anything for you.Governments upholding 'rights', then, only makes sense to talk about from a social contract perspective; what do we, as a society, decide people have a right to. We can decide people have a right to freedom from harm, or we can abridge that right (as we do when punishing someone). We can decide kids have a right to education, a right to clean drinking water, etc, or not. A "social contract" is only as good as the awareness/belief of its existence. In your world of social contracts, rights are determined by mystical belief, mass delusion, or the will of the mob. Not objective circumstances. Social contracts as such are neither provable nor enforceable. They are elements of a civil religion or a civil superstition. >>"Healthcare is a right" is, obviously, not a statement of fact (it currently is not), but a statement of what should be, an implicit belief of what society should adhere to. It's no more and no less accurate to say it's a right than to say "a right to liberty" is a right; it's up to society to adopt any such claim and adhere to it. And that distinction is true whether it's a positive or negative right, and a completely different discussion. Society can't adopt a negative right because a negative right can't be enforced. It can only be observed, enumerated, and built upon. A right to liberty is a right because (I know I'm repeating myself) the existence of said right is predicated on your concretes of being able to live freely in the first place. And doing so without the interference or intervention of others.