11 ms·

You honestly believe the concept of human rights is a "rhetorical trick"?

majormajor 5y ago
I believe that the idea that they are something anyone is naturally entitled to by God or nature is a rhetorical trick. Specifically, one employed to discount the value of a strong, functional government. I believe that the state of nature outside of that exposes the shallowness of "inalienability." I believe they are something you have to continually fight for, and that can only be secured by a functional government (which itself is something that requires constant maintenance), vs something you can truly secure for yourself. And in the particular case of the second amendment, I believe we are in a situation where a "right" granted by our constitution impairs on a right to live freely, free from interference and harm from others, that I personally consider more basic and more essential. The Constitution doesn't have an amendment discussing a right to not get shot, but I don't think that makes it less important.
- nradov 5y ago
  There is no positive right to be free from harm. Such a right has never existed.
  - majormajor 5y ago
    So why not? Why don't I have a right to not be killed by my fellow man? Why is it MORE IMPORTANT that my fellow man have a right to possess and carry weapons that could end my life? How is the latter "inalienable" and the former is just wishful thinking? The only answer I can find is "because some people in the 18th century wrote one of them down, but not the other."
    - haram_masala 5y ago
      Wow, talking of rhetorical tricks. In this case, a textbook false dilemma. The right to bear arms does not negate whatever right to safety you think you have. There are 300 million privately owned firearms in the US. Yet the odds of dying from a firearm homicide are quite small.
      - majormajor 5y ago
        And the fun trick here is that "quite small" is meaningless, you would need to compare those odds against those in different countries with different laws...
    - nradov 5y ago
      Think through the implications. Hypothetically if you had the right to not be killed then that would imply that others would be required to do everything possible to protect you. Obviously that would be absurd.
- chroem- 5y ago
  You are endorsing human rights abuses by oppressive governments like the Khmer Rouge because that government didn't extend the right to freedom from persecution to their subjects. You are suggesting that it was the Cambodian people's fault for not having a better government that granted them more rights.
- chroem- 5y ago
  Flagged for no good reason, so I will post it again, because I think it deserves a reply: You are endorsing human rights abuses by oppressive governments like the Khmer Rouge because that government didn't extend the right to freedom from persecution to their subjects. You are suggesting that it was the Cambodian people's fault for not having a better government that granted them more rights.
  - majormajor 5y ago
    This just seems to exemplify the purely-rhetorical aspect of the whole conversation about "natural rights." "The government didn't extend the right to freedom from persecution" could be worded in any number of ways, such as "the government infringed on the inalienable rights of the people" but the fact that such an atrocity was committed says, to me, that claiming such rights are inherent, natural, or inalienable is rather useless. They clearly can be very easily violated. God or nature is not going to stop the violators, at least not during this life. So what good to the victims is a claim that the rights are inherent and a natural result of being born as a human?
    - chroem- 5y ago
      You just admitted that it was an atrocity however. That implies the people who were killed had their rights violated. Your concept of rights granted by the government to the people is not self-consistent.
      - majormajor 5y ago
        That's not a definition of atrocity that I'm familiar with. We could extend this to quibble about the definitions of evil, cruel, what have you, as well, but it's a wide diversion at this point. "Nature does not guarantee you anything" is not "there is no such thing as moral right or wrong." Let's ask a different question: if there are inalienable rights, what is the complete set? Do you expect everyone to agree on what that set of rights is? If one person doesn't believe that guns are one of those, and another does, how do you break that tie? If there is truly a certain set of rights that's a law of nature, should everyone converge on the same set?
yeetawayhn 5y ago
Why not? Couldn't the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights be a "rhetorical trick"?

I believe that the idea that they are something anyone is naturally entitled to by God or nature is a rhetorical trick. Specifically, one employed to discount the value of a strong, functional government. I believe that the state of nature outside of that exposes the shallowness of "inalienability." I believe they are something you have to continually fight for, and that can only be secured by a functional government (which itself is something that requires constant maintenance), vs something you can truly secure for yourself. And in the particular case of the second amendment, I believe we are in a situation where a "right" granted by our constitution impairs on a right to live freely, free from interference and harm from others, that I personally consider more basic and more essential. The Constitution doesn't have an amendment discussing a right to not get shot, but I don't think that makes it less important.

nradov 5y ago
There is no positive right to be free from harm. Such a right has never existed.
- majormajor 5y ago
  So why not? Why don't I have a right to not be killed by my fellow man? Why is it MORE IMPORTANT that my fellow man have a right to possess and carry weapons that could end my life? How is the latter "inalienable" and the former is just wishful thinking? The only answer I can find is "because some people in the 18th century wrote one of them down, but not the other."
  - haram_masala 5y ago
    Wow, talking of rhetorical tricks. In this case, a textbook false dilemma. The right to bear arms does not negate whatever right to safety you think you have. There are 300 million privately owned firearms in the US. Yet the odds of dying from a firearm homicide are quite small.
    - majormajor 5y ago
      And the fun trick here is that "quite small" is meaningless, you would need to compare those odds against those in different countries with different laws...
  - nradov 5y ago
    Think through the implications. Hypothetically if you had the right to not be killed then that would imply that others would be required to do everything possible to protect you. Obviously that would be absurd.
chroem- 5y ago
You are endorsing human rights abuses by oppressive governments like the Khmer Rouge because that government didn't extend the right to freedom from persecution to their subjects. You are suggesting that it was the Cambodian people's fault for not having a better government that granted them more rights.
chroem- 5y ago
Flagged for no good reason, so I will post it again, because I think it deserves a reply: You are endorsing human rights abuses by oppressive governments like the Khmer Rouge because that government didn't extend the right to freedom from persecution to their subjects. You are suggesting that it was the Cambodian people's fault for not having a better government that granted them more rights.
- majormajor 5y ago
  This just seems to exemplify the purely-rhetorical aspect of the whole conversation about "natural rights." "The government didn't extend the right to freedom from persecution" could be worded in any number of ways, such as "the government infringed on the inalienable rights of the people" but the fact that such an atrocity was committed says, to me, that claiming such rights are inherent, natural, or inalienable is rather useless. They clearly can be very easily violated. God or nature is not going to stop the violators, at least not during this life. So what good to the victims is a claim that the rights are inherent and a natural result of being born as a human?
  - chroem- 5y ago
    You just admitted that it was an atrocity however. That implies the people who were killed had their rights violated. Your concept of rights granted by the government to the people is not self-consistent.
    - majormajor 5y ago
      That's not a definition of atrocity that I'm familiar with. We could extend this to quibble about the definitions of evil, cruel, what have you, as well, but it's a wide diversion at this point. "Nature does not guarantee you anything" is not "there is no such thing as moral right or wrong." Let's ask a different question: if there are inalienable rights, what is the complete set? Do you expect everyone to agree on what that set of rights is? If one person doesn't believe that guns are one of those, and another does, how do you break that tie? If there is truly a certain set of rights that's a law of nature, should everyone converge on the same set?

yeetawayhn 5y ago

Why not? Couldn't the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights be a "rhetorical trick"?