7 ms·

You can break down the argument for individual rights as follows. (a) The best and moral thing for you (or anyone) to do is to act in your own self-interest, i

by javert 13y ago

You can break down the argument for individual rights as follows. (a) The best and moral thing for you (or anyone) to do is to act in your own self-interest, i.e., in the pursuit of your happiness (b) The governmental system that best allows this is one in which each individual is sovereign as long as they don't impinge on another's sovereignty. i.e., _initiating_ force is diasllowed, but retaliatory force under objective control (i.e., the government) is allowed. Of course, establishing (a) and (b) objectively requires many dissertations-worth of philosophy, but I think it can be and has been done. And fortunately, they are intuitively plausible. I wouldn't call rights "innate," but some people do. More often, people arguing for "innate" rights are just making an assertion.

mindcrime 13y ago
Perhaps "innate" wasn't the best choice of words. Certainly I did not intend to make any "supernatural" claim in what I said. The problem with any discussion of "rights" is that, ultimately, it reduces to a debate over metaphysics and epistemology. What is a "right" and what is the source of a "right", etc. In this case, I am taking an intuitive approach, based on the idea that if I exist, I can choose to defend myself, and I can do so without initiating any forceful action against anyone else. And if I choose not to defend myself, I (presumably) stand to cease to be. IMO, that makes "self-defense" what one could reasonably refer to as an innate[1] right. [1]: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/innate http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/innate
- javert 13y ago
  I don't follow that argument. It seems like you're arguing that a right is something that you can choose to do, as long as it doesn't involve using force against someone. I agree with that, but it begs the question. Why _can_ you choose to do anything you want? And why _can't_ you initiate force against people? My earlier answer is a starting point that connects rights to ethics. Speaking of which, you're wrong that the question reduces to metaphysics and epistemology. I mean, it does, but only indirectly. Actually, the hierarchy is: metaphysics (what exists) epistemology (how we know it) ethics (what is good) <- you left this out government (what is good in a social context)
  - mindcrime 13y ago
    Why _can_ you choose to do anything you want? And why _can't_ you initiate force against people? My earlier answer is a starting point that connects rights to ethics. Right, that question is exactly why I say that it devolvees into an argument over metaphysics and epistemology. Also, I acknowledge what you say about including ethics, although my opinion on that is that ethical discussions also - at some level - devolve into discussions of epistemology and metaphysics. "What is good in a social context" is a less important question to me. I don't believe in trying to "engineer" social good by manipulating our view of what is or isn't a "right" of an individual. Society, to me, is just an emergent aspect of the interactions of individuals. I believe you have to start with what individuals can or cannot rightly do, and accept whatever consequences that may entail.
    - javert 13y ago
      > Right, that question is exactly why I say that it devolvees into an argument over metaphysics and epistemology. Also, I acknowledge what you say about including ethics, although my opinion on that is that ethical discussions also - at some level - devolve into discussions of epistemology and metaphysics. Well, you need epistemology and metaphysics to reason about ethics. I mean, if you deny basic facts of reality and/or have no means to valid knowledge, you won't get very far. Given those, though, ethics really hinges on looking at the nature of a human being. For a human being, is there any need or method to figure out what is "good" and what is "bad"? That is how you end up getting to my original point (a). > "What is good in a social context" is a less important question to me. I don't believe in trying to "engineer" social good by manipulating our view of what is or isn't a "right" of an individual. Society, to me, is just an emergent aspect of the interactions of individuals. I believe you have to start with what individuals can or cannot rightly do, and accept whatever consequences that may entail. I agree. But that's because of the implications of (a). And you still have to figure out how we're all going to get along. That's all I meant by, "What is good in a social context."

by javert 13y ago

mindcrime 13y ago

Perhaps "innate" wasn't the best choice of words. Certainly I did not intend to make any "supernatural" claim in what I said. The problem with any discussion of "rights" is that, ultimately, it reduces to a debate over metaphysics and epistemology. What is a "right" and what is the source of a "right", etc. In this case, I am taking an intuitive approach, based on the idea that if I exist, I can choose to defend myself, and I can do so without initiating any forceful action against anyone else. And if I choose not to defend myself, I (presumably) stand to cease to be. IMO, that makes "self-defense" what one could reasonably refer to as an innate[1] right. [1]: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/innate http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/innate

javert 13y ago
I don't follow that argument. It seems like you're arguing that a right is something that you can choose to do, as long as it doesn't involve using force against someone. I agree with that, but it begs the question. Why _can_ you choose to do anything you want? And why _can't_ you initiate force against people? My earlier answer is a starting point that connects rights to ethics. Speaking of which, you're wrong that the question reduces to metaphysics and epistemology. I mean, it does, but only indirectly. Actually, the hierarchy is: metaphysics (what exists) epistemology (how we know it) ethics (what is good) <- you left this out government (what is good in a social context)
- mindcrime 13y ago
  Why _can_ you choose to do anything you want? And why _can't_ you initiate force against people? My earlier answer is a starting point that connects rights to ethics. Right, that question is exactly why I say that it devolvees into an argument over metaphysics and epistemology. Also, I acknowledge what you say about including ethics, although my opinion on that is that ethical discussions also - at some level - devolve into discussions of epistemology and metaphysics. "What is good in a social context" is a less important question to me. I don't believe in trying to "engineer" social good by manipulating our view of what is or isn't a "right" of an individual. Society, to me, is just an emergent aspect of the interactions of individuals. I believe you have to start with what individuals can or cannot rightly do, and accept whatever consequences that may entail.
  - javert 13y ago
    > Right, that question is exactly why I say that it devolvees into an argument over metaphysics and epistemology. Also, I acknowledge what you say about including ethics, although my opinion on that is that ethical discussions also - at some level - devolve into discussions of epistemology and metaphysics. Well, you need epistemology and metaphysics to reason about ethics. I mean, if you deny basic facts of reality and/or have no means to valid knowledge, you won't get very far. Given those, though, ethics really hinges on looking at the nature of a human being. For a human being, is there any need or method to figure out what is "good" and what is "bad"? That is how you end up getting to my original point (a). > "What is good in a social context" is a less important question to me. I don't believe in trying to "engineer" social good by manipulating our view of what is or isn't a "right" of an individual. Society, to me, is just an emergent aspect of the interactions of individuals. I believe you have to start with what individuals can or cannot rightly do, and accept whatever consequences that may entail. I agree. But that's because of the implications of (a). And you still have to figure out how we're all going to get along. That's all I meant by, "What is good in a social context."