Human rights...

[Chrysostom]

...inviolable things with which we are born, or priveleges that a government can give or take away as it pleases?

I'd vote the latter. No one is born with rights. People are born with legs, eyes, a head etc. Rights aren't things we have as human beings, they are things which the lucky among us who are born into democratic countries recieve, based on nothing more concrete than a philosophical tradition that believes they are inalienable things, inherent in human beings.

[moogoogaipan]

rights is a creation of humanity. As humans in society, we have rights, but as animals in an ecosystem that we cannot control, we have no rights.

[GreyHam]

then, by definition, theyre not rights, surely?

[Chrysostom]

rights is a creation of humanity. As humans in society, we have rights.

Agreed. But people seem to treat rights as something that's an inherent part of being a human. That's just not true.

[CrossTheBreeze]

then, by definition, theyre not rights, surely?
they would be privleges, wouldn't they?

[GreyHam]

id say so anyway, but maybe my definition of rights are wrong. i was about to say that i have the right to life and no just body can take that away, but of course that assumes that i respect everyone elses right to life. should i choose to shoot loads of people, generally speaking, people would say i have 'lost my right to life', which doesnt make it a right at all if it can be revoked

i have the privalidge to life.

that makes more sense actually

soom people die in horrible ways, i certainly feel more privaledged than them

[moogoogaipan]

I think we are priveleged to life. Nothing stopping anyone from taking it away, save for laws and their respect for human morals.
If someone wants to kill you, they certainly can, and if laws weren't there to protect the privelege of life then your killer would most certainly continue living his life as he pleased.

[GreyHam]

its not as catchy though...

'the European court of human privileges'


human rights is certainly a misnomer, and gets abused often. so many petty cases in the uk that you would not believe

[PerpetualBurn]

There are rights granted by society.

And there are limitations to the power of a legitimate government.

In that sense, yes, rights do exist.

If you think rights exist as some concrete universal force, then no, they don't.

[thedeadwalk!]

then, by definition, theyre not rights, surely?
This is my thinking.

[John Paul Harrison]

I don't understand your point. Are you saying that human rights aren't natural phenomena, but rather arbitrary ideas?

I thought that was kind of obvious?

[(*The Noonward Race*)]

I don't understand your point. Are you saying that human rights aren't natural phenomena, but rather arbitrary ideas?

I thought that was kind of obvious?
Yeah.

I think he just feels like raping some people or something idk

[Africa]

Hmm no I don't think he wants to rape anybody.

[Mr. Ron]

Like it has been said before, rights are given to us by society. We aren't "born with them" but are given them upon arrival into society.

[(*The Noonward Race*)]

Hmm no I don't think he wants to rape anybody.
oh.

[The Digital Pimp]

Like it has been said before, rights are given to us by society. We aren't "born with them" but are given them upon arrival into society.

Hence, "born with them".

[griftadan]

then, by definition, theyre not rights, surely?

if thats how you want to define them

[Swill_Merchant]

...inviolable things with which we are born, or priveleges that a government can give or take away as it pleases?

I'd vote the latter. No one is born with rights. People are born with legs, eyes, a head etc. Rights aren't things we have as human beings, they are things which the lucky among us who are born into democratic countries recieve, based on nothing more concrete than a philosophical tradition that believes they are inalienable things, inherent in human beings.

If we didn't claim every god-dammed thing on this earth, and try to control every single thing, rights wouldn't be an issue. But, there are many that believe different ways and act on them differentely. So in that case, human rights would serve as a standard to hold off the facists that we call leaders (idealistically and not actuality). And you are right, we all don't get them. But, people like the idea more than the action.

I think if we can actually enforce human rights it would act as a grounding to some very, very hidious actions. So, humans and human actions are the reasons that we need them in the first place.

[RNR]

To enforce human rights requires action by a nation making them then civil rights. There's no such thing as human rights in practice. There should be but some governments are jerks.

[Give me Beer]

Or put more eloquently:

http://www.spectacle.org/0400/natural.html

[toxicmudd]

Surely evolution teaches us that all men are most certainly not equal, and rights are merely a system for keeping peace of mind and a clear conscience for those in charge and an instituion for a select number to abuse.

[palepalepeach]

I'm not sure how to approach this topic... but I'm crazy devoted to people having rights (or priveleges, whatever you want to call them).

[Petros]

Surely evolution teaches us that all men are most certainly not equal, and rights are merely a system for keeping peace of mind and a clear conscience for those in charge and an instituion for a select number to abuse.

If universal common descent is true we are all made of the same 'stuff' and thus equal in terms of all being related by a common origin.

[Iskandar]

Surely evolution teaches us that all men are most certainly not equal
Er, we don't have any control over the parts of our physical makeup that are determined before birth.

[PerpetualBurn]

Equality is a matter of providing equal opportunity, not a matter of pretending midgets are as tall as I am.

[Smokey D]

then, by definition, theyre not rights, surely?

This is a common misconception. The law bestows rights to things on people all the time. For example, the right to free speech is a legal right bestowed on us by the law, not by our nature.

A more important question is 'then they're not human rights, surely?' If we believe that rights emanate from our humanity, then no law can add to them or take them away. If however, they emanate from the law or society, then they are subjective and easily dispensed with.

[the_green_bastard]

All I know is that I own my body and my self, and any government official or priest who tells me otherwise can go straight to ****-Off Land.

[samariah]

well i dont put "rights" and arms and legs in the same exact category.

i honestly don't know what exactly to think of the concept of "rights."

this is going to sound like a bad pun, but i think it is "right" to value and protect life though.

life: privilege, right...

man lets just love one another

[CrossTheBreeze]

All I know is that I own my body and my self, and any government official or priest who tells me otherwise can go straight to ****-Off Land.

I like your posting style. It always makes me laugh :)

[(*The Noonward Race*)]

I think his posting style is made out of lego bricks.

[PerpetualBurn]

All I know is that I own my body and my self, and any government official or priest who tells me otherwise can go straight to ****-Off Land.

I hear a lot of criminals have thought that about the government.

The country's prisons are nearly full.

What does that tell you?

[-1up!-]

That sadly, reality sometimes comes back to trounce idealism.

[griftadan]

All I know is that I own my body and my self, and any government official or priest who tells me otherwise can go straight to ****-Off Land.

do you?

[Iskandar]

Being born into your body allows you control of it, assuming it functions correctly. That doesn't mean your body is your property. A distinction can be made between owning property and simply using it.

[griftadan]

if you don't own your body, who does? that is, who else has a rightful claim to decide what is to be done with it, and to what extent?

[Iskandar]

if you don't own your body, who does? that is, who else has a rightful claim to decide what is to be done with it, and to what extent?
It doesn't matter who owns it so long as you retain sovereignty of it. That's just as good as owning it.

You can decide what to do with it becaus of legal constructs, not because of some (shudder) natural right.

[griftadan]

i knew there was something off about me debating philosophy....

[Iskandar]

i knew there was something off about me debating philosophy....
I don't get it.

[griftadan]

i usually avoid argueing in terms of philosphy...

[Smokey D]

Technically, property consists of some transferable rights with regards to an item or object, and it is quite difficult to do this with regards to the body. In that sense, it's not property. However, it fits the other characteristics of property closely enough for us to consider a distinction meaningless in practical terms.

What I am confused by is the argument against natural rights. If we don't have an inalienable right to do something (that is, all rights are legal constructs), then we have no right to argue for change or to pursue a more equitable arrangement of power or similar things.

[The Digital Pimp]

if you don't own your body, who does? that is, who else has a rightful claim to decide what is to be done with it, and to what extent?

Your momma till you're 18.