Basic Rights

[Eudaimonist]

In the situation you have provided, the purpose of the government is to represent the will of the people.

No, the morally justifiable purpose of governments is to secure rights. The will of the people may be important for deciding which subset of people will be trusted to form the government, but not the nature of morality itself. I suppose the majority could decide to enslave a minority, but this "will" wouldn't change the moral equation.

Not all governments are, in fact, representations of the will of the governed.

That's true. And not all governments that are supported by a majority of people are moral governments.

Rights are acts of government at the bequest of those that are represented by the government. There is no morality involved in rights.

A government may enforce false concepts of rights -- rights that no one really has.

If you define rights to include boundaries by which to flourish, it seems that rights necessarily place limitations on the individual.

My right to swing my fist ends at your face. Yes, of course rights impose limitations on everyone's actions, which is why enforcement is required.

What right do you have to flourish? To what extent do we allow you to flourish? You have the right to private property at the expense of whom? You have the right to trade what? You have the right to productive work, why not counterproductive work? Who defines productive? You have the right to keep the fruits of your labor, although another may actually need the fruits of your labor to survive. Do they not have the right to survive, so that that they too may flourish? The right to thought, well, that's a tough one since noone but you can know what you think. The same with conscious. Now the right to speech, to what extent should speech be a right? Can we defame another? Can we speak out against rights?

All good, and answerable, questions.

 

[Code-Monkey]

Morality is the method by which human needs are satisfied. It's rooted in human nature.

I've always heard people speak of morality as if it is the code or the set of rules that say which action or behavior is the "right" or "good" action/behavior in a situation, and conversely which one is the "bad" or "wrong" action/behavior. But you are defining morality as a method for satisfying human needs? Hmm... you may be speaking of something different than everyone else in this thread.

If morality is rooted in human nature, then why would it be "right"? Or why would one man's morality somehow be less right than another man's? If they both evolve from human nature, then aren't both equally valid?

I guess I'm still failing to understand why you think nature decides what is morally right and wrong behavior. Nature seems to not care about good/bad, just whatever survives and produces offspring does so. Survival of those who produce offspring. There's no morality there.

 

[Eudaimonist]

If morality is rooted in human nature, then why would it be "right"? Or why would one man's morality somehow be less right than another man's? If they both evolve from human nature, then aren't both equally valid?

Morality has to do with having a proper understanding of human well-being and its requirements, and this is something beyond mere opinion. If two person's moralities differ in some fundamental way, at least one of them is mistaken.

I guess I'm still failing to understand why you think nature decides what is morally right and wrong behavior. Nature seems to not care about good/bad, just whatever survives and produces offspring does so. Survival of those who produce offspring. There's no morality there.

When I talk about nature, I'm not talking about "Mother Nature" or any other quasi-divine interpretation of Evolution or the ecosystem. Human nature is what a human being is. It's the sort of thing studied by biology and psychology.

 

[Danhalen]

As always, you have understood my questions and answered them reasonably. I was a little worried that I might be taken the wrong way.

No, the morally justifiable purpose of governments is to secure rights.

I disagree. If government represents the people, then there is no need to morally justify the government. I believe that the government should provide an envionment in which it is possible to excersise one's rights that have been granted by said government. In other words, provide for the common defense, and provide law which protects us from the rights of others.

The will of the people may be important for deciding which subset of people will be trusted to form the government, but not the nature of morality itself.

You do not believe that the will of the people should determine how they might flourish?

I suppose the majority could decide to enslave a minority, but this "will" wouldn't change the moral equation.

What if the minority willingly accepted servitude? It's highly improbable, but what if it were true?

That's true. And not all governments that are supported by a majority of people are moral governments.

You are correct. But then again, we are viewing the morality of such governments from our own moral perspective. How can we objectively determine the truth of the moral fibre of any given government?

A government may enforce false concepts of rights -- rights that no one really has.

I would say that all rights are rights that no one really has. I really believe that all rights are granted by the government.

My right to swing my fist ends at your face. Yes, of course rights impose limitations on everyone's actions, which is why enforcement is required.

I think that rights are freedoms granted to individuals by government. Laws are limitations on rights to protect individuals from the rights of others. Laws must be enforced, not rights.

 

[HouseApe]

For those who do not think we have intrinsic, inalienable rights: what rights would you give every person, if it were up to you, and why?

I think there is on intrinsic, inalienable right: The right to pursue happiness. Everyone will always do that. You can lock someone in a cage, and they will still try to make the best of it.

As for other rights, the only ones I would give are life and property. And as for property, only the things produced by other humans. Meaning, I do not agree people have the right to own land, air, sea or other life forms. And, finally, they may own property only for their life times. I don't agree that people have a right to inherit their parents property.

 

[theborch]

I don't believe that anyone has innate rights- rights are either given or claimed.

are you even kidding me this means that you think you are depenent an a class or power socity to give or take away rights, that a induvadual as no power with in themsleves to inact change when or if it nessacrey i really feel sorry for you

 

[theborch]

What rights would you say every person has, always? Why?

read the theory of justice for mine

 

[DailyBlessings]

are you even kidding me this means that you think you are depenent an a class or power socity to give or take away rights, that a induvadual as no power with in themsleves to inact change when or if it nessacrey i really feel sorry for you

Given or claimed. I acknowledge the ability of any man to claim rights and enact change within. But those rights are not innate. They are defined on the one hand by society and on the other by individuals, and the face of human rights is always changing.

 

[theborch]

Given or claimed. I acknowledge the ability of any man to claim rights and enact change within. But those rights are not innate. They are defined on the one hand by society and on the other by individuals, and the face of human rights is always changing.

I'm sorry but f this idea of society, it only pepuates its slef like a virus to consume more and more atonomy, see the theory of statism, reject socity, if you can do something that is moral(according to a dogmatic norm), and victimless then that is what is defied an inate right, this is not a new consecpt been around for quite a while people just refuse to take back what is theirs, in fact to oppiset is happening, eg bush some how got elected a second time muchless a first