Duties Before Rights

[Voegelin]

VERONA, Italy, DEC. 15, 2006 (Zenit.org).- By promoting a culture of rights without first promoting a culture of duties, society creates a "babel" of rights in which the strong prevail over the weak, says the director the Van Thuan Observatory . . .

Fontanta: It is true that many people in the world do not enjoy even the most basic human rights. But I wonder: Isn't this because other people in the world have sped up the race for the state of the art rights to the point that they have transformed all their desires into rights? . . .

Fontana: The question is not to deny rights, in fact the opposite is true. The point is that we have to understand that without duties rights spiral upon themselves, they annul each other. In the end, the babel of rights leads to the triumph of the right of the strongest . . .

Fontana: Our society is dying from rights . . . Rights will never put a limit on themselves. . .

http://zenit.org/english/

 

[TracerBullet]

It is the duty of all good people to ensure that everyone has equal rights, and to oppose those who seek to curtail the rights of minorities, even unpopular minorities.

 

[levi501]

unsupported fear mongering babel.

 

[Spherical Time]

Uh, go rights! Go duties!

Nice to see that someone is pro-taxation.

 

[quatona]

VERONA, Italy, DEC. 15, 2006 (Zenit.org).- By promoting a culture of rights without first promoting a culture of duties, society creates a "babel" of rights in which the strong prevail over the weak, says the director the Van Thuan Observatory . . .

Fontanta: It is true that many people in the world do not enjoy even the most basic human rights. But I wonder: Isn't this because other people in the world have sped up the race for the state of the art rights to the point that they have transformed all their desires into rights? . . .

Fontana: The question is not to deny rights, in fact the opposite is true. The point is that we have to understand that without duties rights spiral upon themselves, they annul each other. In the end, the babel of rights leads to the triumph of the right of the strongest . . .

Fontana: Our society is dying from rights . . . Rights will never put a limit on themselves. . .

http://zenit.org/english/

So which are the rights you personally value high, but are willing and about to do without?
Your right to express your religious beliefs, for example? Your right to raise your voice against persons with different sexual preferences than yourself?

 

[rambot]

I agree that there is too much importance placed on rights and not enough placed on responsibilities.

But that's all I'm willing to say on the matter.

 

[Robinsegg]

I'll say that this culture seems to think that everything each person wants is their right. After all, that's where we get the right to not be offended, right?

Seriously, though. I live in the US, where we have the priveledge to vote, the duty to vote, but not the right to vote (as it can be taken away for people such as current convicts). We have the priveledge to dress the way we want, but not the right to not dress at all.
We have the priveledge to do many things, but with privaledges come responsibilities/duties. We have the responsibility to remain law-abiding citizens to have the priveledge of voting. We have the responsibility to cover at least certain parts of our bodies in order to gain the priveledge of choosing our dress ourselves.

Oh, and the tower of babbel thing is a biblical allusion to the way everyone thought he had rights, God confused their language, and they moved off in smaller groups w/o any of the "rights" they thought they had (at least, that's how I read it).

Rachel

 

[Pinp]

Its also a rediculous fairy tale with more hyperbole and poetic license than anything resembling fact. Like Sodom and Gomorrah: it never happened. If anything magically diversifying humanity and spreading them out over the globe would have contributed to the progress of man not hindered it.

In any case the article tries to make it seem somehow absurb that people should transform their desires into rights. From Voeglin's previous anti-gay tirades we can assume he cited this article in support of his seething hatred of people created in God's image: the gays.

Most curiously of all is the source of this article...Italy? In a general sense (assuming the premise were true) it could be used to attack American style society. But all American Law was founded on the premise that all people have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. For fundies that includes oppressing religious minorities and blaming their high divorce rate on 'Teh Gays' and claiming the answer is to ban gay marriage.

For 'Teh Gays' it includes not being killed by roving bands of Fundamentalists and being treated equally by the law.

One must necessarily give way to the other and since Fundy rights require the restriction of another groups' life liberty and happiness, they should be the ones to budge.

I'll say that this culture seems to think that everything each person wants is their right. After all, that's where we get the right to not be offended, right?

Seriously, though. I live in the US, where we have the priveledge to vote, the duty to vote, but not the right to vote (as it can be taken away for people such as current convicts). We have the priveledge to dress the way we want, but not the right to not dress at all.
We have the priveledge to do many things, but with privaledges come responsibilities/duties. We have the responsibility to remain law-abiding citizens to have the priveledge of voting. We have the responsibility to cover at least certain parts of our bodies in order to gain the priveledge of choosing our dress ourselves.

Oh, and the tower of babbel thing is a biblical allusion to the way everyone thought he had rights, God confused their language, and they moved off in smaller groups w/o any of the "rights" they thought they had (at least, that's how I read it).

Rachel

 

[Robinsegg]

Its also a rediculous fairy tale with more hyperbole and poetic license than anything resembling fact. Like Sodom and Gomorrah: it never happened. If anything magically diversifying humanity and spreading them out over the globe would have contributed to the progress of man not hindered it.

In any case the article tries to make it seem somehow absurb that people should transform their desires into rights. From Voeglin's previous anti-gay tirades we can assume he cited this article in support of his seething hatred of people created in God's image: the gays.

Most curiously of all is the source of this article...Italy? In a general sense (assuming the premise were true) it could be used to attack American style society. But all American Law was founded on the premise that all people have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. For fundies that includes oppressing religious minorities and blaming their high divorce rate on 'Teh Gays' and claiming the answer is to ban gay marriage.

For 'Teh Gays' it includes not being killed by roving bands of Fundamentalists and being treated equally by the law.

One must necessarily give way to the other and since Fundy rights require the restriction of another groups' life liberty and happiness, they should be the ones to budge.

You have the option of believing the story or not. I wasn't trying to say God was trying to keep people from advancing at all, but that He had wanted them scattered to begin with. Their arrogance and pride led them to 1) stay there together and 2) try to get to Heaven on their own, so they could be gods themselves. The morality tale part of it can be used, even if you don't believe the actual events happened.

The government should not be in the business of restricting "rights" to law-abiding citizens. The church (Christians) should not be in the business of hating people. I think we agree on both of those. Whether the church should promote certain things or not is often based on opinion and interpretation of Scripture. But no Christian should be causing physical harm (and not any other type, either, though some will be harmed by simple disagreement, which I don't count as the same thing) to anyone, outside self-defense, defense of family, or in the position of law enforcement.

While I don't believe in tirades against anyone (as you say the author of the article does), I still believe that people invent rights where they have desires and where there are privaledges.

Rachel

 

[quatona]

Duty and right are just two sides of the same coin. If a person has a right this means others have a duty, and if a person has a duty it means that others have a right. "Duties before rights" makes no sense to me.

 

[Voegelin]

Oh, and the tower of babbel thing is a biblical allusion to the way everyone thought he had rights, God confused their language, and they moved off in smaller groups w/o any of the "rights" they thought they had (at least, that's how I read it).

Rachel

Insightful.

"Civil liberties" were only introduced into constitutional jurisprudence after World War Two.

Before then, "civil liberty" was used. "Civil liberty" is found in English common law, in Blackstone and in the Federalist papers. "Civil liberties" is not. The plural makes a huge difference. The former proposes a society in which everyone is free to do what they should do, a society in which there are duties, both positive and negative but mostly negative, to others. "Civil liberties" is an egotistical concept which atomizes and puts people against each other, the end result of which--as we saw with Emma Goldman and others as well as with our current "Zero Tolerance" polices--is a loss of freedom for all.

 

[Voegelin]

Duty and right are just two sides of the same coin. If a person has a right this means others have a duty, and if a person has a duty it means that others have a right. "Duties before rights" makes no sense to me.

That is because the meaning of the word "right" has been expanded and debased. Rights come from God and incur duties only to God (or, if one chooses, to no one. Atheists can share in the benefits of objective rights too).

Today we see people claim there is a "right" to health care, a "right" to education. Those "rights" do carry duties as someone has to provide those things to others. The obligations incurred by the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are negative in the sense that all someone has to do to uphold them is not infringe upon others.

 

[quatona]

That is because the meaning of the word "right" has been expanded and debased. Rights come from God and incur duties only to God (or, if one chooses, to no one. Atheists can share in the benefits of objective rights too).

I see. And which are those objective rights that come from god? And why - if they come from god - do you find them not so important as duties?
As far as I understand, your god has given out rules for human interaction. If your god gives commandments like "if X does this, then Y should do that", he has been defining rights and duties among humans.

Today we see people claim there is a "right" to health care, a "right" to education. Those "rights" do carry duties as someone has to provide those things to others. The obligations incurred by the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are negative in the sense that all someone has to do to uphold them is not infringe upon others.

Is that so?