Human Rights

[Sadena Meti]

When I was in prison the first time, this must have been in early 2008, I spent a lot of time thinking. Not much else to do when you are locked in a cell 23 hours a day.

I began to think about human rights. What really are we entitled to, and why? I wrote down my thoughts, and I want to share them with you for comment in the form of a chart.

http://www.sadena.com/HumanRightsSmall.jpg

I used a typewriter to craft this, as computers were not allowed. Now each right is contained in a box. The lines indicate how each right is derived from other rights. Also, each right is slightly higher or lower than ever other right, to indicate its importance. You can see the 4 rules I have at the bottom. Higher rights are more important that lower rights. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. The present outweighs the future and both outweigh the past. And physical needs outweigh mental and emotional needs.

Now I will go into the rights themselves.

The first right is the right of Existence. I think, therefore I am. I am here, so I have the right to continue to be here. You don't have the right to kill me, or in any other way negate my Existence.

Second is the right of Thought. Again, I think, therefore I am. My thoughts belong to me, they are mine, and make me who I am. See Viktor Frankl for more information of the essential value of thought.

Sustenance. If I exist, I must be able to continue my existence, so I need sustenance.

Habitation. If I exist, I must exist somewhere. Everyone has to be somewhere. I must live somewhere.

Bodily Preservation. If I am sustaining my body, I must care for it, keep it healthy, and avoid injury and maiming.

Movement. I exist, and I inhabit a location. Everyone must be somewhere, but there is no reason for them to stay in the place they started or currently are. So I have the right to move to a new place for habitation, including other countries.

Avoiding Pain. This is derived from both thought and bodily preservation. Pain is a teaching element, to teach us what not to do, and to preserve ourselves.

Seeking Pleasure. Again, derived from the same two, and the counterpart of Avoiding Pain.

Finally, Expression. I admit this right is the weakest using my logic. But I believe that the right of Thought leads to the right to share that thought, especially to help yourself and others Avoid Pain and Seek Pleasure.



So that's what I came up with in my basement cell (Dodge Correction Institution, Unit 17, The Dungeon). What do you think?

[Sadena Meti]

Also an implication I made from this chart is that rights can not be deprived unless a higher right is threatened. So your Seeking Pleasure can be denied if it brings another Pain. Your right of Movement can be deprived (prison) if you are denying others their rights to Sustenance or Existence (murder).

[Invictus_88]

I like it. It has ricks, obviously, but it's coherent, and more nuanced and effective than making all these things people call rights into absolutes. Good chart.

As an aside, they let prisoners have typewriters? That's pretty cool. This was in the US I suppose?

[Sadena Meti]

Yes, I'm in the US. They let you buy your own typewriter or use one in the library.

[Sadena Meti]

Bump for more votes.

[Sadena Meti]

Hello Opposing Ideologies!

I had started this thread back before I was Restricted, and want it to continue.

So have a look, and tell me what you think.

[Bud Struggle]

Human beings have no inate rights. All rights are granted by society as society sees fit at any particular time.

[RGacky3]

Most people have an internal sense of morality, human rights are a social manifestation of that.

[Viet Minh]

Human beings have no inate rights. All rights are granted by society as society sees fit at any particular time.

The laws of nature and physics have been enough to sustain mankind for millenia, why do we need 'society' to tell us what is right and wrong? Most people have an instinctive idea of good and bad, although that can of course be manipulated through fear and hate. Don't mistake Government for society (ie the people) its almost the polar opposite.

[SacRedMan]

The UN, capitalism,... use it for own needs and politics. Especially for China and make sure that people say that communism violates human rights. It's good, but how they practise it now :cursing:

[ComradeMan]

The laws of nature and physics have been enough to sustain mankind for millenia, why do we need 'society' to tell us what is right and wrong? Most people have an instinctive idea of good and bad, although that can of course be manipulated through fear and hate. Don't mistake Government for society (ie the people) its almost the polar opposite.

And you accuse religious people of making things up? :laugh: What are these laws of nature? The laws of nature say that I can become a dominant male and kill the offspring of all other males in my territory... ! LOL!!! Where are these laws of nature?

As for the laws of physics? Does particle theory help us combat racism? I am also not sure about that idea of an instinctive idea about good and bad- but in any event unless you could find someone who from birth had lived in total isolation from the human species then you could not really test your hypothesis, some old stories and anecdotal evidence etc suggest that this is not the case either.

[Viet Minh]

And you accuse religious people of making things up? :laugh: What are these laws of nature? The laws of nature say that I can become a dominant male and kill the offspring of all other males in my territory... ! LOL!!! Where are these laws of nature?

In some ape species perhaps but not necessarily humans. There's no archaelogical evidence to suggest humans did that. The laws of nature are instinctual, a mother and father look after their young, or hunt or scavenge for food, protect the weaker members etc.



As for the laws of physics? Does particle theory help us combat racism? I am also not sure about that idea of an instinctive idea about good and bad- but in any event unless you could find someone who from birth had lived in total isolation from the human species then you could not really test your hypothesis, some old stories and anecdotal evidence etc suggest that this is not the case either.


Does ad absurdium combat racism? I'm a firm believer in human rights, I just suspect that some of the ideas are there to protect selfish interests, 'the right to housing' for example, sounds great but justifies property ownership, and disenfranchises the traveller community or the voluntary homeless.

The laws of physics shape our behaviour to a great extent, limits to physical strength, speed, communication etc, but I only really used it as an example of a non social construct.

There are many instances of feral children, some are allegedly raised by wild or semi-domesticated animals, so therefore may be subject to those animal's behaviours, but there are also case of extreme neglect where humans show remarkably similar traits to the feral children. They bite and scratch to protect themselves, but there is no case where they have raped or murdered anyone.

[ComradeMan]

In some ape species perhaps but not necessarily humans. There's no archaelogical evidence to suggest humans did that. The laws of nature are instinctual, a mother and father look after their young, or hunt or scavenge for food, protect the weaker members etc.

What are these laws of nature?

Cannibalism is recorded in the archaelogical record for hominids- there's no reason to believe it wasn't. What you describe is indeed true when applied to one's own genetic group- but altruism towards others is not. Throwing around the words "natural law" or "laws of nature" don't really stand up to scrutiny in an ethical debate if we want to be objective and scientific. "Nature" is neither kind nor altruistic.

[Viet Minh]

What are these laws of nature?

Cannibalism is recorded in the archaelogical record for hominids- there's no reason to believe it wasn't.

In a few cases, in exceptional circumstances (such as famine or overpopulation) there may have been cannibalism, however this does not disprove my point, of course the guy being killed and eaten and I assume others around him knew what was happening was wrong. The actual behaviour is possibly more due to tribalism which like racism is a social construct. Even today in 'civilised society' there are cannibals, its possibly a psychological condition not a social one. Its the worst possible example you could have used because even a pack of wolves would refrain from killing each other, its not a moral code as such just an instinctive desire to maintain the species without destroying itself.


What you describe is indeed true when applied to one's own genetic group- but altruism towards others is not.

Hunting - viewed from a perspective of human society, is of course immoral, but no more so than shooting someone for political beliefs or skin colour.



Throwing around the words "natural law" or "laws of nature" don't really stand up to scrutiny in an ethical debate if we want to be objective and scientific. "Nature" is neither kind nor altruistic.


I agree, my initial post was a slightly knee-jerk reaction to what i had taken as implication that an abstract leadership could determine our lives. I hesitate to use the phrase laws of nature because they have been horrendously misused in the past. My only point here is that there is an inherant sense of morality, it may vary form individual to individual but I have faith that overall human nature is predominantly good. Take for example the video of the policeman pepper-spraying the squirrel, the crowd were horrified and voiced their protest to what is undoubtedly a pointless and cruel act by any normal standards, and yet this man is taken to be a voice of moral reasoning and judgement above other citizens. Now if only we could extend that empathy beyond small cute furry animals..

[Bud Struggle]

I agree, my initial post was a slightly knee-jerk reaction to what i had taken as implication that an abstract leadership could determine our lives. I hesitate to use the phrase laws of nature because they have been horrendously misused in the past. My only point here is that there is an inherant sense of morality, it may vary form individual to individual but I have faith that overall human nature is predominantly good. Take for example the video of the policeman pepper-spraying the squirrel, the crowd were horrified and voiced their protest to what is undoubtedly a pointless and cruel act by any normal standards, and yet this man is taken to be a voice of moral reasoning and judgement above other citizens. Now if only we could extend that empathy beyond small cute furry animals..

One could also say that man is "tribal." So things like racism might just be another manifestation of a tribe mentality. Just because it it natural to man does that make it good? I think you have to wary of using human instinctual feelings as any basis for a morality.

Also, those people in the video weren't hungry. In another time or place they might be fighting with each other to eat the baby squirrel. You are confusing societal conditioning for a natural reaction.

Finally one could say that since Capitalsimis so universal in today's society that is is an outgrowth of some natural urges in humanity--and maybe Communism is an unatural drive--maybe that is why it is always falling away from the model everytime it is tried.

[ComradeMan]

^^^^^^^^^^:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

Nice try Bud- but then capitalism is seen as a natural evolution or step in social-evolution, but the next step... well you know what that is! ;)

Getting back to the point- this word "natural"- the word gets thrown around these days all the time as some way to justify things, it's okay because it's "natural" or that "natural" has some kind of mystic quality all to itself however gonorrhea is also natural but we wouldn't exactly want to spread it around---- eww...:crying:

[Viet Minh]

One could also say that man is "tribal." So things like racism might just be another manifestation of a tribe mentality. Just because it it natural to man does that make it good? I think you have to wary of using human instinctual feelings as any basis for a morality.

I would differentiate between a tribal society and a family grouping as seen in animals. Revolution is as old as the hills, in the sense that the young challenge the older established hirearchy.

On a personal level instinctual feelings are not conducive to morality, for instance vengeance is a deep seated human feeling. I meant more overall humans have a sense of right and wrong, if given all the facts and witnessing the consequences. In a truly democratic society I think justice would prevail, more so than one governed by an elite, especially an unelected elite.



Also, those people in the video weren't hungry. In another time or place they might be fighting with each other to eat the baby squirrel. You are confusing societal conditioning for a natural reaction.

Of course, but that is an example of an extreme condition, the survival instinct is more powerful than any other. They would not necessarily hurt the animal with a quick sharp blow to the head, its possibly less traumatic than that much pepper spray on those little lungs. The societal conditioning in that example only goes so far as to say this man is in charge and can do as he wishes, even if the majority object to his actions. He himself might even have a different reaction were he not wearing that badge of authority.



Finally one could say that since Capitalsimis so universal in today's society that is is an outgrowth of some natural urges in humanity--and maybe Communism is an unatural drive--maybe that is why it is always falling away from the model everytime it is tried.


The idea of a completely fair and equal society is impossible, because even if we could give everyone the exact same conditions some would be unhappy. The grass is always greener so they say. What can be done is remove restrictions on people and allow everybody an equal chance to partake in that society, so people are motivated by a love of doing something rather than financial gain. I think communist societies thus far have made the mistake of trying to be all inclusive, I think the solution is to create a community and those who do not participate in any way (other than those who are incapable) or break the established rules should be ejected.

[Viet Minh]

^^^^^^^^^^:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

Nice try Bud- but then capitalism is seen as a natural evolution or step in social-evolution, but the next step... well you know what that is! ;)

Getting back to the point- this word "natural"- the word gets thrown around these days all the time as some way to justify things, it's okay because it's "natural" or that "natural" has some kind of mystic quality all to itself however gonorrhea is also natural but we wouldn't exactly want to spread it around---- eww...:crying:

The problem is at some stage someone set out their market stall thinking 'I know I can be a total asshole and cheat this guy out of a cow for one small bag of beans' and unbelievably it worked! When what should have happened is the guy just laughs at him and says 'if the beans are so good eat them yourself'. EDIT: Actually the real problem is not with trade as such, but with money which is not truly representative of value of goods or services.

I'm all for artificial humanmade diseases but still there is some value to the idea of a natural order. For instance where humankind has purposefully or inadvertantly introduced new species to continents and islands it is very difficult, if not impossible to regain the balance of nature.

[hatzel]

I'm all for artificial humanmade diseasesI really think I'm misunderstanding something here, mate. It almost seems as though you're supporting us just...making viruses in a lab and spreading them about. Isn't that biological warfare? Don't be all for that, boy, it's naughty! :laugh:

[Viet Minh]

I really think I'm misunderstanding something here, mate. It almost seems as though you're supporting us just...making viruses in a lab and spreading them about. Isn't that biological warfare? Don't be all for that, boy, it's naughty! :laugh:

:D I'll spread my diseases as I see fit! :lol: :sneaky:
I was ad abusrdiumininingming Comrade's point about gonorrhea being natural, I'll take it over Aids which is allegedly human-made anyday! :blink:

[Sadena Meti]

I'll take it over Aids which is allegedly human-made anyday! :blink:

Oh gawd, not that conspiracy theory. I had to explain this to a guy in prison, and I had to go through huge amounts of virology to do it. There is one theory, spread by an editorial in the London Times back in 198x that HIV was caused by the smallpox vaccine in Africa. I had to show him the different types of viruses, explain how they were just like different species of animals (this guy was actually halfway bright by the way, probably 120, but a conspiracy theorist nonetheless). I then made the analogy that smallpox mutating into HIV would be like an elephant giving birth to a giant squid.

And in fact that's a lot more likely!

[danyboy27]

Human beings have no inate rights. All rights are granted by society as society sees fit at any particular time.

Indeed, but a society that care about the well being of its citizens is more likely to florish more and become stronger than a tyrannical one.

Right now, human right are not really applied even in ''first world'' societies.


I have read the canadian constitution many times and nowhere its mentionned that canadian have the right of having a roof over their head or 3 meal a day, or even the right to have an education.

according to constitutional documents, i have not the right to consume certain substances, therefore i dont have full control over my body.

According to laws, i dont even the full control over my life, an attempt to terminate my life is considered a criminal offence.

with basics human right like the right of 3 meal a day and the right to have a roof over my head, there is just so much thing i would do for society, so many choices that would be differents.

People would probably refuse to continue working for shit bosses and start organising themselves without the fear of not eating or the fear of not paying the rents.

[Bud Struggle]

Indeed, but a society that care about the well being of its citizens is more likely to florish more and become stronger than a tyrannical one.

Right now, human right are not really applied even in ''first world'' societies.


I have read the canadian constitution many times and nowhere its mentionned that canadian have the right of having a roof over their head or 3 meal a day, or even the right to have an education.

according to constitutional documents, i have not the right to consume certain substances, therefore i dont have full control over my body.

According to laws, i dont even the full control over my life, an attempt to terminate my life is considered a criminal offence.

with basics human right like the right of 3 meal a day and the right to have a roof over my head, there is just so much thing i would do for society, so many choices that would be differents.

People would probably refuse to continue working for shit bosses and start organising themselves without the fear of not eating or the fear of not paying the rents.

You are correct--you have none of those rights. That is not how your country was set up and those rights are not part of your basic social contract. It seems that Canada is similar to the USA in that respect.

If you want it to be changed you are going to have to change it.

[RGacky3]

So killing Jews under hitler was not a violation of human rights?

[Die Rote Fahne]

So killing Jews under hitler was not a violation of human rights?

Legally yes. As of a basic human moral level, most certainly. You don't need laws or holy books to know that murder and genocide is wrong.

However, rights are created. They are not inate. We evolved a higher brain for a reason, however. Whether or not "human rights" is part of that, i do not know.

[RGacky3]

Legally yes. As of a basic human moral level, most certainly. You don't need laws or holy books to know that murder and genocide is wrong.

However, rights are created. They are not inate. We evolved a higher brain for a reason, however. Whether or not "human rights" is part of that, i do not know.

Legally no they were not, because that government said it was fine (this was an attack on Buds argument).

The fact is your right, most people agree that genocide is wrong, even nazis agreed (they just argued that Jews were not people). The fact is the idea that genocide is wrong is for whatever reason, a universal sentiment, the reason in my opinion does'nt matter, whether its inate or whatever is'nt hte point.

The fact is the idea of self-determination is also a universal sentiment, thats where we get human rights from.

Arguing whether they are inate or not is a dead end argument.

[ComradeMan]

Legally yes. As of a basic human moral level, most certainly. You don't need laws or holy books to know that murder and genocide is wrong..

The Romans did not think it was wrong to kill a slave, or a gladiator in the colosseum.... We do, gladly, but even our definitions can be called out. You say murder, i.e. illegal killing- so what about legal killing? The death penalty or warfare?


However, rights are created. They are not inate. We evolved a higher brain for a reason, however. Whether or not "human rights" is part of that, i do not know.

We never have had rights, we have only ever had privileges.

I am not disagreeing with your sentiments, just plaging Devil's Advocate here.

;)

[RGacky3]

We never have had rights, we have only ever had privileges.


Thats just semantics, who's giving us the "privilege" to say what we want? If you don't get arrested for going to a union meeting was that a privilege?


The Romans did not think it was wrong to kill a slave, or a gladiator in the colosseum.... We do, gladly, but even our definitions can be called out. You say murder, i.e. illegal killing- so what about legal killing? The death penalty or warfare?


Absolutely, sentiments ie. morality, put in practice is where the problem comes in, everyone things murder is wrong, the problem comes in what people define as murder.

[ComradeMan]

Thats just semantics, who's giving us the "privilege" to say what we want? If you don't get arrested for going to a union meeting was that a privilege?.

Well, I presume we are talking about a right in the sense of a moral or legal entitlement.

It's not semantics. All of these rights can be taken away, which means they are not "eternal" rights- but privileges. The privilege to say what you want is only guaranteed by those who will stop you being lynched, incarcerated or burnt at the stake by others for saying it. They are privileges in that they are rights that are granted.

Only when such a society exists in which these things cannot be taken away will we be able to speak of "rights" in a just sense.

[Bud Struggle]

The fact is the idea of self-determination is also a universal sentiment, thats where we get human rights from. You are saying that there is something called human nature here, and of course you are wrong. People are what they are taught to be--nothing more--nothing less


Arguing whether they are inate or not is a dead end argument.You don't read your own posts.

[RGacky3]

You are saying that there is something called human nature here, and of course you are wrong. People are what they are taught to be--nothing more--nothing less


Thats not what I'm saying, I'm saying we have certain sentiments that seam to be universal, be it through cultural evolution or something else, but it does'nt matter, the fact is there is a universal sentiment that says killing innocent people is wrong.

Do you not agree to that?


Well, I presume we are talking about a right in the sense of a moral or legal entitlement.

It's not semantics. All of these rights can be taken away, which means they are not "eternal" rights- but privileges. The privilege to say what you want is only guaranteed by those who will stop you being lynched, incarcerated or burnt at the stake by others for saying it. They are privileges in that they are rights that are granted.

Only when such a society exists in which these things cannot be taken away will we be able to speak of "rights" in a just sense.

In that sense you could say that not getting raped is a privilege ... because at any time someone could rape you.

[ComradeMan]

Thats not what I'm saying, I'm saying we have certain sentiments that seam to be universal, be it through cultural evolution or something else, but it does'nt matter, the fact is there is a universal sentiment that says killing innocent people is wrong..


But.... but.... but, a quick look at history and even modern events and you'll see it's not so universal and often depends on the situation.



In that sense you could say that not getting raped is a privilege ... because at any time someone could rape you.

And what happens when law and order break down in places or there are civil wars? Yugoslavia for example?

These "rights" depend on a guarantor of rights and that's why I say they are privileges and not rights.

The aim is a society in which they would be rights in the full sense of the word.

[RGacky3]

But.... but.... but, a quick look at history and even modern events and you'll see it's not so universal and often depends on the situation.


Pretty much EVERY legal code includes a law against murder, most legal or ethical codes are the same. Those are based on universal sentiments.


And what happens when law and order break down in places or there are civil wars? Yugoslavia for example?

These "rights" depend on a guarantor of rights and that's why I say they are privileges and not rights.

The aim is a society in which they would be rights in the full sense of the word.

No they are not a garanteer or anything, they are an abstract notion, and a sentiment, its not a physical thing.

obviously "rights" are not physical barriers to everything.

As I said, they are just reflections of universal (or mostly universal) sentiments, thats IT, then being enforced is a different issue.

[ComradeMan]

Pretty much EVERY legal code includes a law against murder, most legal or ethical codes are the same. Those are based on universal sentiments..

Murder is illegal killing, but what makes it legal or illegal is not universal and has varied from time to time and place to place.


No they are not a garanteer or anything, they are an abstract notion, and a sentiment, its not a physical thing...

So if the law is not the guarantor of rights, who is?

You still haven't presented anything against the basic premise- if rights can be taken away then they are no rights, but privileges.

[RGacky3]

Murder is illegal killing, but what makes it legal or illegal is not universal and has varied from time to time and place to place.


What makes it illigal is a universal sense that murder without justifiable cause is wrong.


So if the law is not the guarantor of rights, who is?


I said RIGHTS are not a guanrateer of anything.


You still haven't presented anything against the basic premise- if rights can be taken away then they are no rights, but privileges.

yes I have, unless your willing to admit that not being raped is a privilege, in which case your just being silly.

[Rafiq]

You are saying that there is something called human nature here, and of course you are wrong. People are what they are taught to be--nothing more--nothing less




No, people are what their social and material conditions around them make of them.

As an example, let's pretend we live in some kind of Orwellian society. A child, no matter how much indoctrination, is still capable of rebelling against the state based on past experience.

There is no human nature, humans behave based on their surroundings.

When a person is born, they mimic their surroundings and act that way.

[Tablo]

I really like your chart. It is clear and I think I can say that I agree with it for the most part. Very well thought out.

[ComradeMan]

What makes it illigal is a universal sense that murder without justifiable cause is wrong..


Ah- so killing with a justifiable cause is right(correct)? What would be a justifiable cause and does that mean there is a right to kill as well as a right to life- in which case the right to life can be taken away and is not a right.


I said RIGHTS are not a guanrateer of anything.

A guarantor is someone or something who/which guarantees- I think your missing the point- the rights do not exist unless there is a guarantor of those rights and as such it's a privilege.


yes I have, unless your willing to admit that not being raped is a privilege, in which case your just being silly.

No, your being a little naive I fear. Unfortunately in this world, and I am not saying how I want things to be but how they are, what you have cited is not a universal right by any means. Yet again this right is only guaranteed by a guarantor i.e. the law and customs.

[RGacky3]

Ah- so killing with a justifiable cause is right(correct)? What would be a justifiable cause and does that mean there is a right to kill as well as a right to life- in which case the right to life can be taken away and is not a right.


Re-read my post, I'm not saying my own personal morality, I'm not saying what is or os not correct.

What I am saying is that there are universal sentiments which are behind morality.


A guarantor is someone or something who/which guarantees- I think your missing the point- the rights do not exist unless there is a guarantor of those rights and as such it's a privilege.


I think your misusing the world privilege, thats not the definition.


No, your being a little naive I fear. Unfortunately in this world, and I am not saying how I want things to be but how they are, what you have cited is not a universal right by any means. Yet again this right is only guaranteed by a guarantor i.e. the law and customs.

So again, as of now, is not being raped a privilege?

if you have your rights violated that does'nt mean you don't have that right (according to most people).

[ComradeMan]

Re-read my post, I'm not saying my own personal morality, I'm not saying what is or os not correct.

What I am saying is that there are universal sentiments which are behind morality.


In a perfect world, maybe, but not in this one.



I think your misusing the world privilege, thats not the definition..

No, I think you are... it's from the Latin privilegium and means a law as pertinent to the rights of a private citizen, prīvus + lēx.

privilege (n)
1. a benefit, immunity, etc., granted under certain conditions
2. the advantages and immunities enjoyed by a small usually powerful group or class, esp to the disadvantage of others one of the obstacles to social harmony is privilege
3. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) any of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the citizens of a country by its constitution.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/privilege




So again, as of now, is not being raped a privilege?

It should be a right, I agree, but sadly as it is enforced by law and by no means universally and in the same way- it remains a privilege.

I think you are missing the whole point. I am not saying that rights such as the ones you mention should not exist- but the way I see it is that throughout the course of human history they have never really existed- not inalienable rights but rather as things that can be granted and taken away- i.e. privileges.

[RGacky3]

In a perfect world, maybe, but not in this one.


Tell me a society that is perfectly ok with murder. I don't think you understand my point.


No, I think you are... it's from the Latin privilegium and means a law as pertinent to the rights of a private citizen, prīvus + lēx.


It should be a right, I agree, but sadly as it is enforced by law and by no means universally and in the same way- it remains a privilege.

NO ONE would consider not getting raped a privilege, privileges are generally something defined as something given to you that you do not have a right to.

But it does'nt matter, you are arguing semantics and thus this is a pointless argument.

[ComradeMan]

Tell me a society that is perfectly ok with murder. I don't think you understand my point.

NO ONE would consider not getting raped a privilege, privileges are generally something defined as something given to you that you do not have a right to.

But it does'nt matter, you are arguing semantics and thus this is a pointless argument.

Gacky- you're not responding to the point. For a start no society is okay with murder but the definitions of murder are by no means universal. The fact that you use the word murder and not killing human beings says it all- and that means we are on a slippery slope of subjectivity. In Saudi Arabia a woman who cheats on her husband is stoned to death- in Hollywood she writes a book about it and gets on the front page of Hello magazine! Etc etc... In some African countries- rape is actually considered to be the fault of the woman!

Now, as horrendous as we might feel this is- it shows that what we think are universal rights etc are not really so universal,.

I am not arguing semantics for the sake of it- open your mind and think about it.

If rights were really inalienable and universal then there would be no need for a guarantor of those said rights but unfortunately our species has not reached that level yet- it seems.

[RGacky3]

For a start no society is okay with murder but the definitions of murder are by no means universal.

Sure, thats fine, but your not denying that there is a universal sentiment that killing without sufficient justificatoin, whatever that may be, is WRONG, that is a universal sentiment.


Now, as horrendous as we might feel this is- it shows that what we think are universal rights etc are not really so universal,.


sure there are exceptions to the rule, but the rule is the same.


If rights were really inalienable and universal then there would be no need for a guarantor of those said rights but unfortunately our species has not reached that level yet- it seems.

I don't think they are inaliable, its like a law, the fact that people brake the law does'nt mean the law does'nt exist.

[ComradeMan]

Sure, thats fine, but your not denying that there is a universal sentiment that killing without sufficient justificatoin, whatever that may be, is WRONG, that is a universal sentiment..

But you've changed it not from murder to killing- but what is the difference between murder in one country and killing (justified) in another?

Answer- the laws and customs of the country- therefore there is no universality.


sure there are exceptions to the rule, but the rule is the same...

So many exceptions that we don't have much of a rule...


I don't think they are inaliable, its like a law, the fact that people brake the law does'nt mean the law does'nt exist.

But with your talk of universal rights and almost an intuitive sense of what is right and wrong you are talking of natural rights that are considered self-evident, inalienable and universal. What I am saying is that these have never truly existed in more than the form of statutory rights in which case they are privileges- sad as that may be.

[RGacky3]

So many exceptions that we don't have much of a rule...



Thats really the issue, and thats a discussion we can have.


What I am saying is that these have never truly existed in more than the form of statutory rights in which case they are privileges- sad as that may be.

But that IS just semantics, i.e. just because it neads protection does'nt make it a privilege, and juts because its not a law of physics does'nt make it not a right..

[ComradeMan]

But that IS just semantics, i.e. just because it neads protection does'nt make it a privilege, and juts because its not a law of physics does'nt make it not a right..

But my friend, a lot of the arguments are semantics... What is property? What is theft? What constitutes authority? What is a right? What is a natural right? Etc etc. If you are going to negate every argument because it's down to semantics you are not going to have a lot of discussion.

Especially in this kind of discussion, discussing something that is fundamentally abstract, you need to establish the terms.