| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 9/25/2009 6:16:11 PM |
Fine. If I look at you and another person, how do I define your responsibilities to each other? You're still thinking of others as individuals rather than an entity... there is no he or she, just 'I' and 'society'. Each 'I' holds the same responsibility and 'society' holds the same responsibility to each 'I'. The rights and laws do not countermand each other, they work in synchronicity; the right takes as the law gives. | |
|
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 9/25/2009 6:35:45 PM |
there is no he or she, just 'I' and 'society'.
How often does "society" do something to you and the law must govern versus an individual?
There absolutely is a "he" and "she". And when that he or she does something to you and the two of you are in court, the judge sees the two of you. Not you and society. How does the judge see your responsibilities to each other? | |
|
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 9/25/2009 6:37:47 PM | Is their really a fundamental difference between Laws and Rights, where is the line drawn ?
Law itself is based on the recognition of rights. If there were no rights, there would be no law.
If I look at you and another person, how do I define your responsibilities to each other?
Easy. Each of you has a duty (moral obligation) to respect and honour the rights of the other. | |
|
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 9/25/2009 6:46:16 PM |
How does the judge see your responsibilities to each other? The judge is the reader of the law and rights... nothing more, nothing less.
In such an instance, one person has had their rights violated, and the other has broken the law. Synchronicity of take and give. | |
|
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 9/25/2009 6:48:20 PM |
You're still thinking of others as individuals rather than an entity... there is no he or she, just 'I' and 'society'. Each 'I' holds the same responsibility and 'society' holds the same responsibility to each 'I'. The rights and laws do not countermand each other, they work in synchronicity; the right takes as the law gives.
Better yet, how do you propose we hold society responsible for anything? Society is made up individuals and they are the only ones you can hold responsible. If you give a responsibility to society, then you're giving it to every individual. Those individuals have a responsibility to you defined by the responsibility you gave to society which may differ from the responsibility they have to you that you defined by your inclusion in society from their point of view. They CAN'T be different or this is where you end up. | |
|
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 9/25/2009 6:51:18 PM |
Easy. Each of you has a duty (moral obligation) to respect and honour the rights of the other.
JustDukky,
I'm not asking in general. I'm asking specifically in response to the idea that people's responsibilities to each other differ based on point of view. | |
|
jbogie
|
Joined: 9/30/2008
Msg: 32 | |
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 9/25/2009 8:38:10 PM | Is their really a fundamental difference between Laws and Rights, where is the line drawn ?
as regards government law yes. the line is drawn with each law. i've visited fifty two foreign countries but i'm most familiar with the US obviously. so here's my take:
as stated in the declaration, we are born with certain enailienable rights. our constitution then is an "operators manual" if you will, written by "we the people" that instructs our government how it will function. it along with the amendments, the bill of rights comprising the first ten, then restricts the government from abridging those rights that "we the people" say are enailianalbe. in other words. don't mess with these rights. free speech, freedom of religion are examples of some rights the government cannot abridge. but the constitution itself does not give anyone any rights whatsoever. it protects some rights that we were all born with.
the constitution goes on to say in article one, that congress can curtail certain other rights that are not enalienable as we decided for the purpose of the well being of our citizens as a whole. because no two of us can completely agree on everything as to what is right and what is wrong, the legislative branch has the power to enact laws which most often step on one person's right to protect another's. now instead of right and wrong, a particular law tells us what is legal and what is illegal. the executive branch headed by the president then enforces these laws and the judicial branch interprets them as to their constitutionality. therein lies what we call "a balance of power" or "checks and balances". works great if you ask me. not perfect but great.
all of this changes when you go to another country. in america a woman has a right to drive a car if she complies with that state's motor vehicle code; licensing, registration, traffic laws, etc. but if she travels to saudi arabia she loses her right to drive because that right has been abridged by sharia law.
as far as the rights the we allow each other, that's up to each of us individually. although "congress shall make no law" abridging the right to free speech as the first amendment says, that does not prevent me from deciding what will be spoken in my own home and what will not. you can insult my mother and i can remove you from my property. if you refuse i can have you procecuted for tresspassing. nor do you have a right to bear arms in my home.
so it's all a matter of context.. | |
|
| |
jbogie
|
Joined: 9/30/2008
Msg: 34 | |
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 9/25/2009 8:52:00 PM | | yes you have that right. as you have the right to bear arms or bear legs or bear ears. if you want to hang it on your wall nothing abridges that right. you likewise have a right to BARE arms. nothing requires you to wear long sleeved shirts. | |
|
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 9/25/2009 10:08:56 PM | | hi.. as a Christian I can take comfort in the fact that my rights under Gods Laws will prevail... regardless of what is happening in the world of human laws and rights, under Gods Umbrella His People can live in peace and assurance everywhere, even in the most corrupt oppressive nations of the world... it is incorrect to assume that this is a crutch for people when in fact it is a Living Truth for thousands and millions who have come out of injustice and oppression... what makes a person survive a holocaust or a dictatorship or a dysfunctional home? what makes a person die for their beliefs?.. I believe that human rights that are based on Gods Laws are Rights that are for the greater good of everyone, not just for the good of a select few... blessings | |
|
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 9/26/2009 12:36:27 AM |
as a Christian I can take comfort in the fact that my rights under Gods Laws will prevail..
What rights come from God? Do muslims get the same rights? Why are Jews the "God's chosen people"? How is that not bias in God's judgment, making him unfit to adjudicate? | |
|
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 9/26/2009 6:18:04 AM | No body can ultimately "prove" a right, rights have to be enforced. Likewise no body can "prove" that other people have such and such responsibilty.
People think rights are important because those rights benefit (or potentially benefit) them in some way... it's simple. | |
|
HO2
|
Joined: 10/11/2008
Msg: 38 | |
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 9/26/2009 6:20:28 AM | ^^Thats exactly were everything gets F'ck'ed , when religious people attempt to write laws for the masses
Don't for a second every think there was a separation of church and state in the USA
--from the second the constitution had the words ""inalienable rights" written
it mixed in the crap of "endowed by their Creator " and everything got mucked up.
Suddenly anyone who is not one of them ---is somehow looked down upon, seen as lesser, not worthy
Bush felt he was righteous in his treatment of non-christians under the "War on Terror"
Just like the protestants and catholics fought in Ireland, or the palestinians and jews in the middle east - it f'ck's it all up to no end.
With 8 Billion on the planet why don't they all have the same basic rights ?  | |
|
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 9/26/2009 6:38:59 AM |
Msg: 37 (monalee1)
His People can live in peace and assurance everywhere, even in the most corrupt oppressive nations of the world
I'd like to see how peaceful you are if someone came into your home, beat you up, stole your possessions, and kidnapped your family - Would you just stand there and do nothing? How peaceful would you be if someone tried to stone you to death due to your sexuality? Which interpretation of rights do you believe? Do you conveniently neglect the old testament? What about the fact that (using the bible as reference) god's laws are not prevailing? | |
|
jbogie
|
Joined: 9/30/2008
Msg: 40 | |
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 9/26/2009 7:05:08 AM |
Don't for a second every think there was a separation of church and state in the USA
--from the second the constitution had the words ""inalienable rights" written
it mixed in the crap of "endowed by their Creator " and everything got mucked up.
"inailienable rights edowed by our creator? appears nowhere in the constitution" the separation clause in the first amendment is where court precident has established that separation of church exists. so now it is the law. it's not yet perfectly separate of course but we're working on having god taken off our currency and the pledge. soon perhaps. | |
|
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 9/26/2009 7:25:15 AM | | hi... the Laws I am referring to are Gods Commandments.... and yes I would be able to have peace in any harsh situation because God is The Most Powerful Being Who is also The Most Loving Being .. God says that we need not fear those who can kill our bodies because He Alone has Control of both body and soul... there are stories of the Apostles who were in prison facing death and others who were being crucified and stoned to death and they all prayed for their enemies and counted the persecution as a small sacrifice next to Christs Sacrifice... if you do not have fear of man and have a Healthy Fear/Respect of God then what is the worst that can happen?? so they kill me and when Jesus Comes Again I am raised to live Eternally in Paradise... as far as protecting myself, God Judges the heart and the situation and the intent... if everyone lived according to Gods Law no one would be breaking into my home in the first place.... blessings | |
|
jbogie
|
Joined: 9/30/2008
Msg: 42 | |
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 9/26/2009 7:48:20 AM |
How would you suggest to enforce the "Bill of Responsibilities"? I have to disagree with you when you state that rights were intended to dictate what the goverenment is supposed to do for the people. Rights are what the government cannot do to the people, or prevent the people from doing.
not exactly. "we the people" have told the government through the constitution that some rights are inalienable and cannot be inringed by law. other right's they are quite free to infringe upon. the right to drive without a seatbelt has been infringed for instance. you may think you still have the right to not buckle up and in a sense you do. however the law imposes consequences if you excercise your right.
To try to enumerate what the government has to do "for" the people is asking to create a list that will keep getting longer and longer and longer and longer and longer. As society changes, and all societies change, under your definition of "rights'', these things that the govt. would have to do for the people would change.
quite true. the framers thought that the government should impose itself in our lives as little as possible.
At what point would this end? I'll tell you when: When over 50% of the people establish a right to control the purse srtings of govt. in any way they want. In other words, as soon as they vote themselves a key to the "bank".
ah, majority rules, right? not in this country. were that true the south would still be segregated. the constitution established a representative republic, not a democracy. by popular vote we do elect our government representatives but then they are responsible for creating and enforcing the law. but nothing requires them to govern as the majority wants. of course we can fire them and we often do. | |
|
jbogie
|
Joined: 9/30/2008
Msg: 43 | |
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 9/26/2009 7:54:05 AM |
hi... the Laws I am referring to are Gods Commandments....
those are not laws. there is no law that says that i cannot "covet thy neighbor's wife".
if everyone lived according to Gods Law no one would be breaking into my home in the first place....
if everyone lived according to the laws emposed by legislators no one would be breaking into your home either would they? | |
|
HO2
|
Joined: 10/11/2008
Msg: 44 | |
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 9/26/2009 9:14:42 AM | """ the separation clause in the first amendment is where court precident
has established that separation of church exists"""
Please don't be soooo foolish and naive to think that the constitution was not written by god fearing men
--if it was written by Atheists we would have a better government today
From day one on thru the last Bush administration, religion plays a role for our Rights in the USA
Religion played a MAJOR role in the actions of George W. Bush - it's a well documented fact
One that I think personally shouldn't play a role in elections at all. But it does, big time, over and over again.
UN-fortunately we seek ways to dehumanize , demonize and segregate ourselves through religious belief.
This is utter foolishness on a variety of levels - all 7 Billion of us are the same...with the same Rights ?...no....
Rights should exist beyond and above if I believe it better to crack my egg from the narrow or fat end
or protestant/catholic; muslim/jew; sufi/shabab; etc., etc.
Animal behavior at it's base level in primates clearly demonstrates Rights - they just aren't written down | |
|
jbogie
|
Joined: 9/30/2008
Msg: 45 | |
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 9/26/2009 9:35:51 AM | Please don't be soooo foolish and naive to think that the constitution was not written by god fearing men
--if it was written by Atheists we would have a better government today
passing on your childish comment on my foolish naivety i'll simply point out that i know all too well that the constitution was written by god fearing men. but whether written by atheists, agnostics such as myself, the god fearing or volcano worshipers, it would have no bearing on the quality of our government today. nobody would agree on that quality would they?
From day one on thru the last Bush administration, religion plays a role for our Rights in the USA
Religion played a MAJOR role in the actions of George W. Bush - it's a well documented fact
One that I think personally shouldn't play a role in elections at all. But it does, big time, over and over again.
sure. it plays a role because the vast majority of our citizens are god fearing. i don't like it either but it is what it is. however the founders did a good job with the first amendment and as such religion is not taught in the schools to our children as an example. not legally at any rate.
UN-fortunately we seek ways to dehumanize , demonize and segregate ourselves through religious belief.
This is utter foolishness on a variety of levels - all 7 Billion of us are the same...with the same Rights ?...no....
indeed, to the degree that governments don't abridge certain rights. the 7 billion don't all live under the same government system'
Rights should exist beyond and above if I believe it better to crack my egg from the narrow or fat end
or protestant/catholic; muslim/jew; sufi/shabab; etc., etc.
of course. and many rights exist beyond such things. your point?
Animal behavior at it's base level in primates clearly demonstrates Rights - they just aren't written down
no reason to write them down. things don't exist because they are written down. | |
|
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 9/26/2009 10:08:41 AM |
Is their really a fundamental difference between Laws and Rights, where is the line drawn ?
Law itself is based on the recognition of rights. If there were no rights, there would be no law.
if everyone lived according to Gods Law no one would be breaking into my home in the first place.... if everyone lived according to the laws emposed by legislators no one would be breaking into your home either would they?
With respect to God's law; if you are thinking in terms of Mosaic law, then if you don't want to be stoned or executed, you'd better not blaspheme (no free speech), be a homosexual (abomination in the eyes of God and a capital offense), be an Ammonite or Amalekite (Moses said God said it was OK to kill them, rape and kill and/or enslave the women & children because they happened to be living on the "promised land", much as the Palestinians of today have committed that same "crime")
With respect to legislated laws, one has to realize that there is no way everyone can obey hundreds of thousands of pages of "legalese" that changes with changes in legislation every year. How many people have even read (forget about understanding without several days and a legal dictionary) ONE legislated act, let alone the hundreds extent today. Yet these are all taken to be "laws" and we are expected to live by them. As we all know "ignorance of the law is no excuse." Unless you have read and understood all the statutes (and keep current with all their ongoing changes), how can you be reasonably expected to live according to those "laws"? The simple answer is, you can't and quite probably violate sveral of them every day without even knowing it!...Good thing you didn't get caught! How do you know you need a drivers licence? Have you read your "Highway Traffic" (or equivalent) act, or did you just take their word for it that you "must" if you want to "drive"? (Do you even know how "must" and "drive" are defined in the relevant acts?) To make a long story a lot shorter, much (if not most) of your legislation is designed to rob and control you in much the same way that the fine print on a contract allows people to rob you of something "legally". Even Martin Luther King told us that everything Hitler did was "legal" (because he was writing the "laws")...Don't trust your legislators any further than you can throw them!
In fact, don't trust written laws at all...Trust your heart to know right from wrong...trust unwritten Natural Law! It is the only law a society needs and it will never steer you wrong. | |
|
jbogie
|
Joined: 9/30/2008
Msg: 47 | |
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 9/26/2009 10:22:22 AM | Law itself is based on the recognition of rights. If there were no rights, there would be no law.
not so in the least. if everybody agreed on rights there would be no reason for law. law itself is based on the recognition that everybody cannot agree on what is a right and what is not. in saudi arabia a husband has the right beat his wife if she dishonors him. no law prohibits him from doing so. in america a husband does not have the right to beat his wife for any reason. we have laws that abridged that right. put both husbands in the same room and one will say "you don't have the right to beat your wife" and the other will reply "i have every right to beat my wife". in a sence, both are right and both are wrong. so the law draws the line where we cannot agree and turns right and wrong into legal and illegal.
the first amendment begins, "congress shall make no law......" and continues to protect certain inailinable rights, religion, press, speech, assembly. in essense saying to government, "don't mess with these rights when making laws".
With respect to legislated laws, one has to realize that there is no way everyone can obey hundreds of thousands of pages of "legalese" that changes with changes in legislation every year.
of course. i didn't say that it was possible for everyone to live according to the law. i was saying that if everyone DID live according to the law the ladies house would never be broken into. yes it's absurd to think that everyone will understand every law written. but sometime absurd statements can only be answered with equally absurd responses. | |
|
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 9/26/2009 10:53:17 AM |
if everybody agreed on rights there would be no reason for law
Everybody (everybody that's rational) agreeing on rights IS the law!
law itself is based on the recognition that everybody cannot agree on what is a right and what is not
False.
Let's look at the primary definition of a law; the free online dictionary defines it as: "A rule of conduct or procedure established by custom, agreement, or authority."
Natural law (upon which all true law is based) does not recognize authority except by consent to submission, so authority is out if it refers to the authority of men or gods (they are your equals under law unless you consent to submit). Custom is also out, as customs may change with awareness (slavery was always wrong, but it was customary, so it was long considered "lawful"; that only meant that our interpretation of the law was erroneous, not that the law had really changed). The only remaining thing is agreement. To be a truly just law, it should have the agreement of every moral agent within human society. Since everyone agrees that murder is wrong, it is not lawful to murder.
Granted that there have been many "laws" that have permitted murder, but these were unjust and as they were unjust they were not true law, because the purpose of true law is justice.
i was saying that if everyone DID live according to the law the ladies house would never be broken into
If you consider the statutes as law, then you can't make that statement until you've read through all the statutes as they currently stand and made the determination that legislators didn't legislate the government the "right" to break into her house (There are likely many such pieces of legislation -- Some, pertaining to suspicion of terrorism, or drugs, etc. probably do give them that "right") | |
|
HO2
|
Joined: 10/11/2008
Msg: 49 | |
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 9/26/2009 11:19:23 AM | Religion has a massive bearing on governmental laws and Rights in the USA along with other countries
""""" it would have no bearing on the quality of our government today"""""
""""" nobody would agree on that quality would they ?"""""
""""" the founders did a good job with the first amendment"""""
I'll directly challenge the quality of a government tainted by religious interjection like the USA.
I personally think the founders did a lousy job writing the first amendment in the USA,
and much of it should be changed for 21st century society.
To completely dismiss the rest of the world, other people's Rights, other countries Laws
is just utterly amazingly short sided in today's day and age of unrest.
In a world economy, dis-repect ruins the ability to trade resources.
The USA needs items like lithium from foreign countries such as Chile, Argentina, Bolivia, etc.
People so easily dismiss primate social interaction and it's meaning to Humans
""""Animal (natural law) does not recognize authority except by consent to submission"""
Dominance/submissiveness is an animal trait and punishment occurs daily in the animal kingdom
The agreement is to follow ""the rules"" of the primate community or loose access to food/protection/resources
Rights exist only because a group has power and the individuals submit.
Management via fear works well up to a point - eventually some take the risk of reprisal
| |
|
| Philosophical argument of Rights
Posted: 9/26/2009 11:50:27 AM |
Rights exist only because someone has power and someone submits
False. Rights exist because we claim them without dispute. We can't justly deny those rights to others without our own claim to them being repudiated. Therefore, in all fairness, every right carries with it the obligation to honour that right in others and not violate it. We have a right to life because we claim the right not to be killed unjustly by other moral agents. It becomes our corresponding duty to not kill anyone unjustly (murder). If we fail in our duty to not murder, we lose our right to life. (that doesn't necessarily mean we have to die in the eye for an eye sense, only that we can now be justly killed if that is the penalty)
All our rights are like that; they come (in all fairness) with a corresponding duty to respect and honour those rights in others. Natural law can be considered the scales that weigh the balance between rights and duty. If they don't balance an injustice has been done that law must correct if a society is to be a just one. | |
|
Home
login 
