Rights?

[Xev]

From an essay I'm writing:
------------------------------------------------

"WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government"

Over two hundred years of political upheavel has yet to alter the majesty of these words, or prove them to be anything but a collection of pretty words.

The claims they rest on are unproven and have never been so.

....

We don't, to use the popular example, speak German and heil Hitler because the Allies were stronger than the Axis powers. I can walk down a street without being raped because my government provides me with the protections of law and the law is enforced. My own ability to fight well is only the icing on the cake* If I lived in another country, Iran for say, and if I was weaker, then this "right" of mine to bodily integrity would be violated rather quickly.

A closer examination of the ideal of human rights reveals it to be rested on nothing but an assertion. Indeed, what is “self evident” but another way of saying “axiomatic”? Purveyers of this doctrine simply assert that all men have the right to, say, pursue happiness and let it go at that. Like most imposing edifices, this doctrine collapses with the simple question of “why”?

Can anyone show that I have no “right” to interfere with John Doe's pursuit of happiness?

--------------------------------------
Anyone?

 

[Squid Vicious]

Originally posted by Xev
Over two hundred years of political upheavel has yet to alter the majesty of these words, or prove them to be anything but a collection of pretty words.

The claims they rest on are unproven and have never been so.

Perhaps the USA has had the greatest of chances to prove them to be truth... however as I see it that chance has been steadily eroded in the last hundred years or so. Your laws have in the past been designed to protect the rights of the individual but, again, as I see it, that is no longer strictly true. Am I wrong in my belief that the laws of the USA have shown a perceptible swing towards protection of the state rather than individual? Or at least, giving it equal if not greater precedence? This is a trend in many of today's nations but with the USA I notice it in particular when comparing current trends to your constitutional aims. Not only this, but the constitution of the USA also seems to apply only to the USA... when one might assume that such lofty ideals would be better served projected outwards as well. No wonder the world looks on the US askance when thier ideals do not appear to be applicable to interests outside the USA.

My aoplogies, I know this isn't the point of your post but I thought it needed to be said.

A closer examination of the ideal of human rights reveals it to be rested on nothing but an assertion. Indeed, what is “self evident” but another way of saying “axiomatic”? Purveyers of this doctrine simply assert that all men have the right to, say, pursue happiness and let it go at that. Like most imposing edifices, this doctrine collapses with the simple question of “why”?

Exactly right.This question is one that most people tend to avoid to the point of blindness when confronted with any of their own beliefs. Is it possible to ask "why" any particular belief exists, consider the answer (if there is one) and then continue to hold that belief? Logic would seem to indicate that no beliefs are valid, to anyone who gives the question serious thought without a religious angle. We might hold some beliefs dear, for no other reason than that if we do not, our very perception of our selves and our reasons for living begin to crumble.

Any belief is simply a tool with which one finds a reason for continued existence, or, as you have said, an assertion from which we can lay the groundwork for more beliefs. Consider a house made of cards, and what might happen when we remove the bottom one. The constitution of the USA works in the same way... a system founded on one simple assertion. Remove that assertion, or render it invalid... and your whole system begins to crumble. Thus, your point that our beliefs are only our beliefs because we say so is in my opinion entirely correct... but then the question becomes "and if we realise they are only assertions, do we then discard them because they are not strictly "truths", only assertions? Or do they serve a purpose, as tools?"

I'm trying to find an answer to this without resorting to simple Darwinism... without our conceptions, beliefs, and ideals, we might not survive all that well as a race (or as any given civilisation)... or more acccurately, wouldn't have evolved beyond the level of our ancestors. When we consider that, we also must consider why your (the USA's) particular belief system is more "right" than another, for example a religiously-controlled society.

*edit* waaaay too much answer.

Xev, this gets more complicated the more I think about it. I'm not sure my linguistic abilities are up to going off on all the tangents I'm considering at the moment. I'm not even sure if this answers your question or not... I totally agree with your initial assertion that a belief (any belief) must collapse under determined and unbarred questioning. My problem here (and it has been for some time) is that I'm trying to figure out what possible use there could be for recognising this as a truth in itself, and where to go after that.

 

[James R]

Of course it's an assertion. Rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are granted by mutual agreement. Those rights are only inalienable if people agree that they should be.

Not every society recognises these "rights". Not every society agrees with the premises on which they are supposedly based. They are, however, morally defensible on a number of grounds, and match up with many major moral philsophical systems.

 

[Xev]

James R: Thanks muchly, that actually is pretty much the conclusion of my paper.

Now, Squid:

The actions of the US are beyond the scope of my paper.

I totally agree with your initial assertion that a belief (any belief) must collapse under determined and unbarred questioning. My problem here (and it has been for some time) is that I'm trying to figure out what possible use there could be for recognising this as a truth in itself, and where to go after that.

Here is not the place to further dissect something we've discussed so much, but you may find this interesting:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=9511

Logic is ultimately a form of communication. Whether a proposition is logical or not does not make it a worthwhile proposition or not.

I can "show" both that murder is perfectly acceptable and that murder is a poor action. How one chooses to act, knowing that logic is not a be all and end all, shows what one is.

Those like you and I will act according to our will.
The sheep will act according to what they've been taught.

However, to what extent you and I are enslaved by what we are taught? I think we both know what this is, to have something we believe is part of our nature....and yet to not be SURE.

smashed up my sanity
smashed up my integrity
smashed up what i believed in
smashed up what's left of me
smashed up my everything
smashed up all that was true
gonna smash myself to pieces
i don't know what else to do
covered in hope and vaseline
still cannot fix this broken machine
watching the hole it used to be mine
just watching it burn in my steady systematic decline

Just going over this again. Don't mind me.

 

[spookz]

Originally posted by Xev

Can anyone show that I have no “right” to interfere with John Doe's pursuit of happiness?

how about if i fuck with you while you're having fun? can you find reasons as to why i shoudnt? if you find reasons, why john doe cannot adopt the same? a million john doe's? it is then a small jump to put this shit on paper and voila- the bill of rights

??

 

[ndrs]

1. Pursuit of Happiness?
Maybe the problem is, that happiness is subjective. In other words, the statement cannot be proven at all, since happiness is not an explicitly defined word.

------
happiness

\Hap"pi*ness\, n. [From Happy.] 1. Good luck; good fortune; prosperity.

All happiness bechance to thee in Milan! --Shak.

2. An agreeable feeling or condition of the soul arising from good fortune or propitious happening of any kind; the possession of those circumstances or that state of being which is attended enjoyment; the state of being happy; contentment; joyful satisfaction; felicity; blessedness.

3. Fortuitous elegance; unstudied grace; -- used especially of language
--------


So, let's say a rapist, gets joy by raping people. He has a right to pursuit of happiness? Since it doesn't conflict with other person's: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
------------------------------
2. All men are create equal?

We all know, that not all people are created equal: one can have mental disability, the other physical one, the other one can die at birth..
Unless "equal" has some other meaning here..
------------------------------
Anyway who wrote these words?
And where can these words be found?

 

[grazzhoppa]

"WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government"

This was written to be broad and very general. It was meant to be intepretted and adapt. I believe when it says all men are created equally, it means everyone has the right to be able to be alive. With being alive, the person then has the rights to happiness, etc... you pretty much summed this up already.

Remember when this was written. They fought battles facing each other, taking turns shooting....there was an etiquette to killing another man. The ending part of that quote says the people have the right to overthrow the government. Would there be an etiquette to overthrowing a government? It's not something that happens everyday nor is it as "glorious" as fighting against other people. Yet they put it in there to give proof that this right exists. They came to the conclusion that this right is given by a "higher being," and for the people who still don't believe them, they put it on paper.....so it must be true now?

To answer your question now, you have every right to trample over someone else to pursue your happiness. BUT...but, this "right" is governed by the morals of the society or how "civilized" the current society is. We fight wars without facing an enemy soldier in the face, we fight with mechanism (bomb) against man. This would be highly "uncivilized" to the period when those words were written. Would we have the "right" to kill another man without seeing them in front of us? In that time period, I think we wouldn't.

I believe the pursuit of happiness they were talking about was to get away from "bad" governments and live how you want to under the enforcement of a minimal government (compared to a monarchy). When you take the right to live to be happy, and you apply it to a single person, you cannot forget the person must live within the government's rules. So you must live in a pursuit of your happiness within the guidlines of the government's rules and society's morals. But since you were brought up and live in that society you should have no problem living in happiness within it.....in theory.

ndrs:
2. All men are create equal?

We all know, that not all people are created equal: one can have mental disability, the other physical one, the other one can die at birth..
Unless "equal" has some other meaning here..
------------------------------
Anyway who wrote these words?
And where can these words be found?

The way you define equal in your example is that everyone has to be the same (as in physically and the way they think) to be equal. I see it as we are all people within a world, (and in this case the world was created by something). We are all equal with that respect. But where does equality stop and individualism begin? Does skin color qualify as just skin or a characteristic (not talking in scientific terms) of a person? History of the US shows it obivously qualifies as an individual characteristic. We don't see it as "hey, you have a color."

Idividualism is made from the society....the society is made from the government....the government is made from people (its not affected by each and every person so it can't be made from the people). And supposedly people are equal because they are living. Being an individual and being a person (in this case "man") are closely related but are not the same. That is why there is such a seach for the truth, of the difference, between the two. The individual has distinct needs, happiness one of them, and opinions are always different. When a government can let people be generally happy they have protected that self-evident right...which is self-evident because we are all people and we have needs.



Sorry if this didn't explain anything, or just went in a big circle not answering any questions, or didn't clear anything up.

 

[Tiassa]

Xev (and a moment for NDRS)

The claims they rest on are unproven and have never been so.

You're correct; "rights" have no objective foundation. They are conventional conditions prescribed by general agreement.

One could say that "rights" is a religious assertion: We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights ....

Even if we strip God out of the equation, we still come up with a statement that equals, "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by the fact that they are alive with certain inalienable rights ...."

Adhering to the convention of rights is somewhat a religious proposition, dependent on faith that these ideas of liberty are, truly, real and correct.

And Xev, the only response to the question you marked at the end of your topic post would be to say, "You're probably correct, and I can best demonstrate that point if I take a kitchen knife and cut out your heart."

Problematic, eh?

My one piece of critical advice, as this is for a paper: try to remove the self from it unless it is expected as part of the paper. But it all sounds good so far; that's just a personal standard.

A general piece of commentary: I've been hammering atheists lately in the Religion forum about the nature of subjective truth and reality. Part of the reason is evident in this topic, and that's why I'm very happy to see it taking place here. My only question is to wonder what people are going to do about the subjectivity of their rights?

Side note for NDRS

So, let's say a rapist, gets joy by raping people. He has a right to pursuit of happiness? Since it doesn't conflict with other person's: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Analogously, when people talk about parents striking their child, they always talk about children burning themselves or endangering someone else by accident. The knee-jerk position taken from that is that people who don't want to beat their children would rather the children destroy everything and everyone around them. It's an interesting proposition, but nobody ever discusses the fact that what brings such ideas into question is the needless violence visited on children by unprepared and inadequate parents. The whole country is shocked by a security video of a woman pummeling a small child in a parking lot. You know, if it hadn't been captured on video, people would have defended her. If I was the only person who saw, and told people about this woman I saw pummeling her child, I would expect to hear the "what if the child is playing with fire" routine, assuming that every problem a child might have requires swift and unthinking response.

Now ... NDRS--the rapist is interfering with the right of another to pursue happiness. Had this not occurred to you?

I just don't understand why you resorted to such a silly counterpoint; it's accounted for in the rest of what goes on.

Anyway who wrote these words?
And where can these words be found?

Well, they're in the US Declaration of Independence ... the authors signed off on it, so you can always read up on them. Beyond that, issues from Locke, Rousseau, Machiavelli, Hobbes, and others, contributed to the libertarian streak that resulted in the Declaration.

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[Xev]

ndrs:

So, let's say a rapist, gets joy by raping people. He has a right to pursuit of happiness? Since it doesn't conflict with other person's: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Ummm, but ndrs, raping people does interfere with their pursuit of happiness.

Spookz:

how about if i fuck with you while you're having fun? can you find reasons as to why i shoudnt? if you find reasons, why john doe cannot adopt the same? a million john doe's? it is then a small jump to put this shit on paper and voila- the bill of rights

No, actually I can't find a logically valid reason why fucking other people over is a bad thing.

Why shouldn't you fuck with me? Because I will take revenge ten times over.
It comes down to "might makes right".

Tiassa:

Adhering to the convention of rights is somewhat a religious proposition, dependent on faith that these ideas of liberty are, truly, real and correct.

Disagree. I do not believe that these ideals are truely real and correct. However, I adhere to the convention for reasons of utility.

And Xev, the only response to the question you marked at the end of your topic post would be to say, "You're probably correct, and I can best demonstrate that point if I take a kitchen knife and cut out your heart."

Yes, yes I know. But that's no real argument against.

Whether you cut my heart out or not is irrelevent to the issue. I won't like it, but again:

Might makes "rights".

 

[Tiassa]

Let them eat cake

Disagree. I do not believe that these ideals are truely real and correct. However, I adhere to the convention for reasons of utility.

I'm with you in spirit. But I've found that at the core of my utilitarian self is still a delicate construction of presumption, and I think this is true of all people. The degree of a thing's utility is determined according to the individual's priorities and interpretations, as tenuous a connection to reality as there is. While I do believe that what works best is right, utility is a notion easily abused.

And a base I'm going to cover just because I'm thinking of it: I do not necessarily remind you of this in distrust of your own priorities, but rather to remind that there are some absolutely brick-stupid people out there who bear the most bizarre and antithetical priorities.

Might makes "rights".

It's one of my greatest disappointments in humanity: we have the knowledge, skills, and tools to get past that. I happened to catch Star Trek IV tonight on TNN because I was high and it seemed like a good idea. There's a line in there about, "I suppose they don't use money in the 23rd century." Ah, to wish for a Prime Directive. It's almost enough to make me a Trekkie.

Almost.

thanx,
Tiassa