Even in these, some of these freedoms are subject to control.
For example, in "freedom of thought", that would technically give someone the right to be mentally ill, wouldn't it?
Who Am I?
The problem is that these two categories don't include every point of view- specifically the way most people probably look at rights, as neither universal self-evident platonic ideas, nor as arbitrary legal fictions, but as those privileges that most people want for themselves that that they insist on having in exchange for their good citizenship.
"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."
But that because most people are neither philosophers nor political scientists.
TU NE CEDE MALIS CLASS OF 1971
vigilantly taxonomish
I don't buy this idea of "natural rights", much less that the "ignorance" of them is tyranny. What evidence is there that such things exist?
Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff
Yeah, I think that would still describe the British view. To quote [1]
"The rights and responsibilities you have today come from a number of different sources. They can come through Acts of Parliament and laws made by judges, and some from European law."
There's also custom. But generally history tells us that rights are things that big hairy strangers may try to stomp all over. Sometimes, we're the big hairy strangers. They're certainly not 'natural'. Or inalienable. They're always things you have to fight for and keep an eye on - or they get taken away.
edited 1st Aug '11 12:35:56 PM by Bluesqueak
It ain't over 'till the ring hits the lava.
Lost in Space
There are no such things as "natural rights". Anything stated as such is simply someone's opinion and is not "self-evident" anywhere in nature that I've ever seen.
I look around me in nature. I see a tree. I see an animal. I see a rock. These things exist. They are self-evident in the sense that they have definable properties independent of my ability to describe them — solipsism aside, the rock will not stop being a rock just because I'm not around to look at it.
If you claim that there is such a thing as a right to freedom of speech, I say that no such thing is in evidence. You can physically open your mouth and utter noise, just the tree can grow or the animal can forage for food. However, the tree can be cut down and the animal can be eaten. I can smash your face in with the rock.
"Rights" are an artificial construct of morality and ethics that can only come about in an institutionalized manner if you have a means of enforcement and general agreement from those around you.
The Declaration of Independence was a legal sham. Its sole value was as a propaganda piece to rally the colonists (and, to a lesser extent, the rest of the world other than Britain). They could have mailed George a Playboy magazine (anachronistic, of course) for all the difference it would have made, save for the inspirational factor.
Anyone who conflates the concept of rights with Appeal to Nature is a very sadly misguided person who thinks that their opinions are facts evident in Creation and is therefore subject to all kinds of irrational behavior. I cannot trust such a person.
edited 1st Aug '11 2:35:11 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Fuzzy Orange Doomsayer
If we assume a self-consistent moral system that everyone can believe in, then we can call any rights arising from that system "natural rights." Unfortunately, some self-consistent moral systems don't include the same rights that others do (for instance, my system leads to very different rights from the one Deboss espouses.)
That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful
Lord high Xecutioner
There ain't nothing natural about Humans. We share monkey nature with our cousins but anything specifically Human like fireworks and rifles and trousers and printing is artificial.
In some states La Résistance is mighty enough to enforce Citizen Rights. Some states have less Citizen rights because La Résistance is weak.
I am a Citizen so I believe lots of Citizen rights are morally righteous. Likewise, the Evil Government truly believe that less Citizen rights are morally righteous.
edited 1st Aug '11 4:35:49 PM by Trotzky
Liberty! Equality! Fraternity!
Lost in Space
Humans are 100% natural. Everything we do is an extension of our intellect and our bodies. It is literally impossible for anything to occur that is not "natural".
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
vigilantly taxonomish
"Natural" means a number of different things. Just because a more encompassing definition exists doesn't invalidate the definition that excludes humanity and related concepts.
Perhaps it would be helpful if the OP were to clarify in what sense these rights were "natural".
Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff
Lord high Xecutioner
"Man is born Free and by his creator endowed with inalienable rights: Life Liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
Glorious stuff which inspires La Résistance to kick Evil Government ass.
Because Citizen Rights are directly proportional to the mightiness of La Résistance
Liberty! Equality! Fraternity!
Lost in Space
All that is merely Appeal to Force from the opposite direction. All rights are derived fundamentally from Appeal to Force. Societies that do not understand this fail.
There is nothing magically right about La Résistance versus The Government. Both are made up of people who are subject to all the Logical Fallacies that people subject themselves to, including the notion that rights are in some way inherent to being human, rather than something we invent out of our collective will.
Yesterday's La Résistance is today's The Government. Today's La Résistance is tomorrow's The Government.
edited 1st Aug '11 5:06:43 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
Well, what about those of us who do not believe in an almighty creator? Freedom of religion is one of those "natural rights", isn't it? And since we don't believe in God, but our "natural rights" are supposed to be endowed by him, well..
Lost in Space
Freedom of religion is related to freedom of speech, in that, assuming that I recognize your right to open your yap, I don't particularly care what comes out of it. You can delude yourself with whatever superstitions happen to fill your craw. What I do contest, with my ad baculum if needed, is your right to try to tell me what to believe.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Lord high Xecutioner
"Yesterday's La Résistance is today's The Government. Today's La Résistance is tomorrow's The Government."
We will only be Free during those rare transition periods when La Résistance has siezed Power but is not corrupt YET.
Freedom of Worship is a secular conceit. When Moses came down from the mountain he had a precise list o how worship must be done.
Liberty! Equality! Fraternity!
Lost in Space
Ooookay. Please stay away from me.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Decemberist
Oh my. I remember being like this when I was 13.
The sin of silence when they should protest makes cowards of men.
I changed accounts.
Morality, like Fighteer said, is relative. "Rights" and ethics and all those other wonderful things are artificial constructs. Not that I would ever say that, for example, the "right" to life is a bad thing; it would be very sad if we decided murder was ok. However, murder is "wrong" because society says so, not because of any inherent value judgement. Without sapience—and therefore the right to make such value judgements—we would consider murder a simple fact of life and instinct—in fact, we wouldn't consider it anything at all, because we would lack that intelligence.
I am now known as Flyboy.Non-agresssion naturally leads to belief in natural rights.
Lost in Space
Secretist, you can prove anything you want if you pick and choose your premises to support your argument; this is called Begging the Question and is a basic logical fallacy. All you've done is assert, "if X then Y" without offering any proof for X.
Anyway, the "non-aggression principle" is a construct of human morality and is no closer to a hypothetical universal truth than any other morality. I would also add that it seems like you've got it the other way around; non-aggression is derived from the same set of principles that gives rise to the concept of natural rights. One is not a consequence of the other; they're the same thing in different clothes.
edited 3rd Aug '11 9:05:33 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Do you like the UDHR? It exclussively reffers to legal rights.
Lost in Space
All that does is establish a framework upon which rights can be decided. It's really a null statement since all of its dependent terms are subjective.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
I changed accounts.
Except that the UN is a human construct. Legal rights are a human construct. Natural rights are an idea made by humans. There is no such thing as a "right" in relation to nature or inherent-ness. The idea of a "right" is just that—an idea. Rights exist and are defined by society.
I am now known as Flyboy.So you support the right of Islamist regimes to oppress people?
The CDHRI does not discuss freedom of religion, assembly, association or the requirement of free consent to marriage, the right to a fair trial, prisoners' rights, minority rights, the right to a nationality, suffrage, social security, trade unions, strikes or participation in cultural life.[5] The Cairo Declaration also includes several crucial limitations, including all rights being bound by Islamic law; it allows the right to take a life, inflict bodily harm, that the education of children be in accordance with sharia, that there are rights that can be claimed from children or kin, restriction on freedom of movement and the ability to deny refugees protection whenever permitted by sharia.[5]
It has points that have been criticized.
Article 24 of the declaration states: "All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Sharia." Article 19 also says: "There shall be no crime or punishment except as provided for in the Sharia." [7]
The CDHRI has been criticised for failing to guarantee freedom of religion as a "fundamental and nonderogable right".[7]
In a joint written statement submitted by the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU), a non-governmental organization in special consultative status, the Association for World Education (AWE) and the Association of World Citizens (AWC): a number of concerns were raised, that the CDHRI limits Human Rights, Religious Freedom and Freedom of Expression. It concludes: "The Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam is clearly an attempt to limit the rights enshrined in the UDHR and the International Covenants. It can in no sense be seen as complementary to the Universal Declaration."[8]
The Centre for Inquiry in September 2008 in an article to the United Nations writes that the CDHRI: "undermines equality of persons and freedom of expression and religion by imposing restrictions on nearly every human right based on Islamic Sharia law."[9]
Rhona Smith writes that because the CDHRI's reference to Shariah implies an inherent degree of superiority of men.[10]
Adama Dieng, a member of the International Commission of Jurists, criticised the CDHRI. He argued that the declaration gravely threatens the inter-cultural consensus on which the international human rights instruments are based; that it introduces intolerable discrimination against non-Muslims and women. He further argued that the CDHRI reveals a deliberately restrictive character in regard to certain fundamental rights and freedoms, to the point that certain essential provisions are below the legal standards in effect in a number of Muslim countries; it uses the cover of the "Islamic Shari'a (Law)" to justify the legitimacy of practices, such corporal punishment, which attack the integrity and dignity of the human being.[2][11]
edited 3rd Aug '11 10:35:01 AM by secretist
TU NE CEDE MALIS CLASS OF 1971
Courtesy Link
The nature of rights is an issue of philosophical importance.
I have heard people basically assume that any and all rights are legal rights and that natural rights don't exist in their minds basically. The Federalists opposed the Bill of Rights because they thought that people would think that the rights inneumerated therin would be legal rights granted by their goverment rather than pre-existing natural rights that the goverment recognized as sacro-sant and wouldn't dare tamper with. America split with the British Empire because it didn't recognize natural rights; the ignorance of natural rights is tyranny.
Basically, everyone has a right to (even if their gov't, cultures, etc. don't recognize them ie tyranny):
Contemporary political philosophies continuing the liberal tradition of natural rights include libertarianism, anarcho-capitalism and Objectivism, and include amongst their canon the works of authors such as Robert Nozick, Ludwig von Mises, Ayn Rand,[23] and Murray Rothbard [24]. A libertarian view of inalienable rights is laid out in Morris and Linda Tannehill's The Market for Liberty, which claims that a man has a right to ownership over his life and therefore also his property, because he has invested time (i.e. part of his life) in it and thereby made it an extension of his life. However, if he initiates force against and to the detriment of another man, he alienates himself from the right to that part of his life which is required to pay his debt: "Rights are not inalienable, but only the possessor of a right can alienate himself from that right – no one else can take a man's rights from him."[25]
edited 3rd Aug '11 8:27:18 AM by secretist
TU NE CEDE MALIS CLASS OF 1971