Personality Cafe banner

1 - 20 of 68 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,281 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Definition that pertains to the usage I am speaking on:

right
/rīt/
noun
plural noun: rights

1.
that which is morally correct, just, or honorable.

2.
a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way.


I would like to speak on the bold.

Certainly I am not above arguing/speaking on semantics and/or
the stated definition(s).

My real interest in this is the line....

Rights cannot be given, they may only be taken away.

What do you think? True? False? If false; who decides?
 

·
Registered
ENTJ
Joined
·
1,172 Posts
Interesting take on this. But I'll disagree as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is about freedom, justice and peace - yet many do not enjoy this.

In the West, there are things like equality, freedom from discrimination. Yet it's as if we need to be given these when our freedom is infringed upon.

Freedom of speech? Sure, as long as you adhere to social conventions and etc. Try talking about taboos and see where it takes you.

Right to adequate living standards - not always the case. Right to education - so many people are in huge student debt. And so on.

You might have to specify which rights you're talking about? The ones I listed seem to be ones that one needs to fight for.

Going back to your definition - I am listing some examples to illustrate that having rights doesn't equate to 100% enjoying them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,994 Posts
Definition that pertains to the usage I am speaking on:

right
/rīt/
noun
plural noun: rights

1.
that which is morally correct, just, or honorable.

2.
a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way.


I would like to speak on the bold.

Certainly I am not above arguing/speaking on semantics and/or
the stated definition(s).

My real interest in this is the line....

Rights cannot be given, they may only be taken away.

What do you think? True? False? If false; who decides?
I completely agree.

The distinction you offer is that the second definition of rights attempts to undo the first. That is to say the first SHOULD read:

1.
that which is morally correct or objective inseparable from any moral agent.

the which then is a "moral right", or a true right, or just a right.

This leads then to second definition of rights which SHOULD read:

2.
a privilege delimited and granted by an immoral hierarchy.

the which is a "legal or ethical right", a false right, or offering that which is already intrinsic.

In such a way is seen clearly the issue I continuously point out, order IS NOT the GOOD.

Note that this also belies all notions of the state or any authority offering anyone legal rights. Those rights are granted by objective moral truth, love itself, and any notion that they can be granted or taken away is itself quite immoral.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,281 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Interesting take on this. But I'll disagree as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is about freedom, justice and peace - yet many do not enjoy this.
Okay, fair point. But I am not speaking on Universally anything.
I am speaking on the core of rights and what that may mean. Not the results
of the rights and fringe activity. I am not even referencing the outcome
of induced rights. Think definition and less the outcome of what rights are
in the current, in any given location.

This is not a comparative of rights across locales.
If it was? I would put forward that African and South American tribes
by far still enjoy the most rights and freedoms. They naturally assume
it.

There is that famous line by ..Tecumseh? I am truly sorry if I bastardized that name.
he was a great man. Anyhow..... When asked how much he would like to sell
his land for his response was solid gold...

"Sell a country! Why not sell the air, the great sea, as well as the earth? Did not the Great Spirit make them all for the use of his children?" Seems obvious. ( well less the "great spirit"..but I get it)

I am pretty sure he had not a notion and/or word for "rights".
Its bloody well common sense.


In the West, there are things like equality, freedom from discrimination. Yet it's as if we need to be given these when our freedom is infringed upon.
You cannot have freedom from discrimination. You may only have protection from action
brought to bare against you via discrimination.

One persons freedom becomes everyonelses responsibility.
Rights are easy. It is the responsibility to care for others
we have issue with.

Freedom of speech? Sure, as long as you adhere to social conventions and etc. Try talking about taboos and see where it takes you.
Truth is freedom. I try an speak it no matter the taboo. We disregard taboo's
and sweep them under the rug to our great detriment. Not benefit.
Speaking on Taboo's is what made homosexuality more open and more acceptable.
Speaking on taboo's is what made Psychology, science, .....the list goes on.

If we ever stop speaking on taboo's? We all lose. Quick like.

Closing out any speech is tantamount to genocide of thought.
A perverse retardation of thought is not acceptable.



Right to adequate living standards
Subjective.




You might have to specify which rights you're talking about?
None. But I am willing to. As seen above in my response to you.
I am speaking on what the formulation or natural leaning is with the word rights.
If the can be chosen?


Going back to your definition - I am listing some examples to illustrate that having rights doesn't equate to 100% enjoying them.
Of course! I hate rights that are given. It is an insult and very power laden to
assume anyone can dictate to me what I may or may not be able to do/think/say (within moral reason which is where we fail as humans).
Also, I dont like the responsibility of having to accommodate generated rights based
on the whims of a retard culture that choose rights based
on how people feel about them in current context of human socioeconomic state.
(not one culture am I speaking on here. Many.)
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,281 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
I completely agree.

The distinction you offer is that the second definition of rights attempts to undo the first. That is to say the first SHOULD read:

1.
that which is morally correct or objective inseparable from any moral agent.

the which then is a "moral right", or a true right, or just a right.

This leads then to second definition of rights which SHOULD read:

2.
a privilege delimited and granted by an immoral hierarchy.

the which is a "legal or ethical right", a false right, or offering that which is already intrinsic.

In such a way is seen clearly the issue I continuously point out, order IS NOT the GOOD.

Note that this also belies all notions of the state or any authority offering anyone legal rights. Those rights are granted by objective moral truth, love itself, and any notion that they can be granted or taken away is itself quite immoral.
Agreed. Calamity at its deepest depths.

A scourge of the so called moral agent. So it is the item we have spoken on before.
For immoral to succeed the moral agent must sleep. Lets wake up shall we?

Alas ....these rose colored lenses fit so well.

Hey Series question for ya...... Hierarchies? Omnipresent yet controllable?
Contrived and a control mechanism? These may not be mutually exclusive I suppose..... but
at the core. What do you think?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,281 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
more of a legal entitlement to have or do something without negative consequences to my thinking
Sure. The second variation there that can be close to that.

Yet I find negative in your context to be assumed negative.

Punitive is what we do and in some cases that is not negative
for the person.


As an example.... I have to live with a truth.
If I do not speak that truth my morality will suffer. If punitive damages
are put upon me do to me living my truth? The punitive reaction is not negative (if not expected)
it is a reaction that I am happy to take vs lying to myself and others by ignoring my moral truth.

You see what I am saying?
 

·
Registered
ENTJ
Joined
·
1,172 Posts
Okay, fair point. But I am not speaking on Universally anything.
I am speaking on the core of rights and what that may mean. Not the results
of the rights and fringe activity. I am not even referencing the outcome
of induced rights. Think definition and less the outcome of what rights are
in the current, in any given location.
If rights are a legal entitlement, doesn't that imply that we are given them in the context of the wider system around us e.g. society?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,281 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
If rights are a legal entitlement, doesn't that imply that we are given them in the context of the wider system around us e.g. society?
Yes. I am over expanding to be sure.
(its how I learn)

So who then chooses? Is it right (ironically) that they (whoever they are) have that choice?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
291 Posts
the only reason to make something legal is to insure no negative impact in view of governmental advice and consent it is a lawful process in my opinion
 

·
Registered
ENTJ
Joined
·
1,172 Posts
Yes. I am over expanding to be sure.
(its how I learn)

So who then chooses? Is it right (ironically) that they (whoever they are) have that choice?
Is it the society you're born in and are a passport holder of? On the whole, we all generally are told we receive the right to satisfy our basic human needs, it's kind of assumed unless you're unfortunate and are born in a war zone.

Is it right? I believe so, we aspire to give people the rights they need. If you don't like it, you should have the choice to pack it up and live in the wilderness, which is possible.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,281 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
rights are legal parameters and have nothing to do with morals in my opinion
O my. So the calamity continues.

Sounds to me that you are speaking on behavioral laws.

Or at least I hope so.

Remember. You cant have rights (in law) without responsibilities.
Every time we create a "right" we use force to undue other "rights"
and pile on responsibility.



Would it not be better to just use morality? Morality as defined by a set
of immutable principals for human behavior in groups?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,281 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
Is it the society you're born in and are a passport holder of? On the whole, we all generally are told we receive the right to satisfy our basic human needs, it's kind of assumed unless you're unfortunate and are born in a war zone.

Is it right? I believe so, we aspire to give people the rights they need. If you don't like it, you should have the choice to pack it up and live in the wilderness, which is possible.
But you originally eluded to "universal rights". That to me is
not bound by passports. Clarify, if you care to. Furthermore as I use
my passport abroad it does not alleviate me of learning and indeed
being forced to follow/concede to rights of current location. When in
Rome as it where...my passport does not carry my Canadian given
rights to north Korea. I get that is not what you are saying exactly.
Just think passport is actually of way of proving how wrong "rights" are
when getting to be doled out by law as appose to morality.


If each country was an island unto itself with no contact this may be applicable.

The way in which someone has access to life sustaining materials will change
greatly given topography. So obviously local rights become inherent to that
locale only. May not even make sense elsewhere. Yet universally morals
are true and good or best ought to be given abolishment of the ID or
ego built in group thought.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28,953 Posts
You good with that? Does that make sense to you or is that just an observation?
They tend to disregard rights when they want and the oversight process is slow or nonexistent for many of them. Plus, if one government makes rights they are hardly human rights. Unless they are only for humans under that government.
 

·
Registered
ENTJ
Joined
·
1,172 Posts
But you originally eluded to "universal rights". That to me is
not bound by passports. Clarify, if you care to.
I was referring to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, of which I would have to look up the signatories. I quoted a few of the rights defined by them, but you're right in saying that rights differ per country. Certain freedoms are not allowed in certain countries, for instance.

If I look at the Declaration, it states freedom, justice and peace, which I believe to be moral.
 
1 - 20 of 68 Posts
Top