Do the "rights" of the handicapped and children come from the guarantee of state violence as homeboy is suggesting?
or because we mutually agree they have "human rights?"
Discussion
You're putting words in my mouth. I never said the state has anything to do with rights. You did. You also suggest if a child can't defend themselves in isolation, then they have no rights. You also imply that if everyone except for you agrees you have no rights, then you have none.
lol saying"putting words in my mouth"
and then saying a bunch of stuff I never said.
but basically
yeah
if an individual can't assert "rights" themselves
and everyone else agrees they don't have them,
sucks to be you.
in that situation,
in what sense do they have those "rights" except as imagination?
where do those rights exist?
how would they be guaranteed ?
(except through violence by a 3rd party, which is the usual way of doing it)
in other words,
*We* guarantee the rights of the defenseless.
by mutual agreement
and application of force if necessary.
If an individual can't assert rights and everyone disagrees it's a right, then does the right not exist. Seems you are arguing it doesn't exist.
Flip side: If someone asserts and takes their "right" no matter how egregious, you would argue that the right exists.
What kind of morality is that which changes with the ebbs and flows of the zeitgeist?
If everyone says an imaginary thing isn't real
and I think it is, but I can't demonstrate its reality
in what way does it exist?
except as my imagination 🤨
If I felt really strongly about it,
I'd move somewhere I could demonstrate that "right" without being antagonized.
here
homeboy took your argument through to the end
Rights come from the individual, and not the state.
The state is nothing but a monopoly on violence. And we as a society tolerate this, to (in theory) stop other violence
Therefore,
They may voluntarily choose to seek the protection of the state from violence.
But, there has to be an opt out.
yeah
homeboy wasn't really trying to make a case they were from the state.
He's not quite sure of his position i think.
basically i agree with you
but wondering
"rights come from the individual"
are those specific rights everyone is born with?
or do I have to decide on them myself and put them out there?
For life and liberty, the individual has rights no matter what. You can't give it up. You can only change who is enforcing it.
For property, you have to put in work, to make it your's. If it's for example uninhabited land.
Oh yeah?
where do those rights you have "no matter what" come from?
"Life" probably has pretty general agreement. Most people agree they should be allowed to exist.
"Liberty"? (whatever *that is)
Not so much.
Morality is objective, as there would be no purpose in it if it was subjective. You could kill and say "to me it felt right"
Morality is a survival mechanism, as we can't survive without basic rules.
Morality dictates you can't kill or enslave others (which is how I'm defining liberty here)
Therefore,
An individual's unconditional objective rights are derived morality, which is an emotional experience in the human mind, that should be governed by objective rules, derived from reason.
This could be also be phrased,
Rights come from mankind's ability to reason.
This implies the survival of humanity is some form of objective goal.
it is
and if you disagree with that, then die
to debate it, you have to be alive
That's fallacious argumentation. It doesn't prove it's objective. That said, there are some who might wish to exterminate 90%. What of those? The rule fails against them.
Yea
at least
thats the only way that "natural rights" make any sense.
But its also extremely vague on details
which is fine.
Agreeing exactly what the morals are,
and how to derive rights from them,
is very murky and fraught with disagreement.
Large parts of the world do not derive "freedom of speech" from "you cant kill or enslave others" for example.
Which I why I've been arguing for pragmatic rights,
those you can actually assert
and are generally agreed upon socially.
Although I agree morality is a survival mechanism and tends to be pretty consistent across time and cultures.
explain the pragmatic rights being asserted?
Essentially, that rights are what you can exercise in a social context.
Any rando can imagine a right or privilege. But if you can't actually exercise it, so what?
Likewise society can decide a existent right is no longer is valid. (not the state, social consensus at whatever level)
In either situation the individual's option is to go somewhere they can *exercise the rights they hold.
Individuals generally will not continuously assert rights in contexts that result in social exclusion. 99% of the time they either conform or move to a different social context that agrees with them.
So rights aren't static, except in a dogmatic sense. They result from individuals asserting them en masse.