[Archived: Special Debates] Inalienable Human Rights - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Assorted documents and images.
#475591
Naked_Turk has posed the following thesis for discussion:

"There are absolute, universal rights/truths that all citizens around the world must be guaranteed. Generally, they are based in morality, ethics and logic - therefore superseding all other beliefs, ideals, culture, religion, and in some cases, law."



Do you agree with the thesis? Disagree? Have conditionals to apply to the above? Discussion has now begun; send a PM to Vivisekt if you are interested in seriously participating in this discourse. The guidelines for this particular discussion are as follows:

* 1.) Debate must be completely mature in nature. No flames, inflammatory innuendo, personal attacks, or other such tactics will be tolerated. Since this is a special discourse, participants should endeavor to fully address the points that are volunteered throughout the discussion if they are able (although posts need not be a specific length, or carry a specific format).

* 2.) Do not make one or two lined posts.

* 3.) You may not use emoticons.
User avatar
By Falleen Prince Xizor
#475627
Right. no point hanging around. I'll begin by saying what an interesting statement it is. Well worded so as to be general..but nevertheless approachable.

There are absolute, universal rights/truths that all citizens around the world must be guaranteed


That really sounds idyllic. That said, and probably for that reason, I am forced to question it.

I find it hard to quantify rejections of such claims to be honest.
Hard to see why someone can argue against ultimate equality: an aim which humanity appears to have strived for since time immemorial.

How can you claim that people don't deserve to live (I'm assuming this is the most important "right" being suggested?

What reasons can be giving for denying certain people certain things?

As far as one can imagine, none. The main problem I have with it is the
word "universal".
Universal, to me, refers to every single man, woman and all in between, as a whole. Exempt of exemptions. But Ii can't see how this could be true in each and every case.

What if a single person's "Rights" are breached?
An extreme example, but one which can be discussed, is paedophilia.

As to what rights this act breaches will vary from person to person.
I am inclined to believe that anyone who forces sexual acts on children unequivocally deserves to die. This would breach the right to live..But Serves as beneficial to society.

Considering my Totalitarian Leanings, I feel that the State Should take precedence over everything else, specifically since it protects everything else. Anyone who breaches "rights" to he degree where it undermines or threatens the State should not be part of it.

Rights cannot be universal in my opinion, but subjective if it is necessary that they exist at all...
By CCJ
#475635
Falleen Prince Xizor wrote:How can you claim that people don't deserve to live (I'm assuming this is the most important "right" being suggested?


You can argue that some (such as the disabled or elderly) do not contribute to society, and, in fact, hold the progress of humanity back. I do not agree with this statement, but it can be argued.

As to what rights this act breaches will vary from person to person.
I am inclined to believe that anyone who forces sexual acts on children unequivocally deserves to die. This would breach the right to live.But Serves as beneficial to society.


Punishment is necessary, but they should not have their life revoked. Who are we, anyway, to say that one person to deserves to die?

NOTE: I don't have time to respond to FPX's post in full. I'll make an edit later, perhaps tommorrow.


[Vivisekt Edit ::] This is an extremely anorexic post. I'll let it stay up this one time, but subsequent posts of this nature will be deleted outright.
User avatar
By Falleen Prince Xizor
#475640
CCJ wrote:NOTE: I don't have time to respond to FPX's post in full. I'll make an edit later, perhaps tommorrow.


Ok...I'll take the initiative and continue regardless!


CCJ wrote:You can argue that some (such as the disabled or elderly) do not contribute to society, and, in fact, hold the progress of humanity back. I do not agree with this statement, but it can be argued.


that's what I'm arguing... I'm not saying that they should die just because they hold-back the state. What i'm saying is that their inability should reduce their access to inalieable and universal rights.

These "rights" could well have to be earned.

CCJ wrote:Punishment is necessary, but they should not have their life revoked. Who are we, anyway, to say that one person to deserves to die?



We are nobody, I agree. The individual in nothing but i reiterate my point that if someone has made such a disaster of their lives and the lives of those around them and thus society: They Shouldn't be in society.
By Saf
#475710
The notion that each of us, as humans, are entitled to any number of universal and unconditional rights is a markedly Judaeo-Christian tradition that has been engrained in us to the point that it has become not only a faux pas, but - for many - totally incomprehensible to disagree with. That being said, I will attempt to disprove this flawed notion through some specific examples.

When one is in need of a new pair of footware, one goes to the shoe store (or cobbler). Why does one go to this person? Because this person is a professional, the expert in her field. She is the best person suited for the job. One does not, then, when in need of a shoe, go to the register worker at McDonald's, and enquire to see the latest Nikes. The man at the register will neither have the knowledge nor physical stock of Nikes to show you.

In fact, were a wide range of professionals offered - doctors, lawyers, chefs, politicians, and, finally, shoe salesmen and cobblers - the reasonable man would chose to speak with the shoe salesman or cobbler about a new pair of shoes. While your doctor may have an interest in running, and, therefore, know a lot about running shoes, he does not have the experience in producing/buying shoes as does the salesperson/cobbler. While advice from your doctor may be handy and applicable, the person best suited to the job is the salesperson/cobbler.

Let us, then, apply this to the right to vote and put it in a logical argument:
P1: One who is most suited and trained for a craft is called a professional.
P2: When one needs a good or service, the correct person to call upon is a professional of the field in question.
P3: Those neither properly suited for nor educated in a task should not be sought for assisstance therein.
I4: Therefore, only those suited and equipped for political life are "professionals" in the field of politics.
I5: Moreover, only those who are professionals in the field of politics should vote.
C6: Voter registration should require a test of the voter's knowledge of politics.

So you see that the right to vote, of which the democratist speaks so highly, is completely illogical, and is one of many so-called universal human rights that should not be handed out so lightly.
Last edited by Saf on 12 Oct 2004 04:49, edited 1 time in total.
By Lejonet från Norden
#475808
Vivisekt wrote:"There are absolute, universal rights/truths that all citizens around the world must be guaranteed. Generally, they are based in morality, ethics and logic - therefore superseding all other beliefs, ideals, culture, religion, and in some cases, law."


Disagree on a few things.

I will opine.
All members of our species have been endowed with rights that have been accept as by others of our species (not all, though). Assuming these rights are created by man, then how can they then supercede other things created by man, such as law? In order to supercede other man-made things, they (the rights/truths) must've been set by something greater than man. To argue this point one must prove the existance of such a being or thing, that can set such rights and truths above that which man has set already.

Nay, I say man sets these "universal rights" and declares them occording to his own moral and ethical code. In early America, all humans had the "right to life, liberty and persuit of happiness" except those who happened to be born into slavery, they were 'naturaly' exempt from these 'universal rights'. The men back then didn't consider the slave to have equal rights to him because it wasn't in the mans moral or ethical character to deem the slave as equal to himself.

We all have "rights," but they aren't universal, and sure aren't handed by a higher being; rather they are decided upon by man. We have these rights (such as the right to life) unless we break a law that is heinous enough to warrant the termination of said life - such is agreed upon by men.

"There are absolute, universal rights/truths that all citizens around the world must be guaranteed."


This sentence deduces that all citizens around the world are equal, and deserve the same rights/treatment as one another. This is not the case. Just in the case as "right to life," a mass-murderer doesn't deserve the same rights and treatment as a new-born child. They don't have the same "right to life." The "right to liberty" for this murderer must also be abolished to some extent. Should he have the liberty to wonder the streets looking for more victims?

Why must they be guaranteed?
Agian, to argue for this, one must argue universal equality.

"Generally, they are based in morality, ethics and logic - therefore superseding all other beliefs, ideals, culture, religion, and in some cases, law."


How can these laws be universal when morality and ethics (sometimes even logic) aren't universal to all men? Most groups of societies have different morals and ethics than the next. One man's logic is may not be the same for the next man. How can these "Universal Rights" based on these three things then be truely universal?

Gör ert bästa!
By CCJ
#475988
Lejonet frÃ¥n Norden wrote:All members of our species have been endowed with rights that have been accept as by others of our species (not all, though). Assuming these rights are created by man, then how can they then supercede other things created by man, such as law? In order to supercede other man-made things, they (the rights/truths) must've been set by something greater than man. To argue this point one must prove the existance of such a being or thing, that can set such rights and truths above that which man has set already.


I do not understand the connection between the creation of rights by something or someone greater than humankind. The existance of something not created by humanity does not deem it the creation of a superbeing or something of the like. For example, it is commonly agreed that life came about on Earth through evolution, it was not granted by some greater power.

I believe that human rights came about through cultural evolution/adaptation, common sense.

Since its creation, humans have lived in groups for mutual protection and aid. Since every member of the group was neccessary for survival (the elderly were left behind if the could not keep up, I think) it would be stupid to kill someone else. Thus, when one member of the group killed another member of the group, this action was an action against the group as a whole. Thus the rise of the right to live. As human culture evolved, the elderly became more valued because of the wisdom and experience, and thus the elderly became included into the picture of having the right to live. Therefore, one can argue that the right to live, and/or other human rights were derived from contribution to society. Since almost all humans contribute to their respective societies in one way or another all humans are endowed with certain unalienable rights.

Nay, I say man sets these "universal rights" and declares them occording to his own moral and ethical code. In early America, all humans had the "right to life, liberty and persuit of happiness" except those who happened to be born into slavery, they were 'naturaly' exempt from these 'universal rights'.


Slavery (and the deprivation of human rights to others) arose from capitalism. The ruling classes of Europe, smelling revolution, wanted to continue their position as the rich and oppressors. Thus they pitched the "non-whites" against the "poor whites" for hundreds of years. This also contributed to racism. Therefore, the breaching of human rights for the African Americans (and, throughout history, other peoples as well) is a economico-political phenominon, as opposed to one in regards to protecting the rights of others. Simply because the rights of one group were breached, however, does not mean that they their rights do not or did not exist in the first place.

The men back then didn't consider the slave to have equal rights to him because it wasn't in the mans moral or ethical character to deem the slave as equal to himself.


These were only the justfications that the ruling classes/"whites" made to justify their moral actions. This is part of what is called "justication after the fact". Humans, naturally, do not want to feel guilt so they make up excuses or "moral justifications" that do not usually make sense.

We all have "rights," but they aren't universal, and sure aren't handed by a higher being; rather they are decided upon by man. We have these rights (such as the right to life) unless we break a law that is heinous enough to warrant the termination of said life - such is agreed upon by men.


Universal can also mean that all humans have rights. These rights do not have to be "handed by a higher being", but this doesn't mean that they are decided upon solely by man. These rights are embedded in the subconcious of humanity, and this cannot be escaped.

This sentence deduces that all citizens around the world are equal, and deserve the same rights/treatment as one another. This is not the case. Just in the case as "right to life," a mass-murderer doesn't deserve the same rights and treatment as a new-born child.


A mass-murderer has destroyed part of society and inhibited its capability to function. A newborn child causes attention to be redirected towards it and thus inhibits the capability of the society to function as well. They are both on the same level, though the mass-murderer has made a concious choice to harm the productivity of society. Thus the mass-murderer must be punished. This does not mean he must be killed. All people are human, and thus must be treated as such. If we deny universal human rights then we deny the humanity of the human race.
By Saf
#476054
Counter-Corporate Jujitsu wrote:A mass-murderer has destroyed part of society and inhibited its capability to function... [T]he mass-murderer has made a concious choice to harm the productivity of society. Thus the mass-murderer must be punished... All people are human, and thus must be treated as such. If we deny universal human rights then we deny the humanity of the human race.


You can't have it both ways. You are trying to argue that, NO MATTER WHAT, superceding ALL laws and customs, humans must be given these rights. Then you turn around and say that because of an action performed, these rights may be denied? You need to pick one side or the other. Inalieable rights cannot be denied for any reason; rights merely codified by law, though, may be taken away at the whim of the State.

P1: Humans are endowed with certain rights that must NEVER be denied.
I2: Therefore, even if someone commits a heinous crime, NO ONE has the right to deny them their basic human freedoms.
C3: Mass murderers should not be killed, imprisoned, fined, or punished in any way.

This is the only logical way to continue with your argument that rights may not be taken away. So, I hope you realise that you are arguing for a society in which we may rape, pillage, murder, steal, and destroy each at our own leisure.
By CCJ
#476199
Saf wrote:You can't have it both ways. You are trying to argue that, NO MATTER WHAT, superceding ALL laws and customs, humans must be given these rights. Then you turn around and say that because of an action performed, these rights may be denied? You need to pick one side or the other. Inalieable rights cannot be denied for any reason; rights merely codified by law, though, may be taken away at the whim of the State.


I said that the mass murder must be punished. I never said how. You assumed that I meant that he should be killed or imprisoned. I did not mean that. The mass murderer could be kicked out of the society to which he belonged. There is a difference between punishment and the denial of human rights. I hope you realize that you are arguing for a world in which any group of people can be called unhuman and then murdered by the thousands.
By Lejonet från Norden
#476224
I do not understand the connection between the creation of rights by something or someone greater than humankind. The existance of something not created by humanity does not deem it the creation of a superbeing or something of the like. For example, it is commonly agreed that life came about on Earth through evolution, it was not granted by some greater power.


I disagree. I don't think most people on Earth believe in the theory of evolution. Most people are religious or semi-religious, but hardly any are strict evolutionists. Evolution has yet to be proven.

On to the other topic of the connection between something greater. A law with is founded by God (Allah, Jehova, etc.) is concrete and cannot be overturned by man, for man is a lesser being and mans laws pale in comparison - thus theologians and religious people believe. *note I am not arguing in favor of this way of thinking* Going on one document in particular, the Constitution of the USA, it states the these rights are universal because they were endowed by the creator. My point was that if one is to argue that, they must first present proof of said creator.

I believe that human rights came about through cultural evolution/adaptation, common sense.


I consider these man-made, and thus can be superceded by law, custom and morals of said culture.

Since its creation, humans have lived in groups for mutual protection and aid. Since every member of the group was neccessary for survival (the elderly were left behind if the could not keep up, I think) it would be stupid to kill someone else. Thus, when one member of the group killed another member of the group, this action was an action against the group as a whole.


Not in all cases. Remember man is still an animal at this point, and is subject to the heirarchy of dominance. One male may have killed the dominate male in competition to become alpha-male. This type of killing would be accepted by the group, for they would want the strongest to lead. A group has a better chance at survival with the strongest leader.

Thus the rise of the right to live.


I don't think they thought that way.
*Note, we don't know how they thought back then, it's a guessing game. This is my opinion.*
I think they thought one had the right to live under the protection of the group if one did his/her share of work and was not a burden upon the group. If one became a burden or broken some mores or commited a crime, they they would be cast out or killed. (Outcasting someone was tantamount to killing them, back then)

As human culture evolved, the elderly became more valued because of the wisdom and experience, and thus the elderly became included into the picture of having the right to live.


The right to live that wasn't universal. They had the "right" like all others. This right didn't supercede the laws, customes, mores, and traditions of the society. Thus, these people didn't have universal rights.

Therefore, one can argue that the right to live, and/or other human rights were derived from contribution to society. Since almost all humans contribute to their respective societies in one way or another all humans are endowed with certain unalienable rights.


Yes, created by men to conform to their own ethical code. Though all men don't have the same laws, ethics, mores, and morals (etc.) - thus these can't be UNIVERSAL RIGHTS.

Slavery (and the deprivation of human rights to others) arose from capitalism. The ruling classes of Europe, smelling revolution, wanted to continue their position as the rich and oppressors. Thus they pitched the "non-whites" against the "poor whites" for hundreds of years. This also contributed to racism. Therefore, the breaching of human rights for the African Americans (and, throughout history, other peoples as well) is a economico-political phenominon, as opposed to one in regards to protecting the rights of others. Simply because the rights of one group were breached, however, does not mean that they their rights do not or did not exist in the first place.


I disagree. The rights weren't there because man didn't decide to deem them the rights, based on their ethics and morals at the time.

These were only the justfications that the ruling classes/"whites" made to justify their moral actions. This is part of what is called "justication after the fact". Humans, naturally, do not want to feel guilt so they make up excuses or "moral justifications" that do not usually make sense.


It was their morals. The "Universal Rights" are made by men according to their morals, ethics and logic. Thus their 'justifications' were indeed correct for their times. Now, we have different ethics, but we shouldn't judge the past actions of people based on our present moral standards.

Universal can also mean that all humans have rights. These rights do not have to be "handed by a higher being", but this doesn't mean that they are decided upon solely by man. These rights are embedded in the subconcious of humanity, and this cannot be escaped.


If all of these rights were embedded within mankind, then all man would have the same view on these rights. This is not the case. All men don't agree on these rights. They are choosen by groups of officials that have a certain moral and ethical outlook on life and other human beings. Many people see things totally different. How would these rights be embedded?

A mass-murderer has destroyed part of society and inhibited its capability to function. A newborn child causes attention to be redirected towards it and thus inhibits the capability of the society to function as well. They are both on the same level, though the mass-murderer has made a concious choice to harm the productivity of society. Thus the mass-murderer must be punished. This does not mean he must be killed. All people are human, and thus must be treated as such. If we deny universal human rights then we deny the humanity of the human race.


Perhaps your own view on humanity is clouding your opinion on this matter. I see humanity as a vicious animal that has (over many years) contained himself within society, with rules, ethics, morals (etc.) and that at our nature we are still a caged animal. Do you mean to say that if a person denies another his human rights that that person is dening his or the victims humanity? How can either be anything but human? Hitler definately was human, he had his own morals, he probably thought he was an ethical man - he didn't view these rights as "universal" (i.e., granted to all).

My point on the murder was that he broke the law and mores of his society, thus his 'universal rights' became forfeit. What was made by men can be undone by men. The new-born still has his rights because he has done nothing to warrant the elimination of them, thus society deems him worthy of having the chance at life, and to be a productive member of said society.

En god, livlig debatt! Tack så mycket.
Thanks for the good challange and debate.
-+=+- Lejonet från Norden -+=+-
By CCJ
#476245
Lejonet frÃ¥n Norden wrote:Going on one document in particular, the Constitution of the USA, it states the these rights are universal because they were endowed by the creator. My point was that if one is to argue that, they must first present proof of said creator.


Please elaborate on what you are trying to say, I still do not understand this.

I consider these man-made, and thus can be superceded by law, custom and morals of said culture.


They can only be "superceded by law, custam and morals" is those inhabitants of said society allow them to. If they allow their government to remove their human rights, then they have allowed their human rights to be superceded by law.

The right to live that wasn't universal. They had the "right" like all others. This right didn't supercede the laws, customes, mores, and traditions of the society. Thus, these people didn't have universal rights.


Then I guess we are in agreement. Therefore, I see no reason to further debate you

Merci pour le bon challange et debat.
Thanks for the good challange and debate.
- CCJ

===================
Vous avez des questions. Nous avons le communisme.
You've got questions. We've got communism.
By Lejonet från Norden
#476259
Counter-Corporate Jujitsu wrote:Please elaborate on what you are trying to say, I still do not understand this.


An attempt at countering an usually argument that religious types make.
This doesn't nessecarily go towards yourself or anyone post herein, but it is a common thought and argument - that is, that god (or whatever) created man and set these universal rights within him. I counter this thought by wanting to know the proof behind such a being as a god.
Agian, this initially wasn't a debate centered on a person, rather a thought throughout society.

They can only be "superceded by law, custam and morals" is those inhabitants of said society allow them to. If they allow their government to remove their human rights, then they have allowed their human rights to be superceded by law.


Yes, I agree! The rights are thus made by man and agreed upon by men, according to their own standards, mores, and ethics. They allow man-made law to supercede man-made rights, because it is their best intrests. Thus, I am of the opinion that these rights aren't universal at all.

Then I guess we are in agreement. Therefore, I see no reason to further debate you.


Alright, sounds good to me.

-=- Lejonet från Norden -=-
By Korimyr the Rat
#476379
Saf wrote:Let us, then, apply this to the right to vote and put it in a logical argument:
P1: One who is most suited and trained for a craft is called a professional.
P2: When one needs a good or service, the correct person to call upon is a professional of the field in question.
P3: Those neither properly suited for nor educated in a task should not be sought for assisstance therein.
I4: Therefore, only those suited and equipped for political life are "professionals" in the field of politics.
I5: Moreover, only those who are professionals in the field of politics should vote.
C6: Voter registration should require a test of the voter's knowledge of politics.


In defense of democracy, I would like to attempt to counter your logic. In particular, starting with your I5: that only professionals in the field of politics should vote.

I believe, in reaching this inference, that you are comparing voting to being an active participant in politcs-- acting in the role of the professional.

I believe a more accurate comparison would be that voters are political customers-- they are proceeding to the ballot box in order to select the political professional they believe best suited to represent them and their interests.

Should a man with a broken shoe, then, be forced to ask another cobbler which cobbler's services he should seek? Such a service would quickly introduce an imbalance in cobblers' services available, and, depending on the biases of the cobblers doing the selection, could cut off perfectly viable, and even superior, methods of shoe-cobbling.

In this case, it would be better to allow the selection of cobblers to be made by the most logical group: the customers of the cobblers themselves. They may not know how to cobble their own shoes, but they do know what they would like the cobbler to do with their shoes-- they know, generally, what is broken and what makes them uncomfortable.

Saf wrote:So you see that the right to vote, of which the democratist speaks so highly, is completely illogical, and is one of many so-called universal human rights that should not be handed out so lightly.


I don't think I see that, actually. Nevertheless, like any of the other "inalienable" human rights discussed on this thread, there are clearly circumstances in which those rights can be superceded; it is therefore up for discussion whether or not there are circumstances in which they should be. (Counter-Corporate Jujitsu and Lejonet från Nordern seem to have that discussion well in-hand.)
By Saf
#476486
Counter-Corporate Jujitsu wrote:The mass murderer could be kicked out of the society to which he belonged.


Now you have made it true that ANYONE can be removed forcibly from their home and society. Because you have allowed this exception, you have chosen to do away with the rule that says people will not be forced to become refugees, so anyone can be kicked out of their society. There may be laws preventing it, but it's perfectly ethical to force someone out of an area.




Korimyr the Rat wrote: In defence of democracy, I would like to attempt to counter your logic. In particular, starting with your I5: that only professionals in the field of politics should vote.

I believe, in reaching this inference, that you are comparing voting to being an active participant in politcs-- acting in the role of the professional.

I believe a more accurate comparison would be that voters are political customers-- they are proceeding to the ballot box in order to select the political professional they believe best suited to represent them and their interests.

Should a man with a broken shoe, then, be forced to ask another cobbler which cobbler's services he should seek? Such a service would quickly introduce an imbalance in cobblers' services available, and, depending on the biases of the cobblers doing the selection, could cut off perfectly viable, and even superior, methods of shoe-cobbling.

In this case, it would be better to allow the selection of cobblers to be made by the most logical group: the customers of the cobblers themselves. They may not know how to cobble their own shoes, but they do know what they would like the cobbler to do with their shoes-- they know, generally, what is broken and what makes them uncomfortable.


Okay, I see where you're coming from, but let's continue with the shoe analogy.

Imagine (suspend your disbelief) a person who has never seen, heard of, worn nor owned a pair of shoes. This person, one day, hears of this great invention of shoes, and learns a little bit about it: you buy them in pairs, they go on your feet, and there are different kinds. They really know little about shoes.

Now, let's say this person is a lowly peasant who needs a sturdy pair of shoes for his work in the countryside. If he goes to see the shoe salesmen, each will try to sell him a shoe: "Buy this Nike running shoe, it's the best - I'm a shoe salesman, and I know what I'm talking about!" "No, buy these Timberland boots: they're perfectly suited for the out of doors." "Friend, you need this pair of sandals. They're comfortable and stylish - the perfect shoes!"

Having never owned shoes, the man might think, "Hmm, I bet those sandals are nice. The man trying to get me to buy them was the most convincing." Thus, he buys sandals, but they are ill-suited to the task at hand.

Translating this into the voting system:
As a child, we know next to nothing of politics. Slowly, we learn little by little until we know it exists, there is a president, etc. When we go to vote, we are baraged by advertisements (forgive me for only using USA examples, I do not get Canadian/British/etc. TV channels): Don't vote Kerry, he was a bad Vietnam soldier. Don't vote Bush, he skipped his Air Nat'l Guard Duty. Vote Bush, he's hard on terror. Vote Kerry, because Bush racks up the national debt. Who do you trust? How much is accurate? Completely ignorant, the voter goes to the polls and casts a vote for whomever speaks to their interests and advertises well - even if all they advertise is a lie.

Because you and I know what we want in a shoe and how different shoes are suited for different things, we know to buy work boots for field work, Nikes (or whichever) for running and sandals for comfort. Because I know I support the idea of a welfare state, I know to vote for left-leaning candidates. But because ~50% of Americans think that Iraq caused 9/11, the right to vote must not be given out freely.

(NOTE: I hate not backing my sources - I don't know if that's the exact percentage, and I don't know where I heard it. If anyone else has heard of this statistic/can back it up, please let me know!)



[Vivisekt Edit ::] Do not double-post. I have condensed both of your posts into this one.
By Korimyr the Rat
#476555
Saf wrote:
Counter-Corporate Jujitsu wrote:The mass murderer could be kicked out of the society to which he belonged.


Now you have made it true that ANYONE can be removed forcibly from their home and society. Because you have allowed this exception, you have chosen to do away with the rule that says people will not be forced to become refugees, so anyone can be kicked out of their society. There may be laws preventing it, but it's perfectly ethical to force someone out of an area.


This is why, instead of beginning from absolute ethical principles of government, such as "rights", governments (and in democratic governments, the people) must base their laws around general societal goals and rules-systems which promote them.

For instance, because we want the vast majority of citizens to survive, we create laws that will promote the general survival of those citizens-- even if those laws themselves do not protect every citizen, or even if those laws themselves call for the deaths of a small subset of citizens. (For instance, to use a logical example, calling for the deaths of those that kill other cititzens.)

Because we do not wish to endure what we label "oppression", we create systems of laws which do not allow certain acts which we label "oppressive"-- essentially, we create governments based around the principles of the liberal thinkers of the 18th century. That they phrased their ideals in the absolutist language of God-given human rights is unfortunate; in order to reconcile the impossibility of universal respect for the rights to life, liberty, and property, we make them conditional-- which means we invalidate them in certain cases, without discussing why or when it is acceptable to do so.

This leaves us in an untenable position: we violate some peoples' rights, by necessity, but we cannot explain why this is acceptable by the terms of our governing principles. This gives us no logical ground to argue for or against some new law, which would, by necessity, violate the rights of some individuals, because we can only default to one of two mutually exclusive (and irrational) positions; we either cannot violate the rights of some citizens, despite the fact that we do so in other situations, or we can violate the rights of those citizens, despite the fact that those rights are moral absolutes.

Saf wrote:Imagine (suspend your disbelief) a person who has never seen, heard of, worn nor owned a pair of shoes. This person, one day, hears of this great invention of shoes, and learns a little bit about it: you buy them in pairs, they go on your feet, and there are different kinds. They really know little about shoes.

Now, let's say this person is a lowly peasant who needs a sturdy pair of shoes for his work in the countryside. If he goes to see the shoe salesmen, each will try to sell him a shoe: "Buy this Nike running shoe, it's the best - I'm a shoe salesman, and I know what I'm talking about!" "No, buy these Timberland boots: they're perfectly suited for the out of doors." "Friend, you need this pair of sandals. They're comfortable and stylish - the perfect shoes!"

Having never owned shoes, the man might think, "Hmm, I bet those sandals are nice. The man trying to get me to buy them was the most convincing." Thus, he buys sandals, but they are ill-suited to the task at hand.


In this example, you have detailed how the same professionals, which you say we should rely upon, have either intentionally misled this man, or have sold him the wrong shoes out of ignorance of his condition. In either case, they have done so in favor of their own best interests-- selling him shoes from their own stock.

How is his plight lessened by taking another shoe professional, who will likewise have his own interests, and having him decide for the peasant which shoes to buy? By what special virtue is he any more knowledgeable of the peasant's footwear needs (since the other salesmen know shoes as well as he does), or any more impartial than they are?

You have not, in your analogy, demonstrated in any fashion how restricting shoe-purchasing decisions to shoe professionals will make certain that each person has the shoes ideally suited to their needs; at best, your system would ensure that every person would own and wear the shoes best suited to the needs of shoe salesmen.

And that is assuming that shoe professionals are unfailingly honest and well-intentioned-- which your own example argues against.

Saf wrote:Because I know I support the idea of a welfare state, I know to vote for left-leaning candidates. But because ~50% of Americans think that Iraq caused 9/11, the right to vote must not be given out freely.


This is an example of a perversion of the society that our liberal forefathers attempted to form. They knew that their ideal society required well-educated and well-informed citizens in order to function, and made efforts to ensure that society would be well-educated and well-informed. (Both public schooling and the right of the free press are oriented toward that goal.)

However, and unfortunately, a well-educated and well-informed citizenry is a headache for any ruling class, who will, at times, seek to promote their own welfare over that of the whole. Over time, they've worked to erode the efficacy of both the schools and the media, until such grotesque parodies of the well-informed citizenry as your quoted statistic became possible.

The solution is not to remove the ignorant from the governing process, as that would only reinforce the position of the people who have created the ignorant; it would give them an even smaller constituency that they must please to retain power, and by gradually corrupting the new system, they will even gain the power to handpick that constituency.

This system would only serve to reduce the accountability of those in power-- which when coupled with the reduction in restrictions against government power would mean that they have more power with less responsibility. That, as history tells us repeatedly, is a recipe for societal distaster.

Saf wrote:(NOTE: I hate not backing my sources - I don't know if that's the exact percentage, and I don't know where I heard it. If anyone else has heard of this statistic/can back it up, please let me know!)


Don't worry. I would rather argue against the principle of your argument than the specific support-- I can acknowledge the ignorance of the voting public without worrying about the exact measure of their ignorance on that specific topic.
By Saf
#476748
Korimyr the Rat wrote:This is why, instead of beginning from absolute ethical principles of government, such as "rights", governments (and in democratic governments, the people) must base their laws around general societal goals and rules-systems which promote them.


I think, then, we are in agreement. I mean this inasmuch as I have been taking the extremist position in this argument thusfar; in reality, it seems we both feel that while these rights cannot be taken to absolution, it is necessary and just to give them as often as possible to the citizenry.

[SF note: Please quote more selectively. Particularly when making such a short reply. I'll leave it to Vivisekt to decide what (if anything) to do with this post]

[Vivisekt Edit ::] I have reduced the quote to salience.

Saf Edit: Sorry guys, thanks for cleaning it up. ;)
Last edited by Saf on 14 Oct 2004 02:52, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By Falleen Prince Xizor
#476952
Korimyr the Rat wrote:we either cannot violate the rights of some citizens, despite the fact that we do so in other situations, or we can violate the rights of those citizens, despite the fact that those rights are moral absolutes.


I don't think they can, or should be moral absolutes.

Laws based on morality are, in my view, untenable as there is too much cause for misunderstanding or alternate interpretations.

The only way rights, if they must be universal, can be maintained is to legislate for them. If someone could devise a method of aligning all moral standings into a universal rights-system then so be it. As it stands Laws for the protection of basic rights are based on morality and religion.

France as an example - The banning of public religious displays in Public Displays, Which could be a violation of someone's right to believe waht they will.

It's either one law for everyone, or none at all... And as longas the scope for interference in others' lives and infringements on their rights such universality cannot be achieved.
By Korimyr the Rat
#476986
Falleen Prince Xizor wrote:I don't think they can, or should be moral absolutes.


My entire argument is that it is impossible for them to be so.

Falleen Prince Xizor wrote:Laws based on morality are, in my view, untenable as there is too much cause for misunderstanding or alternate interpretations.

The only way rights, if they must be universal, can be maintained is to legislate for them. If someone could devise a method of aligning all moral standings into a universal rights-system then so be it. As it stands Laws for the protection of basic rights are based on morality and religion.


I disagree; in general, laws protecting human rights are safeguards, requiring government accountability. By installing these safeguards, we are protecting social order and productivity from government excess. Morality and religion enter into it only as justifications.

Falleen Prince Xizor wrote:It's either one law for everyone, or none at all... And as long as the scope for interference in others' lives and infringements on their rights such universality cannot be achieved.


While the universal applicability of law is a noble ideal, I'm not entirely certain that it is possible. However, the closer we get to that goal, the more effectively the law works.
User avatar
By Falleen Prince Xizor
#477022
I disagree; in general, laws protecting human rights are safeguards, requiring government accountability. By installing these safeguards, we are protecting social order and productivity from government excess. Morality and religion enter into it only as justifications.


Religion is more than an afterthought.
religion, in my experience, is the princeple driving force in creating rights-protecting legislation..as well as all other legislation.

Abortion is illegal in Ireland purely because of the Catholic interpretaion of the Bible. This infringes on the mother's right to live her life as she chooses...but aslo, conversely on the unborn baby's right to be born and live.

Divorce too is illegal for the same reason. God said it was wrong apparently.

These laws protect and undermine rights in equal amounts.

the Government's excess, as I'd imagine it, is to focus too heavily on basing legislation on what's "Supposed" to be correct as opposed to what infringes minimally on people's rights.

While the universal applicability of law is a noble ideal, I'm not entirely certain that it is possible


Unless you can divide human rights between classes of humanity ; create a palpable class-divide, then it has to serve all...or indeed none...
By Korimyr the Rat
#477158
Falleen Prince Xizor wrote:
Korimyr the Rat wrote:While the universal applicability of law is a noble ideal, I'm not entirely certain that it is possible


Unless you can divide human rights between classes of humanity ; create a palpable class-divide, then it has to serve all...or indeed none...


I would argue that we are best served by attempting to dismantle this class-divide as much as possible, and removing its imbalancing influence on the universal (and equal) enforcement of law.

Like progress in general, however, progress in this field is never complete. There is always room for improvement.

@Rugoz A compromise with Putin is impossibl[…]

@KurtFF8 Litwin wages a psyops war here but we […]

[usermention=41202] @late[/usermention] The[…]

I (still) have a dream

Because the child's cattle-like parents "fol[…]