What rights do human beings have?

[arunangelo]

What rights do human beings have?
Since God created us, we belong to Him. We, therefore, on our own do not have any right. We, however, have certain values that God instilled in us over which He gives us rights. They include: life, freedom, desire for Him and dignity. God gives us life;therefore, no one should destroy human life and human life must be protected at all stages of its existence. Protection of human life requires appropriate laws, and provision for food, shelter and health care. God gives us freedom to choose, so that we may have His peace and joy by accepting His life of unconditional love. No one should, therefore, deprive another human being of freedom. God gives us a desire to love Him and be one with Him. No one should, therefore, interfere with another person's religious life or worship. God gave us dignity by creating us in His own divine image(Genesis 1:27) ; giving us His Spirit (ability to love) (Ezekiel 36:27); and by becoming our Father (Matthew 6:9). We must, therefore, respect the dignity of every human being and treat them as our own brothers and sisters.

[JoeyKnothead]

Missed some of realthinker's points...

Describe for me, in real terms regarding their execution in daily life, what a right is.

I have the right to live my life as I see fit. No church on Sunday/Wednesday/Friday? No problem for me. Right to pee off my back deck if I don't wanna walk down the hall? No problem for me. Right to drink myself into oblivion in the comfort of my own home? No problem for me, unless I live in an area where religious fundamentalists have suppressed my right to buy beer on Sunday, in clear violation of the separation of church and state. But that's surmountable, there's plenty bootleggers up and down the road, freedom finds a way!

And when you're done with that, show me how it's valid with respect to the principle forms of social organization and government that have been known throughout history.

Huh? Where society or government has oppressed the rights of others, I can't help all that. What I can do now though, is continue to speak out against the oppressors, point them out, and fight them with every means at my disposal.

Yet you'll live with the rights that your government recognizes, won't you? And when you go somewhere outside your borders you'll live with the rights that are described, acknowledged, and enforced there, won't you?

My government has decided to suppress my right to smoke pot. Thus, I either buy it in flagrant disregard to the oppressors, or grow it in my closet. When I was stationed in Germany, I would go down to Frankfurt, or Giessen, or any of several other towns to buy hash. I will not let my rights be infringed if I have the means to fight back. Never. As I noted before I will willing cede my rights when it can be shown to be for the greater good.

[realthinker]

Missed some of realthinker's points...

Describe for me, in real terms regarding their execution in daily life, what a right is.

I have the right to live my life as I see fit. No church on Sunday/Wednesday/Friday? No problem for me. Right to pee off my back deck if I don't wanna walk down the hall? No problem for me. Right to drink myself into oblivion in the comfort of my own home? No problem for me, unless I live in an area where religious fundamentalists have suppressed my right to buy beer on Sunday, in clear violation of the separation of church and state. But that's surmountable, there's plenty bootleggers up and down the road, freedom finds a way!

You've given examples, not told us what you think a right is. Much like the discussion of God. What is it? I've given a definition, in workable terms, what I think a "right" refers to. It's part of the social contact, formalized in law or exercised as convention, that describes acceptable behavior and the proper treatment of those part of the social contract. It's a little loose, but it gets the point across. Try to put some definition to what you're referring to. It sounds to me that any imaginable human behavior is a right, the way you describe it. If that's so, why label it?

And when you're done with that, show me how it's valid with respect to the principle forms of social organization and government that have been known throughout history.

Huh? Where society or government has oppressed the rights of others, I can't help all that. What I can do now though, is continue to speak out against the oppressors, point them out, and fight them with every means at my disposal.

What I'm asking is for you to compare and contrast your notion of rights to the way rights have been recognized and exercised under well-known instances of social contract. Is your notion of rights compatible with real-life exercise of human rights?

Yet you'll live with the rights that your government recognizes, won't you? And when you go somewhere outside your borders you'll live with the rights that are described, acknowledged, and enforced there, won't you?

My government has decided to suppress my right to smoke pot. Thus, I either buy it in flagrant disregard to the oppressors, or grow it in my closet. When I was stationed in Germany, I would go down to Frankfurt, or Giessen, or any of several other towns to buy hash. I will not let my rights be infringed if I have the means to fight back. Never. As I noted before I will willing cede my rights when it can be shown to be for the greater good.

I see that differently. You have decided to uphold the social contract that you agree to by being a citizen by not smoking pot, or to break that contract willingly to the point that you can do so without a great deal of risk to your freedom. You're not ceding your rights. You are likely, in general, living up to the conditions of being part of the social organization around you. You may not like all of the consequences of it, but the alternative is likely incarceration or deportation, or your decision to emigrate. And likely there are rights you have where you are that outweigh the option of emigration.

[JoeyKnothead]

Rights, from wikipedia, with my bolding:

There are two general concepts of rights, the idea of natural rights, which holds that we obtain certain rights from nature that cannot be legitimately modified by any legislative authority, and the idea of legal rights which holds that all rights are arbitrary, created by legislative authority and always subject to change...

In modern English and European systems of jurisprudence and law, a right is the legal or moral entitlement to do or refrain from doing something or to obtain or refrain from obtaining an action, thing or recognition in civil society. Compare with duty, referring to behaviour that is expected or required of the person, and with privilege, referring to something that can be conferred and revoked.

I'm in the natural rights camp. I believe all rights are 'granted' by nature, in that we are free to do as we please, until it infringes on the rights of others. I reject any notion that says my rights can be revoked, but I accept my privileges may be (losing license when found DUI).

Many may very well believe that rights are part of a social contract, but I don't like how that appears. My rights are mine, and only when I can be given just cause will I cede them to societal contract. Where some see society granting all rights, I fervently disagree, and say society can only restrict rights, as all rights are universal and natural.

Try to put some definition to what you're referring to. It sounds to me that any imaginable human behavior is a right, the way you describe it. If that's so, why label it?

Exactly, humans have the right to do anything they please, when they please, and how they please (without harming other's rights). Only when society interferes with this order can we begin to understand what rights are. Where society deems a behavior unacceptable, then it may very well restrict the rights of folks to do as they please. But it can never grant the rights involved with doing as one pleases, because they are born into these rights.

What I'm asking is for you to compare and contrast your notion of rights to the way rights have been recognized and exercised under well-known instances of social contract. Is your notion of rights compatible with real-life exercise of human rights?

African folks were doing their thing living there in Africa. Then along come folks who captured them and turned them into slaves. These folks had their freedom yanked out from under them, and were oppressed to a horrible degree. This is incompatible with the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Jewish folks, among others, in Germany were rounded up and killed just because they were Jewish. This has been recognized as one of the greatest horrors in history, along with the enslavement of so many Africans above. This action against the Jewish people was a clear violation of their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
So no, my notion of human rights is incompatible with these two examples. That does not make this notion incorrect. Were people are oppressed, this is a direct attack on my rights, as there oppression is a threat to my rights as well. If only one man is correct, is he wrong just by the sheer volume of those who disagree? Nope.

I see that differently. You have decided to uphold the social contract that you agree to by being a citizen by not smoking pot, or to break that contract willingly to the point that you can do so without a great deal of risk to your freedom. You're not ceding your rights. You are likely, in general, living up to the conditions of being part of the social organization around you. You may not like all of the consequences of it, but the alternative is likely incarceration or deportation, or your decision to emigrate. And likely there are rights you have where you are that outweigh the option of emigration.

We do see it differently, and this is why I debate this issue so strongly. Society has broken the contract, not me. Where society has attempted to restrict my rights, I have skirted, broken, and thumbed my nose at those laws. I've done so in a manner to not get thrown in jail, where my disregard for these laws would be further suppressed. I am fighting against oppressive laws and winning. Every time I smoke, I am poking my finger in the eye of the oppressors. Where I have been deemed a criminal for my nonviolent, nonoppressive, free willed behavior, I have continually, repeatedly, and with malice aforethought fought back with my actions. I will continue to do so for as long as I enjoy toking up. Only when I decide I don't want to do so will I ever think about not doing so.

As I stated before, you seem to accept society could ever grant you rights, while I see it as society can only ever restrict my rights. I think there is real danger in the notion that society can grant you rights, as such thinking infers we have no rights to begin with.

As I've shown above, society can and will suppress or 'rescind' one's rights, and this is why it is important we declare our rights as separate, preexisting from society. In this way can hold society to account when it does try to suppress our rights. Never accept that society can dole out rights to you on its whim. Demand your rights as separate, and your own. Cede them when it is in the greater good, but always keep an eye on them, and when it is no longer viable to cede them, demand them back, as they were yours to begin with. Only ever loan your rights to society, and demand society treat them with respect and care. And if society does not, then take them back, because each alone is the best caretaker of their rights.

[Sjoerd]

Demand your rights as separate, and your own. Cede them when it is in the greater good, but always keep an eye on them, and when it is no longer viable to cede them, demand them back, as they were yours to begin with. Only ever loan your rights to society, and demand society treat them with respect and care. And if society does not, then take them back, because each alone is the best caretaker of their rights.

In most situations I can agree with that attitude (freedom of speech, pot smoking, ).
But in some cases it can lead to some big problems.
What about people who refuse to pay taxes? Or, for that matter, who refuse to get their children vaccinated?
Is it their right to refuse? Can they take away this authority from society, the authority to spend part of their money, the authority to take a medical decision?
The state takes away many freedoms, sometimes for people's own good (vaccinations), and usually for the general good but for the people's own bad (taxes). This is to prevent people from shirking their duties. And these duties we have to decide together, in a social contract. Not everyman for himself.

[JoeyKnothead]

Demand your rights as separate, and your own. Cede them when it is in the greater good, but always keep an eye on them, and when it is no longer viable to cede them, demand them back, as they were yours to begin with. Only ever loan your rights to society, and demand society treat them with respect and care. And if society does not, then take them back, because each alone is the best caretaker of their rights.

In most situations I can agree with that attitude (freedom of speech, pot smoking, ).
But in some cases it can lead to some big problems.
What about people who refuse to pay taxes? Or, for that matter, who refuse to get their children vaccinated?
Is it their right to refuse? Can they take away this authority from society, the authority to spend part of their money, the authority to take a medical decision?
The state takes away many freedoms, sometimes for people's own good (vaccinations), and usually for the general good but for the people's own bad (taxes). This is to prevent people from shirking their duties. And these duties we have to decide together, in a social contract. Not everyman for himself.

Where a person feels their rights have been violated, then I encourage them to speak up and act up to defend them. Choose your battles, but battle against the oppressors whenever, and wherever you can.

[Sjoerd]

Where a person feels their rights have been violated, then I encourage them to speak up and act up to defend them. Choose your battles, but battle against the oppressors whenever, and wherever you can.

From the article here:
http://canadianpress.google.com/article ... _Rx9RsfuVg

When immunizations are not accepted on religious grounds, the consequences can affect others. Now this concerns the mumps, but what if they are for wicked, nasty, deadly diseases?

Questions:
Let's require that immunizations are proven to 99% effective, and free to all.

1- Should religious people be allowed to withhold vaccination from their children?
2- Is withholding immunization from children child abuse?
3- Should those who don't get immunized be quarantined?

Me:
1- No, the health of the child should always come first.
2- Yes, withholding medical care from a child is child abuse.
3- Yes, just because you don't want to be immunized from a disease does not mean I should be exposed to it.

You can't have it both ways, Joey. Either you support people whenever they claim a right, including the right not to vaccinate, or you agree that some rights can be taken away by the state for the common good. Take your pick.

[realthinker]

Demand your rights as separate, and your own. Cede them when it is in the greater good, but always keep an eye on them, and when it is no longer viable to cede them, demand them back, as they were yours to begin with. Only ever loan your rights to society, and demand society treat them with respect and care. And if society does not, then take them back, because each alone is the best caretaker of their rights.

In most situations I can agree with that attitude (freedom of speech, pot smoking, ).
But in some cases it can lead to some big problems.
What about people who refuse to pay taxes? Or, for that matter, who refuse to get their children vaccinated?
Is it their right to refuse? Can they take away this authority from society, the authority to spend part of their money, the authority to take a medical decision?
The state takes away many freedoms, sometimes for people's own good (vaccinations), and usually for the general good but for the people's own bad (taxes). This is to prevent people from shirking their duties. And these duties we have to decide together, in a social contract. Not everyman for himself.

Where a person feels their rights have been violated, then I encourage them to speak up and act up to defend them. Choose your battles, but battle against the oppressors whenever, and wherever you can.

Your position appears to me to be inherently destabilizing. If you are encouraging everyone to defend their rights with equal vigor, you must assume that everyone understands their rights accurately and is also capable of understanding when their rights are being infringed upon or denied. I think you can imagine just from the conversations here that this is simply not the case. In those situations where someone misinformed or incapable of understanding, who is to be the arbitrator and what is the standard from which it is to be judged? It can only be from the cultural or legal reference. This suggests that the definition of rights is not from the individual, but from cultural or social convention.

[JoeyKnothead]

You can't have it both ways, Joey. Either you support people whenever they claim a right, including the right not to vaccinate, or you agree that some rights can be taken away by the state for the common good. Take your pick.

Where the actions, asserted as rights, of one (not vaccinating) are detrimental the the rights of others (maintaining health), then it is imperative they cede this right. Even on threat of force.

My whole line of argument has been based on posters saying that rights are granted by society/government, rather than inherent to the individual. As such I have maintained that rights can, and in specific cases should be ceded to society/government. In this event we should 'loan' our rights out for the betterment of society, but never totally let them go. As soon as the vaccination example is no longer necessary, then we should take back our rights to this particular medical decision.

Society, in ensuring that as many rights possible are not infringed, must sometimes demand that others give up their rights. When this is necessary to ensure the greater rights of society as a whole, then it can be a good thing, but it is open to abuse. This is why I will never fully cede any of my rights. I will let society maintain them, and if society fails to handle them with proper care and respect, I will take them back, because they belong to me.

If I violate the rights of someone, by taking their property by force, then it is for the greater rights of society that I risk losing some rights. Say I've created a violent felony, then I have dishonored the rights of another, and so I risk, and should lose, some of my rights as punishment. Where I honor my rights by honoring the rights of others, then society has no business trying to restrict my rights. This is why I disregard any law that does not honor my rights.

[realthinker]

You can't have it both ways, Joey. Either you support people whenever they claim a right, including the right not to vaccinate, or you agree that some rights can be taken away by the state for the common good. Take your pick.

Where the actions, asserted as rights, of one (not vaccinating) are detrimental the the rights of others (maintaining health), then it is imperative they cede this right. Even on threat of force.

My whole line of argument has been based on posters saying that rights are granted by society/government, rather than inherent to the individual. As such I have maintained that rights can, and in specific cases should be ceded to society/government. In this event we should 'loan' our rights out for the betterment of society, but never totally let them go. As soon as the vaccination example is no longer necessary, then we should take back our rights to this particular medical decision.

Society, in ensuring that as many rights possible are not infringed, must sometimes demand that others give up their rights.

So you're admitting that it is up to society to ultimately determine what rights someone has?

When this is necessary to ensure the greater rights of society as a whole, then it can be a good thing, but it is open to abuse. This is why I will never fully cede any of my rights. I will let society maintain them, and if society fails to handle them with proper care and respect, I will take them back, because they belong to me.

Actually, you'll settle for what you have until society decides that it's notion of rights has changed, or you'll be dissatisfied enough to cast yourself outside of society, whereupon you'll be punished or deported, or simply killed. Unless, that is, your society acknowledges that rights are from the people that make up the society and enough people exercise the social convention for changing their rights.

If I violate the rights of someone, by taking their property by force, then it is for the greater rights of society that I risk losing some rights. Say I've created a violent felony, then I have dishonored the rights of another, and so I risk, and should lose, some of my rights as punishment. Where I honor my rights by honoring the rights of others, then society has no business trying to restrict my rights. This is why I disregard any law that does not honor my rights.

[JoeyKnothead]

Where a person feels their rights have been violated, then I encourage them to speak up and act up to defend them. Choose your battles, but battle against the oppressors whenever, and wherever you can.

Your position appears to me to be inherently destabilizing. If you are encouraging everyone to defend their rights with equal vigor, you must assume that everyone understands their rights accurately and is also capable of understanding when their rights are being infringed upon or denied. I think you can imagine just from the conversations here that this is simply not the case. In those situations where someone misinformed or incapable of understanding, who is to be the arbitrator and what is the standard from which it is to be judged? It can only be from the cultural or legal reference. This suggests that the definition of rights is not from the individual, but from cultural or social convention.

It is oppression that is inherently destabilizing, as it creates fear and confusion. I am encouraging everyone to defend their rights with vigor, yes. I do not assume everyone knows their rights, and this is why a good education should be had by all, and is itself a right.
The standard by which rights are or should be judged is the standard of freedom. Where one feels their individual freedoms have been usurped, then it is incumbent on them to demand satisfaction. A cultural or legal reference can inform a 'rights' decision, but it is still up to all to keep close watch on not just their rights, but the rights of all.
The suggestion that rights are not from the individual, but from cultural or social convention is included in the wikipedia reference I cited before. So too is the suggestion that rights are natural, and my tent is clearly placed in the natural rights camp.

I reject any notion that rights are granted by society, the courts, or religious edict. I am born with my rights, and as such I will exercise them at my whim, not any other entities'. Where it is right, proper, and for the common good I will somewhat happily loose them. But the very minute I feel they are not being treated with the proper, reverential respect, I will take them back. I will only ever act in a manner that does not exercise them, I will never fully let them leave my care and comfort.