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.

[Sjoerd]

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.

I think I can agree with the way you put it now. But you should realize that this way of defining rights (as a synonym of freedoms rather than a set of claims) is a bit uncommon and that you can be easily misunderstood. And since you agree that society can have a right to take away others' rights, rights are not inalienable in your definition.

[realthinker]

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.

Two people chosing to exercise their similar rights on a scarce resource is unstable. One's rights must not be honored.

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.

You can only educate someone to a certain extent. Stupid is stupid, and the stupid have rights too, no? What of them? They get their rights, as they understand them oppressed unilaterally simply because they don't understand?

The standard by which rights are or should be judged is the standard of freedom.

OK, where is that standard written down? There is no standard if it's something open to interpretation by everyone. Most people wouldn't even know what you're talking about. Your statement is meaningless.

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.

[JoeyKnothead]

Two people chosing to exercise their similar rights on a scarce resource is unstable. One's rights must not be honored.

Agreed, and here reason, a willingness to compromise, and respect should rule the day.

You can only educate someone to a certain extent. Stupid is stupid, and the stupid have rights too, no? What of them? They get their rights, as they understand them oppressed unilaterally simply because they don't understand?

This is why we must also protect the rights of others.

OK, where is that standard written down? There is no standard if it's something open to interpretation by everyone. Most people wouldn't even know what you're talking about. Your statement is meaningless.

"We hold these truths to be self evident..." I can't help if folks don't understand what I'm talking about. I can only hope that some measure of understanding is able to seep through. Your statement that my statement is meaningless, is meaningless yet again to me. I have a full understanding of my rights, I can't be held responsible for others' not understanding theirs.

"The standard by which rights are or should be judged is the standard of freedom." To me is simple, and to the point. Yet it is profound in that it so easily sums up the standard by which people should hold their rights. Freedom. Bottom line, no fancy intellectual footwork, no seeking of Gods, no nothing. Just the profound fact that we should all hold our rights up to the light of freedom. Where the oppressor would seek to dim that light, fight back. Where the oppressor would seek to color that light with the filter of inequality, fight back. Where the oppressor would even think to extinguish one's rights by whim, fight back with all the strength you can muster.