Assumptions/issues that underly political debate

[phoenixfire]

A number of issues that are discussed seem to have a set of underlying assumptions that are not discussed. So I thought it would be insightful to discuss those assumptions, as it might make it easier to find a common basis for debating other issues.

1. How does one determine what constitutes a 'civil right' and why?

2. How does one determine what a 'basic human right' is and why?

3. When should government make a law regarding a specific issue, and when should it not? What is the purpose and goal of the law/government?

4. Is it possible to have 'value neutral' laws?

5. Is it theoretically possible to have a government/society that people of every religion and philosophical bent could agree was fair and didn't favor one group over another? Is it possible to have a harmonious pluralistic society, or do pluralistic societies always result in constant power struggles?

I'd be interested to hear opinions regarding these questions.

[ST88]

All excellent questions. I'll do my best to address them, but I make no promises as to their coherence.

1. How does one determine what constitutes a 'civil right' and why?
Without getting too much into the exact definition of a "right", a civil right is a right that applies to everyone under the jurisdiction of the government that states it. Regardless of any additional behavioral or genetic characteristics, if they are human, then the rights apply to them.

2. How does one determine what a 'basic human right' is and why?
We'd have to go back to the idea that there is such a thing as human dignity, that there are certain common denominators about being human in all its various forms, and that as a society we must respect that dignity.

3. When should government make a law regarding a specific issue, and when should it not? What is the purpose and goal of the law/government?
This is really an opinion question. I think the purpose of government is to protect citizens from various natural and man-made phenomenae, like business cycles, war, disease, asteroid strikes, telephone solicitation, etc.

4. Is it possible to have 'value neutral' laws?
Could you clarify what you mean here? Do you mean laws that are of themselves value-neutral, or laws that mandate value-neutralness?

5. Is it theoretically possible to have a government/society that people of every religion and philosophical bent could agree was fair and didn't favor one group over another? Is it possible to have a harmonious pluralistic society, or do pluralistic societies always result in constant power struggles?
Pluralistic societies will always have power struggles as long as the individual groups see themselves -- and other groups -- as somehow "separate" from others or from another distinct set of individuals. Religion encourages this by perpetuating the use of ideas like "heathen" and "infidel". If and when humanity becomes a singular society, this will not happen -- but such a society is highly unlikely. In my opinion, these power struggles are necessary if only to allow people to make up their minds about where they ultimately fall. The current dominance of the Right Wing in U.S. politics, for example, is good for anyone who is not on the Right for future critical studies of just how scary this time history will have become.

Looking these over, this seems like a discussion topic more than a debate topic, but I guess we'll see where it goes.

[phoenixfire]

2. How does one determine what a 'basic human right' is and why?
We'd have to go back to the idea that there is such a thing as human dignity, that there are certain common denominators about being human in all its various forms, and that as a society we must respect that dignity.

But how doe we determine which things qualify as basic human rights? For instance, if I say that I have a basic human right to use drugs and to do whatever I want to my body, how would we determine whether this does or does not fit into the category of basic rights?

And what differentiates humans from other animals/beings so that we get to have 'rights'?

3. When should government make a law regarding a specific issue, and when should it not? What is the purpose and goal of the law/government?
This is really an opinion question. I think the purpose of government is to protect citizens from various natural and man-made phenomenae, like business cycles, war, disease, asteroid strikes, telephone solicitation, etc.

I'm just starting to think through this, but here are my thoughts:

On the most basic level the government exists to provide security. People band together to protect themselves from being overpowered by other groups. So the most basic functions of government are to have a military for national defense, and to have a police force to keep individual society members from hurting each other. This may be all you really need, if your civilization is not too advanced.

On the next level, government exists to enable a more sophisticated society. It allows economic development by creating a standard currency, building roads and infrastructure, creating a basic taxation system, and making basic regulations regarding trade.

The next level seems to be a whole bunch of things that basically 'help to promote the common good', although they may not be necessary. Court systems help to promote fair administration of justice, education helps to make a strong society, social security tries to ease poverty, etc.

4. Is it possible to have 'value neutral' laws?
Could you clarify what you mean here? Do you mean laws that are of themselves value-neutral, or laws that mandate value-neutralness?

I mean, 'are laws themselves value-neutral'? All the functions of government I listed above performed some function to promote the common good. However, whenever you say something is 'good' you are making a value judgment. We think it is good to be able live in a more advanced society, it is good for people to be free, to gain knowledge, to raise your own children, to give everyone a chance to live where they want and puruse they occupation they want, to give everyone an equal chance to be rich, etc. Not every society has held those values, though in our culture those are pretty much unanimously accepted.

So it seems there is not such a thing as a value-neutral law because every law is promoting someone's idea of what is 'good'.

5. Is it theoretically possible to have a government/society that people of every religion and philosophical bent could agree was fair and didn't favor one group over another? Is it possible to have a harmonious pluralistic society, or do pluralistic societies always result in constant power struggles?
Pluralistic societies will always have power struggles as long as the individual groups see themselves -- and other groups -- as somehow "separate" from others or from another distinct set of individuals.

It seems that you have a harmonious society up until a significant portion of that society disagrees with another significant portion on what is 'good'. If one group thinks it is good for them have all the money and power and another group thinks they should have the power and money then you have major conflict. Smaller disagreements over taxes or immigration laws result in smaller scale conflict.

So my tentative proposition is that a society can only exist as long as there is a certain minimum level of agreement among the members on basic values. As the difference in values increase, conflict increases until at some point there is war, secession, migration, etc.

[micatala]

I've been meaning to respond to this thread for some time, and am just getting around to it. I think the questions phoenixfire raises are good ones, albeit difficult, and that we could have a lot of good discussion on without reaching consensus. However, I do think they get at the root of a lot of the dynamics that occur in this forum and the wider public discussion.

1. How does one determine what constitutes a 'civil right' and why?
Without getting too much into the exact definition of a "right", a civil right is a right that applies to everyone under the jurisdiction of the government that states it. Regardless of any additional behavioral or genetic characteristics, if they are human, then the rights apply to them.

For what it's worth, Webster's defines a civil right as

[a] nonpolitical right of a citizen, especially the rights of personal liberty guaranteed to U.S. citizens by the 13th and 14th amendments . . . and by acts of Congress

This seems pretty narrow to me. In fact, the reference to the two amendments seems wierd, especially as it does not mention some of the first few amendments regarding freedom of religion, right to bear arms, etc.

Obviously civil rights are narrower than 'basic human rights.' Our constituion talks about the latter in mentioning 'inalienable' rights which are 'endowed by our creator.' I guess I would agree with ST88 on his definition of civil right.

Quote ST88

2. How does one determine what a 'basic human right' is and why?
We'd have to go back to the idea that there is such a thing as human dignity, that there are certain common denominators about being human in all its various forms, and that as a society we must respect that dignity.


phoenixfire
But how do we determine which things qualify as basic human rights? For instance, if I say that I have a basic human right to use drugs and to do whatever I want to my body, how would we determine whether this does or does not fit into the category of basic rights?

Yes, this is much trickier. I don't know how we could ever create a clearcut rule for deciding what are 'basic human rights.' It is probably easier to talk about examples of things that most would say 'clearly are' and others which 'clearly are not.'

I would suggest that things that are considered rights in a wide variety of cultures, societies, religions, etc. are more likely to be 'basic human rights,' but I don't think we can use this criterion in all cases. For example, equal rights between genders seems to me to be a basic right, but not all religions or denominations would necessarily agree, certainly not in the past and some even today.

Specific rights I would include would be:

Freedom of speech.
Freedom of religion.

Freedom of association, both with respect to other individuals as well as groups of individuals. This includes sexual freedom, as long as it is between consenting adults (we can argue about who is adult later!)

Relative freedom of movement and ability to live where one wants. I think there probably needs to be some 'limits' on this, and obviously whatever these limits are should apply equally to all.

Freedom from violence and oppression.

These are a few examples, anyway.

Quote:

3. When should government make a law regarding a specific issue, and when should it not? What is the purpose and goal of the law/government?



This is really an opinion question. I think the purpose of government is to protect citizens from various natural and man-made phenomenae, like business cycles, war, disease, asteroid strikes, telephone solicitation, etc.

I tend to think government should make as few laws as possible. However, the government should create laws as necessary to help insure that individuals have equal rights and equal opportunity to exercise their rights.

I'm not sure I would include 'protection from natural phenomenon' as a right, although I think governments can undertake this duty if the governed so desire, or on their own.

More later. Gotta pick up the kids from school.

[juliod]

In my view it is a social contract. Societies as a whole decide what their view will be on such things as rights and laws. A "right" is a priviledge or immunity that you get by being a member of some group. So human rights are those given (at least in theory) to everyone.

Of course, what these rights are depend on the particular society, and change over time. Things that used to be considered moral (let's pick some less obvious examples) such as dueling and feuding, are now illegal and considered immoral.

But within a society of any size there will always be dissent, and always be different views of rights and laws.

so...

Is it theoretically possible to have a government/society that people of every religion and philosophical bent could agree was fair and didn't favor one group over another?

No.

Is it possible to have a harmonious pluralistic society, or do pluralistic societies always result in constant power struggles?

Yes.

DanZ

[phoenixfire]

Is it theoretically possible to have a government/society that people of every religion and philosophical bent could agree was fair and didn't favor one group over another?

No.

Is it possible to have a harmonious pluralistic society, or do pluralistic societies always result in constant power struggles?

Yes.

Do you mind extrapolating a bit as to how you think this is possible? By pluralistic I meant 'there is not a clear majority that shares a common set of values'. For instance, how could a society be harmonious that was 40% secular, 20% muslim, 20% Christian, 20% other?

[juliod]

Do you mind extrapolating a bit as to how you think this is possible?

Oops, I was saying yes to the second clause of your question. Pluralistic societies always result in constant power struggles....

DanZ

[MagusYanam]

Yes, this is much trickier. I don't know how we could ever create a clearcut rule for deciding what are 'basic human rights.' It is probably easier to talk about examples of things that most would say 'clearly are' and others which 'clearly are not.'

Undoubtedly. But looking at your examples of what constitute our basic rights as human beings all seem to centre around the intrinsic value of the reasonable capacities of human beings (and therefore the intrinsic value of human life, the only state in which human beings have been known to reason and communicate their thought processes).

For example, freedom of religion and freedom of speech are predicated on the basic worth placed on the human ability to behold and understand the universe for him- or herself and to relate it reasonably to other human beings, respectively. Freedom of movement is also a logical outgrowth based on choice. Equality of freedoms among human beings is respective of the same worth being placed on all people.

Freedoms from violence, oppression, fear and the like are outgrowths of respect for human life.

There is no doubt in my mind that 'human rights' have a very fuzzy definition, but perhaps we should start with a basic respect for human reason (which, in answer to another question on here, is what separates us from animals in terms of intrinsic moral value).

[micatala]

Your comments remind me of the Catholic notion that being created in God's image means we have some of His moral and reasoning capacities. I hope my paraphrasing is not too inaccurate!

[phoenixfire]

Let me try to draw some conclusions here.

First, no one has disputed the statement that every law is an expression of someone's determination of what is 'good' or bad'. Second, pluralistic societies will always have conflict since it is not theoretically possible to have a set of laws that every group believes is fair and doesn't favor one group's views over others.

Therefore, all statements such as 'What right do you have to force your views on me' are rather silly and hypocritical because someone trying to advance their views in the political realm is guilty of doing the exact same thing they are accusing their opponent's of doing to them. Instead, one should argue as to why their opinion of what is good actually is, and why their opponent's opinion is actually bad.

Politics is just a game of power between various groups who are trying to make the law reflect their view of what is 'good' and 'bad'. When we live in a democracy we agree that whoever is in the majority has a 'right' to have the laws reflect their values, but only to the extent that the laws do not infringe upon the set of 'rights' that the society has agreed to respect.

And those rights are social constructs as well. It seems that in America our rights are based upon the assumption that all men are created equal ('We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness'). Other countries do not make the assumption of equality of each human and therefore end up with quite different societies (the caste system of India).

So to have a productive political debate, all parties should agree on a set of rights and the assumption(s) that underlie those rights before they can argue specific issues. Otherwise further debate is pointless.

And it is even better if all parties can agree upon the common objectives/results that their country's laws should be working towards. Then the only debate is over the means of achieving those results.

Would anyone like to add to or dispute any of this? If not, then can we agree upon a set of assumptions, rights, and/or objectives for America?