The debate "Are rights inherent by birth or created" was started by
November 21, 2016, 10:40 am.
21 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 8 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Blue_ray posted 2 arguments, RogueAmerican posted 18 arguments, Yanksxx21 posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
TheExistentialist posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
RogueAmerican, Blue_ray, LepakshiSehgal, giw2000rgos, Yanksxx21, LiberalDemocrat, Ematio and 14 visitors agree.
dalton7532, unk347, arpita00, TheExistentialist, WolfiesMom, Cyril and 2 visitors disagree.
that is a very idealistic and naive view of the free market and reality. if this was mom and pop capitalism I would agree with you. if I didn't like the conditions or pay in my job I can quit and go elsewhere. but in our reality, there are only a handful of employers and no competition for workers. people have no power and the free market has no interest in fighting for them, instead pushing to pay people as little as they can get away with.
such a reality will only lead to violent uprising as the people become more and more oppressed from the market's short sightedness and greed.
The free market provides adequate solutions for protecting most rights. More extreme cases would be protected by the right to self-defense.
Eminent domain is only invoked with due process. It is a part of our social contract with the US government. We agree that personal property may be violated for the sake of the nation.
North Korea does violate the rights of their people to freedom of speech. They believe there that governments create all rights. Had they not, they would have a representative government.
Rights may be violated. I assure you.
Is it wrong or right, in any culture, to arrest somebody for no fault of their own.
that's what America said though. if u read about our beginning our leaders said that these rights were unalienable and given to us by our Creator. they were talking about God personally then but I think they said creator so we don't offend anyone at that time.
And I am trying to get you to recognize that morals are independent of inborn rights. Something can be morally repugnant without the need for the assumption that rights exist at birth.
Rights are a legal concept and as such change. In North Korea they do not have the right to free speech. In the US, the government can take private property if they deem it important enough. From what you have said both of these would violate the rights we are born with. Rights are defined legally and culturally. If we were inherently born with them they would be universal.
Psych, the problem is that we agree but Im trying to get you to recognize that slavery was wrong inherently. Because man was deprived of their rights--distanced from them. Rights are absolute. That is why slavery was wrong. Not because we said it was, but because of what it was.
Then are you saying by their creation, they had the dignity of humanity and their rights? If man makes rights, then he giveth and taketh as he pleases.
We inherently have those rights. When they are revoked, itnis by due process of law. Every individual ever has had a right to their liberty, but we eventually run into a problem of conflicting interests. Therefore, given due process, we may be deprived of our liberty. We must be clear as to notice that the right to liberty still exists. It is ingrained within man as far as his dignity. When imprisoned, the law supercedes our right for the sake of others. In civilized societies, you must form this rule of law via social contract. This means that we agree to surrender our right to life, liberty, and property for the sake of others. TJ declared in the declaration that in order to preserve these rights, governments are instituted among men. Notice how he said "preserve". It was a very intentional use.
It's interesting that you think a 20 minute delay while I'm debating other threads means I fled debating you. I've already responded.
its interesting how you fled debating against me on the sex organ thread.
You can assume slavery was justified if you want, but since that wasn't my argument, or historybuff's, it isn't relevant to the discussion.
You posted a lot, but still didn't bother to address what I said. I didn't say slavery was justified, I said that they SHOULD have had the same rights, but did not. You're continuing to create strawman arguments.
Rights are granted by law. Therefore they are subject to popular will. People in North Korea have different rights from those in China. People in America have different rights from those in Canada. Every nation and state decides what an individual's rights are. This is independent of moral justification. Americans have the right to bear arms, Canadians do not. Does that mean that Canadians are being deprived of an inborn right?
the only "rights" we have is the natural "right". That is to say we have the right to do as we please and as we are capable. We give up aspects of our natural right in order to grant rights to others. So freedom of speech, liberty, life, etc... are not natural rights, they are given. They are simply rights that we value in a society and thus we allow some people to have them. We also agree that some people are not deserving of those rights as a society and may take them away. Social rights, are essentially compromises and limitations of the natural right.
This means that we can decide who is granted these rights and who is not. This means that rights cannot be inherent at birth, conception, or even in adulthood. They must be given.
#rouge is savage
But let me ask you this: if blacks had no right to life, liberty, or property as you believe, then logically we may assume slavery was justified. Your logic points to the fact that no right was violated because no right existed. If no right was violated, what was wrong with slavery. Unless you see that they did have inherent dignity and rights.
A right is a right regardless of their violation: we fight and die for our rights even if they are bridged.
But since you continue, you still claim that rights are given, not inherent. A right guaranteed not by birth but popular will is merely a privilege.
Therefore, if slaves inherently did not have a right to life, liberty, and property, they must have received it by privilege. And this privilege, if we do not admit blacks always had rights since they are absolute, is dehumanizing.
Or is it arrogance to assume an ideology and to refuse the negative implications of it? A philosophy does not bend to personal will.
The right to food is a misnomer. A right is something absolute that we maintain naturally. Somebody cannot deprive us of our life, liberty, or property. These rights are absolute.
How is a right something that may be granted? Yes, you are guaranteed to have your own food in the form of personal property. Likewise, we have a right to all personal property. How can a right be something tangible--something given to us? It sounds more like a privilege than a right.
He said they didnt have those rights until they were given them. That necessarily lies upon them not having those rights. I ensured he did not hold the position that they were beimg derprived, but rather that their rights were nonexistant until they were "granted" them.
You are ridiculously arrogant in your mangling of other people's position. Historybuff is saying that they should have had equal rights, but didn't. He has at no point said slavery was okay. Strawman arguments don't make your argument look stronger.
Since you seem to be an expert on what rights are granted at birth, is the right to food automatic? If so, why do people go hungry in America?
If blacks didn't have the same rights, they weren't people! I will say that blacks were improperly deprived of their rights, meaning that their liberty was encroached. If this right did not exist; had they never had the right, nothing wrong was done to blacks.
But if your retrospective glance realizes this is wrong, you may try to separate yourself from privileged rights. Here we have a discontinuity within your philosophy that you either fail to reconcile or accept. I believe the former is true. You know you must admit grievances thrown upon blacks, but you are taut within your own ideology.
If you do believe that blacks had no rights (again, I argue they always had the rights to life, liberty, and property), then the only reason blacks have rights is from the mercy of white compassion. Necessity and human dignity argue that this must be false. We see that if rights are created, not simply recognized, then there is no such thing as a right.
I didn't say I think we should enslave black people. but to say they had all the rights of white people is just rediculous. I think they should have, but they didn't.
your argument is that what you think is somehow a universal truth. that it is a natural law. maybe the real natural rights include the right to die or the right to an abortion. maybe those are natural rights and in 100 years people will look back at you the way we look at slave owners. views change over time. rights change over time. to say your opinion is somehow a law is just rediculous.
Answer the question. Was there something wrong with how blacks were treated if they werent people until the late 1800s?
What if we decided black people arent people. They are in fact a minority. Would you be ok with that?
a "classical liberal" (I'm not sure what definition you are using for that) might say that. I wouldn't.
we, as a society decide what our rights are. I don't agree there is any such thing as natural rights.
By that logic, if I decide your right to liberty (which it is by birth) is invalid, I can lock you up for no reason. A classical liberal would tell you that you had that right regardless of any belief or interpretation, and locking you up for no reason is inherently wrong.
So before they were considered people, it was slavery was acceptable since they were animals. If their right was created, they weren't people and nothing wrong was done to them.
blacks weren't considered people before. it was called slavery. they didn't have rights. you are only highlighting my point. they gained those rights. "natural rights" can mean alot of different things to different people. the rights that people have vary by country and culture. they are created by society.
In anarchy, I would argue every right exists; however, we have no protection against violations of these rights. No mediation to sort grievances, nor enforcement to see to it any guarantee.
But of rights are granted by social consensus, blacks were definitionally not people until agreed upon. If rights are bestowed rather than inherent, then common consensus creates rights and they recede into privilege.
Our current system is established to protect the rights from birth, nothing more. The United States constitution serves only the purpose of preserving our natural rights.
since rights are granted by law and social consensus, in anarchy rights would not exist. in our current system we have rights from birth. if that system collapses then those rights would likely be different, or even cease to exist.
So therefore we may conclude that our rights are identical in anarchy and totalitarian governments?
u have these rights but there usually constrained like the abortion issue or not given at all like the freedom of speech
rights are inherited by birth. Because you even a baby has rights even in the womb.