![]() |
Quote:
Your world view consideration works when there's enough food to go around. When there isn't and it becomes a matter of life or death, the instinct for survival kicks in and the concept of "mine" develops as one of many coping mechanisms organic to the human organism right along with the fight or flight response. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
If it is a human right then owning property is best under a capitalist society. (In general) You have more human rights under a capitalist society and therefore, have more THINGS or the potential to have more things, and the control in selling, bequeathing, renting, and to gain profits from property rights, or ownership of THINGS. or ( property ) |
Quote:
|
I do not believe in any "natural rights". IMHO, all rights are derived from social conventions and an implicit social contract. Rights are human inventions.
So given current exchange rates, there is my 1.98 cent's worth. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
And this is one of the most wonderful, amazing things about human history - that at least sometimes, those with superior force have used their force to establish a system that accords rights to all, not just themselves. Justice, rather than bullying.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
The discovery of natural rights can be accomplished by directly observing the behaviors of other animal species in nature with which we have no social conventions. Even today, a no-tech individual in an isolated area could glean whether or not an indigenous water/food source is likely to be potable/edible and that it is something to be protected (scarce) by observing the behaviors of other animals around it. If other human contact occurs and the resources are sufficient, then that protection can be extended through social conventions which may even include conservation. Consider that contemporary conservation is not just about maintenance; but, the expectation of new discoveries in nature that may in turn cause a single individual to discover another natural right, individually act to protect it, then seek further protection through social conventions. The cycle continues. While the knowledge and assertion of rights today is predominantly learned indirectly by passing original discoveries down through the generations and social interaction with others, it doesn't refute the continuing existence of natural rights as they are renewable to each person as circumstances require.
|
Looks like the New York Times wants to join the argument.
There are two avenues by which to address the truth of the natural basis of human rights: (a) whether authors argued for human rights before the European Enlightenment, and (b) whether there is a logical basis for human rights that would demonstrate its applicability to all people regardless of when it was recognized to be correct. |
I've been having this vague, slightly incomplete thought about rights for a long time. In a nutshell it's something like; is a right yours if you don't recognize it as such. ie if you live in a culture that doesn't teach you to expect certain things, then is what you're missing out on a right or just something you'd like.
I guess it comes down to whether rights are a social construct or not, but people seem to have different ideas about what they have a 'right' to. |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:19 PM. |
Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.