Understanding/Sympathizing/forbearing people

[KichigaiNeko]

Innate rights...even this definition is racist

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, if only we had any examples of anything even remotely like an "innate right" anywhere in all of human experience...then maybe it would be easier to have a discussion about them that didn't involve personal definitions for concepts otherwise well defined by other words, or misleading language (commonly used) that confuses the subject.

There is no such thing as an "innate right", the very concept of a "right" is a human invention. A good one, but still, manufactured. At least not in the sense that it's been used. Innate as in "originating in the mind"...yes. No one is born with any rights, they are often conferred at birth (or sometime thereafter depending on whatever the law is regarding minors), and they exist nowhere except the legal system and minds of those participating in said legal system. Go to a country under Sharia and tell me all about your innate rights.

[genkaus]

Well, if only we had any examples of anything even remotely like an "innate right" anywhere in all of human experience...then maybe it would be easier to have a discussion about them that didn't involve personal definitions for concepts otherwise well defined by other words, or misleading language (commonly used) that confuses the subject.

There is no such thing as an "innate right", the very concept of a "right" is a human invention. A good one, but still, manufactured. At least not in the sense that it's been used. Innate as in "originating in the mind"...yes. No one is born with any rights, they are often conferred at birth (or sometime thereafter depending on whatever the law is regarding minors), and they exist nowhere except the legal system and minds of those participating in said legal system. Go to a country under Sharia and tell me all about your innate rights.

Every concept in existence is a human invention. Concepts can only arise out of a person's mind. So, I don't see how that is a detraction from their "innateness".

I accept that in this world, rights came about more as privileges. little alms of entitlement given to people to make them happy, but I do not consider that to be their true nature.

I think that rights are (or atleast should be) a form of identification accorded to the nature of a human being. For example, if we consider what qualities are innate to the nature of a human being, we'd usually come up with the desire to live and the capacity to make a rational choice. (Here, I'm considering the most common qualities as innate to the nature of a species, a few aberrations not withstanding). If and when a government recognizes these aspects as characteristics of humans, it should grant recognition in form of right to life and right to freedom. And since these rights are given in recognition of the innate nature, they can conceivably be called innate rights.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yeah, I have no problem with people calling them innate rights as long as we're clear that they are only innate in the sense of originating in our minds. They're not a "thing" that were born with. They are a "thing" we give ourselves, and only exist as long as we do so (and change our minds about constantly). What we see alot of (around here anyway) is ambiguity regarding the term with the proponent completely passing that over and then trying to make some concrete observation based on those "innate rights".

(yes, concepts, as far as we can tell, are all human, but some of them refer to a thing that exists outside of our minds, " innate rights" are no such concept, that's my only gripe.)

[genkaus]

yes, concepts, as far as we can tell, are all human, but some of them refer to a thing that exists outside of our minds, " innate rights" are no such concept, that's my only gripe.

That is my point. Rights should refer to something outside a person's mind. It should refer to the identification of an individual as an independent moral agent, something that is a part of his innate humanity.

For example, while looking at any arrangement, we identify a concept such as its pattern. While the concept exists only within our minds, it is indicative of a specific property of that arrangement and changing the concept within our mind would not change the pattern itself. And you cannot rationally choose to simply identify the pattern and then ignore it when you work with that arrangement. You cannot negate the nature of the arrangement simply by negating its identification. They why is it that people think that it can be done with humans? People are objects too.

That is how we should consider human rights. We identify human beings as a rational animal capable of living independently by his judgment. In identification of this innate property, we should act according to it when dealing with human beings. That is how we should consider rights - identification and acknowledgment of inherent human nature. Not something divinely granted and not something accepted due to plain convenience which may be revoked as convenient.

[The Grand Nudger]

Essentially, we would all have "innate rights" to whatever we all communally desire? An example being "right to life". Because we all desire to live it should be a universal and innate right? Well, what should be and what is are often different things. What is and what ought to be, you know the narrative.

I agree with you btw, just trying to be honest about my own motivations for "rights" and my lack of solid justification beyond "because we say so/because we want them"..which, honestly, is perfectly okay (we justify things like that all the time), but doesn't hold up very well when arguing for something objective.

Is violence (even, dare I say it, senseless violence) not innate to human nature? Should we not have a right to violence, for example? I think you might mean that we should have a right to the things you have assigned a positive value-judgement too....

(sorry for quick edits and broken responses, evil children give me a few seconds here a few there.)

[genkaus]

Essentially, we would all have "innate rights" to whatever we all communally desire? An example being "right to life". Because we all desire to live it should be a universal and innate right? Well, what should be and what is are often different things. What is and what ought to be, you know the narrative.

Actually, my complete justification is much more complex than that. It is based on identification of man in his capacity as a moral agent. But here, I'd say that rather than simply saying that desire to live is the basis for the right, we should determine if "to live" is the prime directive of human nature. The difference would be that "desire to live" need not have any rational basis and need not be innate to human nature.

I agree with you btw, just trying to be honest about my own motivations for "rights" and my lack of solid justification beyond "because we say so/because we want them"..which, honestly, is perfectly okay (we justify things like that all the time), but doesn't hold up very well when arguing for something objective.

I know. Which is why it is important to find an objective basis for them. If it is accepted that rights are granted without any objective basis, then they can be taken away without any objective basis.

For example, suppose you accept that your rights are given simply by the consent of majority, then you accept that they can be taken away by the consent of majority and you'd have no rational grounds to defend them.

Is violence (even, dare I say it, senseless violence) not innate to human nature? Should we not have a right to violence, for example? I think you might mean that we should have a right to the things you have assigned a positive value-judgement too....

I'm not sure if violence is innate to human nature. Innate doesn't simply mean something that is found in human nature, but something that plays a role in defining it.

But, if violence is discovered to be innate to human nature, then we definitely should have the right to violence. As much as I would hate it, despise it and fight against it, I'd have no rational grounds to argue against it.

[The Grand Nudger]

Not all "rights" are rational, of course. We are rationalizers..not entirely rational...as it has been famously said. (I would say none are, if we're calling them "objective things")

I was of the opinion that rights were largely granted by the majority, revoked by the majority, and that we had system in place to determine whether or not we should revoke the right to revoke the right..as it were, in cases where we are unsure if the majority is making a good decision.....
(or the minority of course..really, whoever is in power)

Honestly, you're not sure if violence is innate to human nature, that violence isn't something that defines us...............?

[genkaus]

Not all "rights" are rational, of course. We are rationalizers..not entirely rational...as it has been famously said. (I would say none are, if we're calling them "objective things")

And those that are not should go.

I was of the opinion that rights were largely granted by the majority, revoked by the majority, and that we had system in place to determine whether or not we should revoke the right to revoke the right..as it were, in cases where we are unsure if the majority is making a good decision.....
(or the minority of course..really, whoever is in power)

Aren't rights supposed to protect us from those who are in power? Wouldn't it be counter-intuitive to let the person who is violating your rights decide whether or not he gets to do so?

Honestly, you're not sure if violence is innate to human nature, that violence isn't something that defines us...............?

I'm pretty sure its not.

[The Grand Nudger]

Sure, but again, it's difficult to determine what a rational "innate right" is if we cannot demonstrate such a thing as an "innate right" in the objective sense. If our definition is simply "originating in the mind" (which is one definition of innate btw) then all innate rights we could possibly conceive of are rational, aren't they? Such as my innate right to eat your children. Isn't it much better to simply go with what we can show? That we have decided that there are things called rights, that we've decided what those rights are (for now, subject to revision) and that even though these rights can only be shown to exist in our minds they are useful and we should keep plugging along with them, as long as we always remember just how shaky the concept is. That thin veneer of civility bit. There's a difference between saying, "this concept is useful", and "this concept is objectively true, or exists objectively" That difference is important to me. We can rationilize rights, but to demand that something so emotional be completely rational is probably expecting a little to much from us (though obviously, I wish we could be completely rational and completely "human" at the same time...sometimes our irrationality does shine brightly in our favor)

They are, aren't they. They weren't conceived as such amusingly, nor do they always do this. I agree, very counter-intuitive, but at the end of the day we've decided that we have to protect ourselves from the tyranny of the majority somehow, and this leaves the door open to both the good and the bad, as it were.

I'm pretty sure you're being very generous with regards to our character.

(playing the devils advocate on some things is very very difficult btw, thanks for bearing with me thusfar,..lol)