Some say we have the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Some believe we have the right to do anything we want. Some believe we have only the rights as defined by society. Some believe the government has a right to exist, others believe not. Some believe the government has the right to regulate economics, others not. Some feel we have the right to kill to defend our freedom, others believe murder is never justified. The more and more I have been thinking about it, the more and more pointless I find rights to be. I am not talking about morals, but rights. They really just seem to bog down things, create problems. Anyway, who says what rights we have anyway? From what ordinaining did it come? Omniscient god, society, the individual, some philosopher? And who are they to say what people have the right to do or not? So I ask you, do rights have a point, and furthermore, where do your beliefs about rights come from?

I think people have the right to do pretty much whatever they want, so long as they aren't hurting someone else or denying someone else of their rights.

o.o; it's like a balance. You have just enough rights to let everyone have the same rights.

It's weird.

I agree with Hyperion. At the heart of every ethical system is, in one form or another, this maxim:

I may live my life however I wish, insofar as I respect that others may do likewise.

The problem is that this maxim is not easily resolved. Some rights are incompatible - my right to hit you is not compatible with your right not to be hit. The problem is where my rights stop and your rights begin. At what point do I have to stop living my life how I want it and start respecting your own wishes?

You have a point, Max, that the right of any one person or group of people to decide where the dividing line stands is highly dubious. But I submit that it's better for somebody to decide, even if this admits a certain degree of arbitrariness, than to live without rules. If nobody has the authority to tell me not to hit you, what's to stop me hitting you?

This is why I have a problem with anarchists. People who seriously believe that there can be a world without government and then everything will be dandy and free. People should be free, but there should be consequences for obstucting other's freedoms. If there are no consequences, then nothing is stopping you from hitting me. But, the way things are, if you hit me, you'd probably be arrested. Believe it or not, even if I hate living here, I completely respect America on paper. Here, you're supposed to have the right of privacy, the right to have whatever opinion you want, the right to voice that opinion, the right to equality. We have a society based on majority rule and minority rights, so everyone has an equal say, and that's how it should be. Unfortunately, these rights have been warped to fit the people in power and their ideals, but that's another topic entirely.
Anyway, that's why I believe in laws of some sort to restrict people, because laws create an organized society, and everyone should have rights to certain extent.
Rights have a point to more or less give everyone a standard to which they can choose to live by. And because I believe in government, I think that the government should decide the rights of it's people based on what the people want. Usually, the people's wants are fueled by religion or a widespread philosophy, whichever. My personal beliefs about rights probably come from being beaten upside the head with the American dream since I was born, but I think more than that I agree with the rights we've been "issued".

I would disagree. Communitarianism for example says that rights are defined by the society, thus the society can be as libertarian or authoritarian as it chooses. Hedonism finds pleasure to be the highest moral good, and you have the right to pursue that pleasure, even if it is at the expense of others.Just because a society does not have a system of rights does not mean there are no rules. Law and rights are two different things, combined in a way in the modern world but not necessarily so. If you hit me, regardless of whether you have the right to hit me or not, you can still be breaking the law, because you are disrupting order.

Rights are a very subjective and nebulous thing, which only seem to lead to disorder and chaos. They fail to really have a purpose, as they can easily and more effectively be replaced by law.

well for starters most of those rights seem a lot liek the constatustion . (life libery and property and junk liek that) and those were there to make sure goevrment didnt somp on the popel becouse the early peopel that made the goverment feared a strong central goverment and there for protected peopel from it with the rights. on another sence the fact that things are right (as in the justifying it) people need this often to ether feel better abotu themself or draw boundarys for what is aceptable. Without such a thing there may be some good things but peopel would be able to justify anything beocuse by taking away right liek wether somethign is right in that sence you would make everything right and there for it owuld be up to he person to diside it. so people are not suited to make that kid of thing up like mass murders.

As for who disides what is right it owuld seem that it is peopel in power or larg groups of peopel who perswade the poublic into beleving whatever the crap the want. when ehought people buy into it then it becoumes right becouse everyone else folows it and exspects you to as well. and there for it becomes right.

or at least that is wht I think on the subject of right. they are created from peopel who gather suprot like when they wrote the constution they gathered suport when anyhting is made it's just made by a group of peopel with enought suport (like justifying war it's only becouse people beleve there is no other choice). so yeh that it on rights.

It seems that when defining what people have the right to do or not, the categories fall into two. There are the more philosophical leaning, who are genuinely interested in the preservation of "individual rights", and the power hungry, who manipulate people to gain power. The latter has an immediate flaw that is very obvious. The former has a flaw as well. You can argue on intellectual battlefields about the moral good and the rights of the individual, but philosophers are often so out of touch with their time that they fail tor ealize that not everyone cares about their definition of rights, hence things fall apart.

Four parts to this..

First, rights vs laws.. rights and laws are talking basically about the same thing. The difference being, a right needs a law (or some other kind of force) to back it up, to enforce it. Otherwise a right is about as effective for protecting people as having no police officers is for stopping crime. As I see it, laws require justice and require some form of government. Rights are the reason for laws. (And rights are to be followed because they are, in theory, "the right thing to do" as opposed to doing something simply because a law told you to, on threat of punishment.)

2ndly, where do they come from... rights (or laws) come from some moral/philosophical/ethical understanding. Where this understanding comes from, who knows, it may be different in each society... It could start with what somebody thinks God told him. Or from what a family or small group decides, which eventually spreads as the population grows and relocates. Eventually the laws/rights may change as one group assimiliates another. And further reasoning and logic and emotion may enter into the picture at anytime too. .. So that's kinda the way rights/laws come about. Pretty trial and error.

3rd, why do rights/laws come about? Because they are a stabilizing force. They make life more predictable, steer it away from chaos and anarchy. People simply like reliability and comfort as opposed to seemingly random change. Rights also help even out the uneven playing field that is life. Usually they are about protecting the people without power from the people that have it, or at least that is the trend today.

4th.. again, as i see it, the difference today between rights and laws is most visible when a) restraining government power and b) influencing international politics. As for the latter (b), since countries have different laws and cultures, there's been attempts to bridge the gap by saying there are universal human rights common to all people, regardless of culture or religion or their governing laws. So one half of the rights issue today is connected with trying to softly alter the cultures of other nations. .. As for the former (a), it's about protection from an overzealous government. Having both rights and laws is a check/balance against the law writing ability of the government. If you can get a group of people to agree to a set of common rights, then the government will not as easily be able to legislate laws that are contrary to those supposed rights, or "natural laws". Government is such a powerful force, meant for good but easily enough for bad, that it needs to be restrained by rights that help protect the people.

that's all i've got for now
-cm

The wonderful paradox of rights is their ability to create disorder while trying to protect order. Think of all the battles about rights, the justifications used by it. The age of imperialism and the white man's burden for example. Internationalism vs. national sovreignty. Smokers or non-smokers.

er i see no paradox.

are you arguing against the breaking of eggs to make omelettes?

rights aren't actually about being totally orderly, though order comes back in the long run. in the short run, as new rights come to be (as when anything new comes to be) there's going to be some confusion as people adapt to that new situation. but the point is for the new rights to bring about a better situation than the old situation, to bring an improvement to society. repairing roads, filling in potholes.. you must close a lane for a couple hours. in the short run, drivers lose time. in the long run, they save time and possibly a tire.

-cm

I consider it amusing that something designed to protect people can opften create disorder. That is the humor in it.