Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I made this thread in order for our discussion in the 9th circuit court thread about whether rights are inherent to someone or extended to them through recognition by society to continue without filling that thread with off-topic philosophical questions.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
This'll be my final reply on the topic, I'll make a new thread so we stop filling this one with our constructivism vs. objectivism debate. It's a fascinating subject, but we might be going a bit off-topic.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


There's nothing wrong with rights being social constructs, it becomes a problem when people start pretending that they aren't, and that they can't be changed as a result. It turns what was once a reasonable decision into something akin to religious dogma.

Governments and constitutions are social constructs. Those social constructs can guarantee rights. However, even in the absence of government every person still has basic human rights that can never be taken away.

Good luck proving that. Even if we were to accept that such was the case, those right become meaningless if they are not recognized, making the distinction rather moot anyway. We are afforded rights because we as a society have accepted that these rights are desirable and something that should be afforded everyone, universally. ISIS, on the other hand, do not agree that the right to life exists for anyone not following their crazy ideology, so in the territory held by ISIS, such rights are effectively non-existent.

Asterios wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Neither life nor liberty are inalienable in the US. Further, if having fought hard for a right means that we can't later change our minds, shouldn't the South still have the right to own slaves? After all, they fought really hard for that right, no?

There's nothing wrong with rights being social constructs, it becomes a problem when people start pretending that they aren't, and that they can't be changed as a result. It turns what was once a reasonable decision into something akin to religious dogma.

actually that is in the bill of rights, as to the south, yes they fought hard, but the north fought harder, he who wins makes the rules they say.

Pretty sure "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is in the Declaration of Independence. Regardless, you have the death penalty and you put people in jail, so these rights are clearly not inalienable.

You're also now arguing that might makes right, which only makes sense if rights are, as I've been saying all along, a social construct. Thanks for agreeing with me, I guess.

yeah meant declaration, the bill of rights is the first 10 Amendments of the constitution, except those rights existed before, the south was not fighting for their right to have slaves, they were fighting for their right to make their own decisions (one of which was slaves), as far as the death penalty goes, you commit a crime you give up certain rights, like felons and such cannot vote, nor have the right to bare arms.

...which means those rights aren't inalienable at all! What a shocker!

Prestor Jon wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Well... I'd posit that most people don't really think about *WHY* we need certain laws, and lived with since day one.

And that's my point. There is zero point in trying to have a discussion if people refuse to think through the arguments for and against the concept being discussed.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I think we're talking past each other. I'm not saying that you need to justify why you want to use a law that exists, I'm saying that if we're discussing whether the law ought to be changed or not, "but it's the law!" isn't a valid argument. If you can't justify why you want the law to be a certain way, why bother having a discussion about it?

I don't want to change it, I'm happy with it the way it is. I'd be more happy if we got rid of some of the excessive restrictions but I don't have a problem keeping things the way they are now. You really can't have a productive discussion about what changes to make to a law when only one side wants to change it. If both sides want to make different kinds of changes you can find a compromise change but if one side wants to change something and the other side wants to keep it as is there really isn't a compromise to be had because once side has to give up concessions to allow changes and the other side gives up nothing to force the changes. You want me to already agree with you that changes have to be made and just discuss what changes to make but I'm not conceding that changes are necessary at all.

I'm perfectly fine with keeping the gun laws in the US as it is right now, actually. There's what, 300 million weapons in the US? Gun control would be a joke goal with such a number. There's simply no point. What I'm wanting you to concede is that responding to an argument about changing the constitution with "but that'd violate freedom X" is utter madness when the Constitution is the thing that lays out that freedom in the first place. It's circular argumentation.

This, of course, hinges on accepting the viewpoint that rights are a social construct, as opposed to something inherent in human beings. Hence why we as a society really ought to have justifications for our laws. Self-defence is a perfectly valid example of such, as is "as long as no one's hurt", but not "that'd violate my freedom!" when that's the entire point of the argument.

We can argue about whether or not some rights are indeed inalienable but that would get us off on another tangent.

I freely admit that the constitution can be changed and amendments can be repealed. We've gone through that process 27 times already. It is extremely unlikely that the 2nd amendment could get repealed in the current politicial environment or in the near future but it's certainly possible. All of the numerous state constitutions that have gun ownership clauses in them could also be changed, each state has a process for that.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
This'll be my final reply on the topic, I'll make a new thread so we stop filling this one with our constructivism vs. objectivism debate. It's a fascinating subject, but we might be going a bit off-topic.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


There's nothing wrong with rights being social constructs, it becomes a problem when people start pretending that they aren't, and that they can't be changed as a result. It turns what was once a reasonable decision into something akin to religious dogma.

Governments and constitutions are social constructs. Those social constructs can guarantee rights. However, even in the absence of government every person still has basic human rights that can never be taken away.

Good luck proving that. Even if we were to accept that such was the case, those right become meaningless if they are not recognized, making the distinction rather moot anyway. We are afforded rights because we as a society have accepted that these rights are desirable and something that should be afforded everyone, universally. ISIS, on the other hand, do not agree that the right to life exists for anyone not following their crazy ideology, so in the territory held by ISIS, such rights are effectively non-existent.

I would argue that the rights still exist they're simply not recognized by ISIS and are subsequently violated by them. For instance, everyone has the right to be secure in their own person, nobody has the right to murder or rape somebody else. ISIS might go around murdering and raping people because they're physically capable fo doing so but their ability to murder and rape doesn't mean that they have a right to murder and rape people. Because everyone has a right to be secure in their own person everyone also has the right to self defense so people can resist attempts by ISIS to murder or rape them and if people have to kill ISIS members to prevent those ISIS members from murdering and/or raping them those killings are justifiable and don't qualify as murder.

Yay sociology.....


I would say that there is no such thing as a fundamental right, they do not exist. All of our rights are social constructs, but we have had some social rights for such a long time that they appear fundamental.

There is no unalienable right to life, there is a social one, but you are not born with the right to life. It can be taken from you, or you can take it away yourself (suicide) and if you have the ability to deprive a right, it's not unalienable.

 welshhoppo wrote:
Yay sociology.....


I would say that there is no such thing as a fundamental right, they do not exist. All of our rights are social constructs, but we have had some social rights for such a long time that they appear fundamental.

There is no unalienable right to life, there is a social one, but you are not born with the right to life. It can be taken from you, or you can take it away yourself (suicide) and if you have the ability to deprive a right, it's not unalienable.

so essentially you are saying nobody has any basic human rights?

Asterios wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
Yay sociology.....


I would say that there is no such thing as a fundamental right, they do not exist. All of our rights are social constructs, but we have had some social rights for such a long time that they appear fundamental.

There is no unalienable right to life, there is a social one, but you are not born with the right to life. It can be taken from you, or you can take it away yourself (suicide) and if you have the ability to deprive a right, it's not unalienable.

so essentially you are saying nobody has any basic human rights?

Socially they do, but we are not born with human rights. Are ants born with fundamental rights? How about Viruses or bacteria? We are the same as every other animal, except we have a law based society.

 welshhoppo wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
Yay sociology.....


I would say that there is no such thing as a fundamental right, they do not exist. All of our rights are social constructs, but we have had some social rights for such a long time that they appear fundamental.

There is no unalienable right to life, there is a social one, but you are not born with the right to life. It can be taken from you, or you can take it away yourself (suicide) and if you have the ability to deprive a right, it's not unalienable.

so essentially you are saying nobody has any basic human rights?

Socially they do, but we are not born with human rights. Are ants born with fundamental rights? How about Viruses or bacteria? We are the same as every other animal, except we have a law based society.

problem with this is, the Bill of Rights are the fundamental laws upon which this country was founded, so yes they are fundamental, they may not be natural, not even sociological but yes fundamental since this country was founded on them and it came into being from them and it is the driving force of this country.

Is a meteor infringing on your rights to life, if it falls and murders you?

I get what you are saying welsh.

it certainly is a social contract, in the same way groups are adding rights for animals or rights for trees and rights for whatever what not in an attempt to protect it as a whole.



The bill of rights is a piece of paper ya know.

If our early society would have told the founding fathers to shove the BOR up their rears, then we wouldn't have them.

Rights only exist because society agrees that they should.

Asterios wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
Yay sociology.....


I would say that there is no such thing as a fundamental right, they do not exist. All of our rights are social constructs, but we have had some social rights for such a long time that they appear fundamental.

There is no unalienable right to life, there is a social one, but you are not born with the right to life. It can be taken from you, or you can take it away yourself (suicide) and if you have the ability to deprive a right, it's not unalienable.

so essentially you are saying nobody has any basic human rights?

Socially they do, but we are not born with human rights. Are ants born with fundamental rights? How about Viruses or bacteria? We are the same as every other animal, except we have a law based society.

problem with this is, the Bill of Rights are the fundamental laws upon which this country was founded, so yes they are fundamental, they may not be natural, not even sociological but yes fundamental since this country was founded on them and it came into being from them and it is the driving force of this country.

Except those only exist in society. They are social rights fundamental to the existence of the current American Society. But you are not born with them naturally, they only happen because you were conceived and then born under the society that has formed around these rights. Take the society away, and the rights go too.

 welshhoppo wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
Yay sociology.....


I would say that there is no such thing as a fundamental right, they do not exist. All of our rights are social constructs, but we have had some social rights for such a long time that they appear fundamental.

There is no unalienable right to life, there is a social one, but you are not born with the right to life. It can be taken from you, or you can take it away yourself (suicide) and if you have the ability to deprive a right, it's not unalienable.

so essentially you are saying nobody has any basic human rights?

Socially they do, but we are not born with human rights. Are ants born with fundamental rights? How about Viruses or bacteria? We are the same as every other animal, except we have a law based society.

problem with this is, the Bill of Rights are the fundamental laws upon which this country was founded, so yes they are fundamental, they may not be natural, not even sociological but yes fundamental since this country was founded on them and it came into being from them and it is the driving force of this country.

Except those only exist in society. They are social rights fundamental to the existence of the current American Society. But you are not born with them naturally, they only happen because you were conceived and then born under the society that has formed around these rights. Take the society away, and the rights go too.

which is the point if the bill of rights are removed or any part there of, this is no longer America since America was founded on them, so since I was born an American I was born with those rights, or is what you said wrong?

America, countries, towns, all those names are all social constructs ya know. you are only American because everyone else agreed.

If everyone wanted to remove the bill of rights and still want to call it America it will be called America.

You are only born with those rights because everyone says you are.

You only have the rights because you are American, but just because you are born with a right it doesn't mean they are unalienable. What if, at the age of five, America was conquered by forces unknown and destroyed utterly. They then decided that for administration purposes that the land still have its original names, but your rights have been changed.

If the rights provided by the bill of rights were unalienable, they would be unable to be removed. But you'd still be an American in an American society but without the rights granted to you at your birth.
Edit: Somewhat ninjad.

 welshhoppo wrote:

Spoiler:

Asterios wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
Yay sociology.....


I would say that there is no such thing as a fundamental right, they do not exist. All of our rights are social constructs, but we have had some social rights for such a long time that they appear fundamental.

There is no unalienable right to life, there is a social one, but you are not born with the right to life. It can be taken from you, or you can take it away yourself (suicide) and if you have the ability to deprive a right, it's not unalienable.

so essentially you are saying nobody has any basic human rights?

Socially they do, but we are not born with human rights. Are ants born with fundamental rights? How about Viruses or bacteria? We are the same as every other animal, except we have a law based society.

problem with this is, the Bill of Rights are the fundamental laws upon which this country was founded, so yes they are fundamental, they may not be natural, not even sociological but yes fundamental since this country was founded on them and it came into being from them and it is the driving force of this country.

Except those only exist in society. They are social rights fundamental to the existence of the current American Society. But you are not born with them naturally, they only happen because you were conceived and then born under the society that has formed around these rights. Take the society away, and the rights go too.

which is the point if the bill of rights are removed or any part there of, this is no longer America since America was founded on them, so since I was born an American I was born with those rights, or is what you said wrong?

You only have the rights because you are American, but just because you are born with a right it doesn't mean they are unalienable. What if, at the age of five, America was conquered by forces unknown and destroyed utterly. They then decided that for administration purposes that the land still have its original names, but your rights have been changed.

If the rights provided by the bill of rights were unalienable, they would be unable to be removed. But you'd still be an American in an American society but without the rights granted to you at your birth.
Edit: Somewhat ninjad.

but if the rights are removed this is no longer America, and i'm no longer American so yes the rights are unalienable to Americans, they are needed for this to be America and for us to be American they are what seperate us from others, without them we are no longer unique.

Asterios wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:

Spoiler:

Asterios wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
Yay sociology.....


I would say that there is no such thing as a fundamental right, they do not exist. All of our rights are social constructs, but we have had some social rights for such a long time that they appear fundamental.

There is no unalienable right to life, there is a social one, but you are not born with the right to life. It can be taken from you, or you can take it away yourself (suicide) and if you have the ability to deprive a right, it's not unalienable.

so essentially you are saying nobody has any basic human rights?

Socially they do, but we are not born with human rights. Are ants born with fundamental rights? How about Viruses or bacteria? We are the same as every other animal, except we have a law based society.

problem with this is, the Bill of Rights are the fundamental laws upon which this country was founded, so yes they are fundamental, they may not be natural, not even sociological but yes fundamental since this country was founded on them and it came into being from them and it is the driving force of this country.

Except those only exist in society. They are social rights fundamental to the existence of the current American Society. But you are not born with them naturally, they only happen because you were conceived and then born under the society that has formed around these rights. Take the society away, and the rights go too.

which is the point if the bill of rights are removed or any part there of, this is no longer America since America was founded on them, so since I was born an American I was born with those rights, or is what you said wrong?

You only have the rights because you are American, but just because you are born with a right it doesn't mean they are unalienable. What if, at the age of five, America was conquered by forces unknown and destroyed utterly. They then decided that for administration purposes that the land still have its original names, but your rights have been changed.

If the rights provided by the bill of rights were unalienable, they would be unable to be removed. But you'd still be an American in an American society but without the rights granted to you at your birth.
Edit: Somewhat ninjad.

but if the rights are removed this is no longer America, and i'm no longer American so yes the rights are unalienable to Americans, they are needed for this to be America and for us to be American they are what seperate us from others, without them we are no longer unique.

Last post because in this country we tend to be asleep by 1am.

Rights are not really about being unique, they are more or less the exact opposite. Everyone has rights because everyone is the same in a society and us both are lucky enough to live in societies where everyone is considered equal.

But you can't have an inalienable right which solely belongs to a single group, it has to belong to everyone or else it isn't truly a fundemental right.

The only right that is bestowed upon Americans is the right to be an American and will all the benefits that come with it. But it only exists for as long as people want it to exist.

Have a look at natural rights. Because they are technically the only pure source of inalienable rights.

Wait im lost here why is it no longer America, everyone else is calling it America.

 welshhoppo wrote:

Have a look at natural rights. Because they are technically the only pure source of inalienable rights.

and what are natural rights? i'm sure you won't find any.

 welshhoppo wrote:
Yay sociology.....


I would say that there is no such thing as a fundamental right, they do not exist. All of our rights are social constructs, but we have had some social rights for such a long time that they appear fundamental.

There is no unalienable right to life, there is a social one, but you are not born with the right to life. It can be taken from you, or you can take it away yourself (suicide) and if you have the ability to deprive a right, it's not unalienable.

No the ability for others or myself to end my life doesn't take away my right to life or give others the right to murder me. I am physically able to murder my neighbor but my neighbor has a right to keep his life and I don't have a right to murder him. Murder is an unjustified killing, that's why nobody has a right to do it. The capability to do something is not the same as having a right to do something.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 welshhoppo wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
Yay sociology.....


I would say that there is no such thing as a fundamental right, they do not exist. All of our rights are social constructs, but we have had some social rights for such a long time that they appear fundamental.

There is no unalienable right to life, there is a social one, but you are not born with the right to life. It can be taken from you, or you can take it away yourself (suicide) and if you have the ability to deprive a right, it's not unalienable.

so essentially you are saying nobody has any basic human rights?

Socially they do, but we are not born with human rights. Are ants born with fundamental rights? How about Viruses or bacteria? We are the same as every other animal, except we have a law based society.

We are demonstrably different from other animals and life forms. We are self aware, we have language and culture and higher levels of cognitive thought. We all have natural rights and we are all innately aware of them. You're born alive, you know you're alive, you know you want to stay alive and you know you want to defend yourself from harm. You are innately aware that you have a right to your life, a right to defend yourself and a right to be secure in your person. We even have an innate understanding of property rights because we understand ownership on an instinctive level.

Asterios wrote:
which is the point if the bill of rights are removed or any part there of, this is no longer America since America was founded on them, so since I was born an American I was born with those rights, or is what you said wrong?

Truly the third amendment defines what it means to be an American.

If rights exist independently of society and our recognition of said rights, their independent existence ought to be provable. I'd posit that the existence of independent, inherent rights are in the same category a God; if they exist, we cannot prove it. When there is a model describing rights that actually works without resorting to "that's just the way it is!", models that can't be proven lose their power.

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
which is the point if the bill of rights are removed or any part there of, this is no longer America since America was founded on them, so since I was born an American I was born with those rights, or is what you said wrong?

Truly the third amendment defines what it means to be an American.

I laughed, my wife laughed, the Royal Marines that are staying in my house against my will laughed.

I don't think anyone feels that if they are captured and tortured or killed by a criminal gang, a terrorist organisation or a national government, that is all right because the people attacking them have a right to do so because they don't have any personal rights.

From that angle, the basis of human rights is surely part of psychology, which I think is an objectivist view of it. Or maybe in primitive times, the peasantry did feel the nobles had a perfect right to oppress them, but it could be that this was a constructivist situation imposed by the nobles.

Obviously we're not going to find a big "Human Rights" machine on Mars dispensing a force field of rights across the universe.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
If rights exist independently of society and our recognition of said rights, their independent existence ought to be provable. I'd posit that the existence of independent, inherent rights are in the same category a God; if they exist, we cannot prove it. When there is a model describing rights that actually works without resorting to "that's just the way it is!", models that can't be proven lose their power.

A child that has not been taught any social or cultural beliefs will still get upset if you take something from him/her because he/she has an innate understanding that what he/she possesses is his/hers. Humans understand property rights innately. Same with the right to self defense and to be secure in your person. Try changing a baby's diaper, they don't like it, they resist as you try to manipulate them and get them cleaned up and changed. That's because on an instinctive level humans naturally try to protect themselves from others trying to impose their will on them and control their bodies.

Children also understand that they can threaten or lie to get as they want, and humankind is very good at killing one aonther in order to obtain advantages. Does that mean that there's a natural right to lying, threatening, and killing?

That's learned behaviour.

Point.

Still, the fact that children don't like people taking their candy away, for example, isn't proof that the children have some sort of inalienable right to that candy. The children would also potentially become angry if, for example, someone wouldn't give them candy that wasn't theirs in the first place.

The desire for candy is an expression of the basic instinct to get food to avoid starvation, in other words it derives from the right to life that all creatures feel they have naturally.

The desire for candy doesn't create a right to candy, but the lack of a right to candy does not deny a right to life.

I think this covers the second point. The child doesn't have a right to candy just because it's greedy, but if the child was starving the adult should give it the candy to save it. Perhaps it is falling into hypoglycaemic coma and needs sugar to be revived.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Point.

Still, the fact that children don't like people taking their candy away, for example, isn't proof that the children have some sort of inalienable right to that candy. The children would also potentially become angry if, for example, someone wouldn't give them candy that wasn't theirs in the first place.

Children understand possession innately. Whatever it is they hold in their hands is theirs, not yours and they don't want you to take it from them without their consent. That's the essence of property rights, this is MY stuff not YOUR stuff and you don't have the right to take what is MINE away from ME without consent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The desire for candy is an expression of the basic instinct to get food to avoid starvation, in other words it derives from the right to life that all creatures feel they have naturally.

The desire for candy doesn't create a right to candy, but the lack of a right to candy does not deny a right to life.

I think this covers the second point. The child doesn't have a right to candy just because it's greedy, but if the child was starving the adult should give it the candy to save it. Perhaps it is falling into hypoglycaemic coma and needs sugar to be revived.

It's not about the candy it's about ownership. The child understands that the candy he/she holds is his/hers. The child also understands that it is bad for somebody to come along and take that candy away without his/her consent and if this happens the child gets upset. It could be candy or fruit or a toy car or whatever object is currently holding the child's interest and is in his/her possession. Children will also willing share, they understand the nature of consenting to give what is theirs to others. Their is an instinctive knowledge of what is essentially the old adage that "possession is 9/10ths of the law" in the sense that children understand ownership without a formal education about it.

A child feeling that something OUGHT to be theirs does not equate to there being a right for the child to have that thing. A child feeling that something ought to be in a certain way is not proof that there is a natural right for something to be that way.

As a community we've decided that we want to avoid causing distress to people when at all possible, as distress is an unpleasant feeling, so we've agreed to set up rules for such things as property. That does not prove the existence of the concept of property outside of humankind.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
A child feeling that something OUGHT to be theirs does not equate to there being a right for the child to have that thing. A child feeling that something ought to be in a certain way is not proof that there is a natural right for something to be that way.

As a community we've decided that we want to avoid causing distress to people when at all possible, as distress is an unpleasant feeling, so we've agreed to set up rules for such things as property. That does not prove the existence of the concept of property outside of humankind.

No, you don't have to be raised in a society and conditioned to understand the concept of ownership to understand that concept. You and I could be raised in totally different societies or no society at all and you would still understand that your stuff is yours, not mine, and that I don't have the right to take it from you without your consent.

Chimpanzees have developed social structures with food sharing specifically to reduce theft of food because chimpanzees instinctively recognize that the food in their possession is theirs, they need it to survive and they don't want others to take it from them without their consent so they selectively share a small portion of food to mitigate the attempts to steal greater amounts of food. Nobody taught chimpanzees about theft and property ownership, they know it innately, just like humans.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4174343/

Name one human society that doesn't have the concept of property ownership. There is always some kind of ownership concept because humans innately recognize that stuff belongs to somebody and that stuff shouldn't be taken by force without consent of the owner(s).

So chimpanzees create a social construct because they realize that it's in their own interests and that's somehow supposed to be in favour of rights not being social constructs? "Understanding" property rights the way you put it is simply a biological response designed to make sure an individual passes his or her genes on, not reflective of some sort of nebulous concept of right. The dislike of letting people take stuff you want came first, the concept of protecting stuff through rights came after.