Can "Rights" Exist?

[LycanSpectre]

Is there really any such thing as someone's "rights"?
Because I just know someone will neglect to read this and misunderstand, I will clarify "rights": something an entity is entitled to, and that cannot be denied, under any circumstances. Rights may be civil, ownership, or "God Given" for lack of a better term.

So, now, is there any such thing? Do you have anything that cannot be denied you, under any circumstances?

I think no. "Rights" are a idealistic illusion. Might ultimatly makes right. What you have, someone with greater force can take. You can be forced to do things by sheer brute strength. Now in our society, we are very fortunate to have many able bodied persons willing to put themselves on the line to protect others, and the things that are judged not to be violated. The only reason you perceive that you have rights, is because others are fighting to make sure you are not denied them. Unfortunatly, should those people fighting for your rights lose to those fighting to take them from you, then you have them no longer.

[Ronin]

I think no. "Rights" are a idealistic illusion. Congratulations. You just answered your own question.

-R

[LycanSpectre]

Congratulations. You just answered your own question.

-R

I'll just take it that you agree with me. Gnerally, if you want other people to reply to a thread, it helps to give your own opinion first. Your post did nothing to contribute.

[DarkWolf]

I think yes "Rights" exist, but you can be denied your rights, of course. They exist, they're just not set in stone.

[Wolffy13]

Well, I thought I had the right to live and breathe and other simple things, but I guess I'll hold my breath and the rest should follow.

I think we have rights, even if they are very simple, as mentioned above, or the right to marriage or speak your mind, or what have ya'. The rest, and I imagine one could determine that line, are all privileges.

[LycanSpectre]

Well, I thought I had the right to live and breathe and other simple things.

Thats a very good point. I didn't think of that one. :)

[Wolffy13]

Yeah, I think stupid and/or obvious things like that is what the 9th Amendment covers, but you don't give them much thought, so I could see what exactly your question implied? :D

Although, thinking about it almost makes my head explode :p

[Ronin]

Your post did nothing to contribute. What more is there to contribute when you've already succeeded in creating and ending your own argument all in the same post?

While we're on the topic of wasting time debating futile topics, let's discuss money. Does it contain real value? No. They're just promissory notes printed on paper that we all have faith in. Our whole economic system is based on faith in paper. Yet people lie, cheat, steal and kill for these insignificant, worthless pieces of tree bark everyday.

Any more futile arguments that need unnecessary debating over?

[WhiteCrowUK]

Is there really any such thing as someone's "rights"?


The only rights the weak have are those the strong allow them to have ...

[DarkWolf]

Does it contain real value? No.
Actually yes, every denotion of currency has a value in that nation's main bank establishment in a specific weight in gold. Inflation, a notorious term, occurs from the trading of gold as miners uncover more, as countries pay more out in trade. So while the idea of putting lives to currency is still abhorrent, the correction is they put those lives to gold, not paper.

Now, Ronin, silence yourself from blindly attacking the topic: because you have shown yourself immature and pathetic at every turn.

Congratulations. You just answered your own question

The idea of this topic was for people to express opinions: ultimately nobody is correct in their opinions, or false, which is why the word OPINION is something you must take into account. So said, let me continue to:

What more is there to contribute when you've already succeeded in creating and ending your own argument all in the same post?

Still blind, I presume? Let me enlighten you: This isn't an argument, people provide opinions, not facts. Again I urge you to analyze the significance of the word "OPINION". You may find it incredibly useful.

And now, as role of moderator, a warning:

Unless you are going to actually contribute to this worthwhile topic, leave it of your own volition: or I shall remove you myself.

[LycanSpectre]

Beautiful DW. Thank you. :)

I thought of another right people have: the right to think for themselves, and to question authority. (Weather or not they are free to vocalize their questions is another matter).

[AlphaMale]

Hello everybody. It's crazy what one finds screwing around on the internet. After some brief exploration, I found that people were discussing my favorite subjects. So I'd like to give an answer to the question about the existance of rights.

Rights are necessary conditions for the proper existence of human life that are not provided by another human, the most fundamental of these being the right to your own life. All other rights stem from the right to your own life.

"that are not provided by another human": A person cannot morally make a claim to a right that must be provided by effort of another human. To do so is to claim that the other person's life is not their own, but yours and that it is there moral obligation to provide your right. For example, we do not have a right to food (other than the food we rightfully earn as ours ).

The fact that those with the power of force have the ability to subdue rights does not mean that the rights never existed. It only means an immoral person is violating those rights.

What more is there to contribute when you've already succeeded in creating and ending your own argument all in the same post?

Well there might be someone who disagrees with the notion that rights are an illusion (like me), and LS seems to want to debate the topic.

While we're on the topic of wasting time debating futile topics, let's discuss money.

If it's so futile and such a waste of time, why are you wasting your time?

Does it contain real value?

If you put value in it, it contains value. Value is that which you strive to achieve. If you strive to achieve money, then it has value.

They're just promissory notes printed on paper that we all have faith in.

No, they are the material manifestation of the effort we put into living. They are the symbols of effort and labor. I trade my effort and labor for your effort and labor of our own free will for mutual benefit. We represent that free exchange with those worthless pieces of tree bark.

Yet people lie, cheat, steal and kill for these insignificant, worthless pieces of tree bark everyday.

This is true. However, this does not justify condemnation of the symbol, but of those who would lie, cheat, steal, and kill for it.

Any more futile arguments that need unnecessary debating over?

Well I disagree with the premise that debate is unnecessary. It is very necessary for intellectual development. There are times when we cannot see errors in our reason as we form opinions. Debate forces you to confront your own reasoning and allows for outside forces to critque that opinion pointing out those flaws we sometimes miss.

[LycanSpectre]

Ah, but if someone can deny a person's "rights", do they have a right to do so? ;)

First, we need to agree on a definition of what "rights" are.

You said:
Rights are necessary conditions for the proper existence of human life that are not provided by another human, the most fundamental of these being the right to your own life. All other rights stem from the right to your own life.

I said:
Something an entity is entitled to, and that cannot be denied, under any circumstances. Rights may be civil, ownership, or "God Given" for lack of a better term.

I like what you said about not bieng something another can give. However, the term "proper" is ambiguous, so lets change that to something else.

So lets compromise:

Rights: The original fundamental property of an entity necessary to its continued existence, which cannot be presented or given to said entity by any other entity or force. The most fundamental "Right" is the right to life from which all other rights are derived.

If you have anything to add, just let me know and I'll come back here and change our definition. :)

Originally, I said "Cannot be denied", but let's leave that out to make debate easier.

And now, here is what I am thinking: Since a "Right" cannot be given to an entity, but can be taken by another, it is up to the original entity to defend their rights. (Meaning, I can take your life, even though it is your fundamental property and right. It is up to you to defend it). So, if you cannot defend your rights, are you still entitled to them?

Does the entity that is capable of denying you your rights have the right to do so?
I think not, but it is interesting to think about it.

[AlphaMale]

I like what you said about not bieng something another can give. However, the term "proper" is ambiguous, so lets change that to something else.

So lets compromise:

Rights: The original fundamental property of an entity necessary to its continued existence, which cannot be presented or given to said entity by any other entity or force. The most fundamental "Right" is the right to life from which all other rights are derived.

"Proper" is important to the defintion so let's devote some time to it because "continued existence" is not enough. The proper state of human existence is happiness. I don't mean the fickle happiness of temporary pleasures. I mean the fulfillment of living. Your defintion leaves out rights such as free speech, or freedom to worship as one pleases. Free speech and freedom of religion aren't necessary for mere existence. BUT, free speech and freedom of religion are necessary for existence and happiness (ie, the proper existence).

And now, here is what I am thinking: Since a "Right" cannot be given to an entity, but can be taken by another, it is up to the original entity to defend their rights. (Meaning, I can take your life, even though it is your fundamental property and right. It is up to you to defend it).

This is true. But you taking my life does not mean I didn't have a right to it. The moral fault would be yours, not mine.

Does the entity that is capable of denying you your rights have the right to do so?

Absolutely not.

[LycanSpectre]

"Proper" is important to the defintion so let's devote some time to it because "continued existence" is not enough. The proper state of human existence is happiness. I don't mean the fickle happiness of temporary pleasures. I mean the fulfillment of living. Your defintion leaves out rights such as free speech, or freedom to worship as one pleases. Free speech and freedom of religion aren't necessary for mere existence. BUT, free speech and freedom of religion are necessary for existence and happiness (ie, the proper existence).

Big problem:

The proper state of human existence is happiness.

No. The "proper" state of human existence is survival. NOT happieness. Happiness may be something everyone should have, but it is NOT something that everyone is entitled to. Some people cannot be happy unless someone gives them something, like money, power, love, sex, whatever. These may be frivolous things to some, but to others they are necessity to happiness. And we already agreed that a right is not something that can be given, so happiness is ruled out.

And now to cover the obvious objection:

I mean the fulfillment of living.

And what, exactly, is the fulfillment of living? Answering "happiness" is begging the question, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant that they should have the right to live out their life to its natural end. OK. Fine. But what if your existence means there is not enough food for me? Hell, I have the same rights as you. Now we each have the fundamental right to protect our own best interests. Now Might makes right. Now can you say for certain that taking your life would be immoral? I would have trouble doing so.

Free speech, freedom of religion, and so forth are not necessary to your survival. They are priveliges allowed us by the collective interests known as society. They may be necessary to Happiness, but I already ruled that out.

One more thing: when you want to quote someone, type [quote= (their name)] The thing you want to quote /QUOTE] just like that.

quote is in CAPS, and in brackets, I left the first one off so you could see the code.

[AlphaMale]

No. The "proper" state of human existence is survival.

I respectfully disagree. Mere survival is not enough. Humans need to be happy.

Some people cannot be happy unless someone gives them something, like money, power, love, sex, whatever. These may be frivolous things to some, but to others they are necessity to happiness. And we already agreed that a right is not something that can be given, so happiness is ruled out.

These are things that have to be earned. If they are freely given to someone undeserving, then I'd agree with you that they are frivolous. However, if they are properly earned then they can be key ingredients for happiness.

And what, exactly, is the fulfillment of living?

The ability to chart your own course in life, the ability to pursue your own interests. Building value in your life. Achievment, success, self-esteem. Recognizing and celebrating your own value.

But what if your existence means there is not enough food for me? Hell, I have the same rights as you. Now we each have the fundamental right to protect our own best interests. Now Might makes right. Now can you say for certain that taking your life would be immoral? I would have trouble doing so.

If I have food that you need, it is up to you to convince me to willingly part with it. The best method for this is to offer me an exchange of values: I give you food and you give me X. Or perhaps you could appeal to my pity. But the moment you employ the use of force to take my food, you have crossed over into immorality and I am within my rights to use any and all force to defend myself and my property (in this example the food). The fact that you have no food does not justify the use of force against another human. This type of logic leads to moral anarchy: "I need X, so I can just steal/kill/lie/cheat/etc for it."

Free speech, freedom of religion, and so forth are not necessary to your survival.

True, they are necessary for the proper life of a human.

Let's paint a vision. I am a slave. Another human uses the power of force to compell me to work for him. He gives me a place to live, he feeds me adequately. I am "survivng". But am I living a proper human life (a life where I can pursue my own path to happiness)? According to your quote:

The "proper" state of human existence is survival.

my state of existence as a slave is "proper". As long as I survive (even as a slave), I'm living a proper life

[LycanSpectre]

The topic in question here is wether or not "rights" can exist. Like I said, happiness is something everyone should have, but they are not entitled to it. They must earn it, and earning it means that it is something you are given by someone else in exchange for something, and by your own definiton, is not a right.

The ability to chart your own course in life, the ability to pursue your own interests. Building value in your life. Achievment, success, self-esteem. Recognizing and celebrating your own value.

But some of these are contingent on others giving you something, such as approval, a job, money, etc. No matter what path in life you choose, you need others to help you. Thus, these are not rights.

If I have food that you need, it is up to you to convince me to willingly part with it. Etc.

Ok. What if I tried to convince you to part with the food that I need, and you refuse? Now I am entitled to do whatever is necessary to ensure my own survival; moralty is completly irrelevant.

I maintain that the "proper" state of existence is the ability to live a life out to its natural end.

my state of existence as a slave is "proper". As long as I survive (even as a slave), I'm living a proper life

Yes. ;) You may not be free, you may not be happy, but you will survive. And just because you are a slave now does not meant that you can do nothing to improve your social status. You still have rights, but they may of been denied. It is up to you to defend them.

Morality, happiness, social status, social ability are all irrelevant.

[AlphaMale]

happiness is something everyone should have, but they are not entitled to it.

Ahh yes. Ok I see where you're going. True, happiness is not a right. But the things that are necessary for happiness (freedoms of...) are rights. Those that must be given by another (jobs, love, friendship, money, etc) are not rights (however, the pursuit of those things is a right). On that we agree.

Ok. What if I tried to convince you to part with the food that I need, and you refuse? Now I am entitled to do whatever is necessary to ensure my own survival; moralty is completly irrelevant.

No, morality is not irrelevant. It's in this situation where it's most important. Are you honestly suggestion that a need of something equals the right to use force to attain that need? Don't you see how this line of reasoning leads to moral anarchy?

Your line of reasoning reduces humans to mere beasts in that if something is needed, and you're stong or powerful enough to take it, you're right to do so. I strongly disagree with this sentiment because I view humans to be on a higher plane than the beasts (we have reason/logic). The concept of rights makes us treat each other as humans, and not as a mindless beast.

You may not be free, you may not be happy, but you will survive..

Sorry, that's not enough. Humans don't want to just survive. They want to live and to enjoy living (or at least I do).

Man, this quote code is a pain in the a$$.

[LycanSpectre]

No, morality is not irrelevant. It's in this situation where it's most important. Are you honestly suggestion that a need of something equals the right to use force to attain that need? Don't you see how this line of reasoning leads to moral anarchy?

Care to explain how that matters? At all? The existence of rights is not dependant on morality. I fail to see how anyone could seriously make that claim.

[AlphaMale]

Care to explain how that matters? At all? The existence of rights is not dependant on morality. I fail to see how anyone could seriously make that claim.

Sure. Funadmentally, rights show us how to treat other human beings. This is the role of morality as well. If I violate another's rights, I am immoral. If I respect another's rights, I am moral. They are connected concepts. Without morality, there are no rights. Without rights, there is no morality.

Is there a "quote" button?

[LycanSpectre]

No quote button per-se, but if you click the "Reply" button in the bottom right corner of the post, it will quote the whole passage in your post. You still need to type the code if you want to put multiple quotes in a post, or seperate quotes.

Now as to morality bieng an integral part of the existence of rights:

Your definition did not address morals. My definition did not address morals.

And as for this:
Funadmentally, rights show us how to treat other human beings.

This is fundamentally wrong. The existence of rights has nothing to do with morality. Sure, respecting rights is good and fine, but morality does not influence the existence of rights. It is how others treat rights that determines morality. Rights are something that someone is entitled to. The existence of such things or ideas has nothing to do with moraltiy.

Try to understand:
Rights exist independant of morality. Morality is dependant NOT on rights, but on wether or not others place value on the rights of others. Not on the existence of rights themselves.

I think you are confusing value of rights with the existence of rights. These concepts are two separate issues.

Your line of reasoning reduces humans to mere beasts in that if something is needed, and you're stong or powerful enough to take it, you're right to do so.

A chinese philosopher ( I think) said: "If I dont put myself first, who will? And if I only put myself first, what good am I?"
So, my answer is yes, you are right to do whatever is necessary to take what you need. NEED. NOT want. And then only if you cannot glean what is needed through any other means.
Ya gotta look out for #1, but you can't only look out for #1. #1 comes first, but #1 must recognise that others have needs and wants as well. Darwin had a similar theory. Something about survival of the fittest. And if you presume to tell me that humans are above that, then I will laugh at you.

Mindless beast or not, Humans take what they want anyway, regardless of morality. It's called crime. It happens every day. It happened to me just this last weekend. My rights were ignored. Their act was immoral. But my rights still exist, despite the fact that they were denied. Morality does not influence the existence of rights.

[Necro Mortis]

When you think about it our rights are very limited, if they exist at all. I also think that we are led to beilive we have rights although we dont.
Please dont post anything about the Matrix. Just no.

We just about have the right to live but not if we are condemed by actions of others which include wars. Countries are within their rights to declare war, arent they?

We dont even have the right to end our own lives. Suicide is a crime.

Do animals have rights?
No. Humans have seen to that as we dont like to be challenged and think we rule everything on earth.

Its not really good when you think about it. :(

[AlphaMale]

Rights exist independant of morality. Morality is dependant NOT on rights, but on wether or not others place value on the rights of others. Not on the existence of rights themselves.

Here is the main source of our disagreement. I see rights and morality as independent of human perception. What is wrong is wrong, regardless of how many people think it is right.

The existence of rights has nothing to do with morality.

If I have a RIGHT to my life, it is imMORAL for you to take it. You don't see the connection?

you are right to do whatever is necessary to take what you need. NEED. NOT want. And then only if you cannot glean what is needed through any other means.

So in other words, if you cannot attain what you need through proper means, you are justified in using force to take it? That's a dangerous line of logic that could be easily used to justify any number of attrocities. My line of logic leaves no room for the moral justification of such attrocities.

Ya gotta look out for #1, but you can't only look out for #1. #1 comes first, but #1 must recognise that others have needs and wants as well.

We're agreed here.

Something about survival of the fittest. And if you presume to tell me that humans are above that, then I will laugh at you.

Come on LS, you're better than that. But for the record I do not think humans are above it. But we should express it in moral terms. Survival of the fittest for humans does not mean he who can kill the most is fit to survive. It means survival in the realm of human competetion, not violent animalistic behavior.

It's called crime. It happens every day.

Unfortunately you are right. Those people have demonstrated a lack of morality and that they have no respect for the rights of others. Thus they have no rights and should be dealt with appropriately. But don't give them a sense of moral justification by saying that if they really needed it, it was ok to use force to get. Call it for what it is: a despicable act of ciminal immorality.

It happened to me just this last weekend.

I'm sorry to hear that. Care to tell me about it?

[LycanSpectre]

Actually, I suspect that our differences stem from the fact that we hail from different shcools of thought. I am a self-serving rule of thumb utilitarian. I suspect you are a humanist/kantian.

Im on my way out for the evening, but I'll elaborate when I get back. :)

[LycanSpectre]

All right, time to elaborate.

This is my school of thought. It is a modified form of Ethical Egoism.
An action is right if and only if it puts my best interests first. The best interests of others is considered second. (Which is better than not at all). Individual humans will put their own best interests first by nature, regardless of wether or not those around them are doing the same. Which means that even if I put someone else's best interests before my own, they will still do whatever furthers their own interests. Therefore, since it is not plausible to trust others to look out for me if I do not do so myself, then I must put my own best interests first.

I suspect you are a Kantian or a Humanist, meaning that you want the greatest good for the greatest number, as long as people are not used as a means to an end. (Kantian Ethics).

These schools of thought have clashed since their inception; it does not surprise me that we are doing the same now. ;)

Back to the topic at hand:

Here is the main source of our disagreement. I see rights and morality as independent of human perception. What is wrong is wrong, regardless of how many people think it is right.

I am very interested to know how you arrived at this conclusion. If morality is independent of human perception, then why are there disagreements and altercations concerning moral issues? Issues like abortion, capitol punishment, or sexual orientation. If they were moral or immoral indepentant of human perception, then wouldn't it be apparent what is right and what is wrong?

I tend to register on the other end of the spectrum. I think morality depends entirely on our perception of it.

Perhaps the example of taking life to further my own ends is a bit extreme. Let's choose a less drastic example. Lets say that there was not enough food for both of us to survive. You had food, and I had none. We both have equal right to life, and equal responsibility, equal right to do whatever is necessary to defend that right. I personally do not see killing as immoral in this scenario, but since you do, we shall rule it out as a possibility. Would it be immoral for me to steal some of your food in order to survive myself even if that means that you would now not have enough? You may or may not survive to find more food, we don't know.

So in other words, if you cannot attain what you need through proper means, you are justified in using force to take it? That's a dangerous line of logic that could be easily used to justify any number of atrocities. My line of logic leaves no room for the moral justification of such atrocities.

Yes. If I cannot acquire what I need through the proper means, then I am justified in taking it, by force if necessary. An individual stealing to get what it needs is hardly capable of an atrocity. (Atrocity is an emotionally charged word; lets avoid such language. I am taking it to mean something like a Holocaust in this case, or perhaps a mass murder.) Need is much different from want. All an individual truly needs, is that which it must have to stay alive. Everything else is a want.

Survival of the fittest: It means survival in the realm of human competition, not violent animalistic behavior.

It is very easy to draw many parallels between the two. It may be bloodless, but no less vicious. And no less costly. Get what you can, and screw everyone else. That is human competition.

As for crime, I have had enough of it happen to me (in one form or another) to make me into an modified ethical egoist. :shrug: Gotta look out for number one, cuz no one else will. There are enough people out there with no compunctions with stabbing you in the back, so many that I feel that I can and should assume that putting myself first is the only way to stay afloat. I have sunk plenty of times in the past when I forsook that theory.

[AlphaMale]

I suspect you are a Kantian or a Humanist, meaning that you want the greatest good for the greatest number, as long as people are not used as a means to an end. (Kantian Ethics).

No. Actually I'm closer to your line of thought than you think. I derive my ethics from Ayn Rand's "rational self-interest": that which is proper for human life is the good, that which is opposed to human life is the evil. I agree with you that #1 is most important. That doesn't mean #1 can act immorally to achieve his ends though.

If morality is independent of human perception, then why are there disagreements and altercations concerning moral issues? Issues like abortion, capitol punishment, or sexual orientation. If they were moral or immoral inrepentant of human perception, then wouldn't it be apparent what is right and what is wrong?

Because human bias, prejudices, wants, and desires, cloud judgement all too often. It's like two people looking at a painting. They may see two different things; but regardless the painting has a nature that is independent of the humans percieving it. The same applies to morality. There IS a proper way for humans to treat one another (ie morality), and it takes rational objective thought to discover it. People may disagree as to the details, but the answer is out there nonetheless. People disagree as to the nature of things all the time, however that does not mean the thing doesn't exist.

I personally do not see killing as immoral in this scenario

I would politely suggest you reexamine your values.

Would it be immoral for me to steal some of your food in order to survive myself

No. There is ONLY ONE thing that justifies using force against another human being: that is in retaliation or defense against someone intiating force against you. The fact that you cannot find a proper and moral way to get your food does not justify the use of force against one who has.

Yes. If I cannot acquire what I need through the proper means, then I am justified in taking it, by force if necessary.

I'm not trying to be insensitve to the crime you were a victim to, but I bet the criminal who victimized you thought the same thing. So how can you condemn him as a crimnal? He was using your own belief system (if only on a sub-conscious level).

Atrocity is an emotionally charged word; lets avoid such language.

Well I promise I wasn't emotially charged when I typed it out. It's relevant to the discussion and to dismiss it is to dismiss the fact that your logic HAS been used to do just that. Why follow the same logic they do?

There are enough people out there with no compunctions with stabbing you in the back, so many that I feel that I can and should assume that putting myself first is the only way to stay afloat. I have sunk plenty of times in the past when I forsook that theory.

I agree. Yourself comes first. But put yourself first in a moral manner. Don't let the fact that you were a victim justify victimizing others.

[LycanSpectre]

Because human bias, prejudices, wants, and desires, cloud judgement all too often.

It is impossible to completly separate yourself from your biases, wants, desires and prejudices. Even if things were moral or immoral of themselves (which I do not believe), then we, as humans, have always been, and always will be blind to the truth.

I'm not trying to be insensitve to the crime you were a victim to, but I bet the criminal who victimized you thought the same thing. So how can you condemn him as a crimnal? He was using your own belief system (if only on a sub-conscious level).

One hardly needs to smash out the windows of my truck to steal my $80 CD player. Especially when the door was unlocked in the frist place (and blatantly visible from the outside). Also, the crime has been linked to a string of drug related thefts. Drugs are not essential to survival. And neither is my CD player. This asshat stole from me to satisfy his/her/their wants, which is MUCH differnt from stealing to survive.

There is ONLY ONE thing that justifies using force against another human being: that is in retaliation or defense against someone intiating force against you. The fact that you cannot find a proper and moral way to get your food does not justify the use of force against one who has.

But I still have a right to do anything necessary to ensure my survival. Force is included.

your logic HAS been used to do just that. Why follow the same logic they do?

Uh-huh.... Right. I suppose Hitler was just killing off the Jews because they were a direct threaght to his survival. Somehow that doesn't follow. If this isn't the kind of Atrocity you meant, then define atrocity.

We need to start realating this to rights again.

[AlphaMale]

Even if things were moral or immoral of themselves (which I do not believe), then we, as humans, have always been, and always will be blind to the truth.

Only until we open our eyes and our minds.

Drugs are not essential to survival. And neither is my CD player. This asshat stole from me to satisfy his/her/their wants, which is MUCH differnt from stealing to survive.

How do you know he didn't sell the stolen good to buy food for his starving family? Do you know the crook's situation. Maybe he owed a drug dealer money who would kill him if he didn't pay up. Then it becomes very much a matter of survival. That's the problem with using "need" to justify force. Anyone can justify it to themselves by saying they "need". I don't mean to trivialize the incident, but under your own belief system, I would say the crook had as much right to that CD player (more so if his survival was at stake) as you did.

But I still have a right to do anything necessary to ensure my survival. Force is included.

I'll assume (correct me if I'm wrong) that you think that I have a right to my property. If so how can that be if you have a right to use force to take it if you deem it necessary for your survial. Don't you see the obvious contradiction there?

Uh-huh.... Right. I suppose Hitler was just killing off the Jews because they were a direct threaght to his survival. Somehow that doesn't follow. If this isn't the kind of Atrocity you meant, then define atrocity.

Hitler did say that ther German people needed more breathing room to survive, and I believe he did think the Jews were a threat to the German people (obviously not a military threat, but a economic, social, and cultural threat). So to take your argument to its logical conclusion, he was right to do what he did: use force to ensure his (his people's) survival.
Let's take Stalin as well. I'm sure he thought he was acting for his survival when he murdered more people than Hitler did.

See the problem? When you say "my need justifies force against you", you've opened up the door for justifying all sorts of criminal behavior, including attrocites ;)

We need to start realating this to rights again.

Rights and morality are related ;)

[LycanSpectre]

How do you know he didn't sell the stolen good to buy food for his starving family? Because he left the food and drink in my truck. Also, rather than steal a CD player (and a dirt cheap one at that) why not just steal the food they needed?

Maybe he owed a drug dealer money who would kill him if he didn't pay up.

I can only hope they die anyway. There are much more efficent ways of getting money. As I said, the police linked this crime to a string of drug related incidents. There is very little question that the crime occured to finance a drug habit. I do not want to go into details, but the police made that clear.

Anyone can justify it to themselves by saying they "need".

Perhaps I did not make myself clear. The difference between need and want is not perception. A need is something you require to stay biologically alive. A want is everything else. A CD player will not feed you, it will not provide heat, shelter, or drink. A CD player is a want, wether or not you plan to sell it to buy something else. It would be much easier, faster, etc to just steal from the source. So if the asshat's family was starving, go to the grocery store, grab a loaf of bread and run. That's much easier (and safer) than pawning a stolen CD player.

I'll assume (correct me if I'm wrong) that you think that I have a right to my property. If so how can that be if you have a right to use force to take it if you deem it necessary for your survial. Don't you see the obvious contradiction there?

The rights of people clash all the time. It is natural.

Hitler did say that ther German people needed more breathing room to survive, and I believe he did think the Jews were a threat to the German people (obviously not a military threat, but a economic, social, and cultural threat). So to take your argument to its logical conclusion, he was right to do what he did: use force to ensure his (his people's) survival.

I do not see how you can sit there and seriously tell me that mass genocide is ensuring survival. Once again, need and want do not rely on perception. You are twisting my words. The fallacy is known as a straw man.

Rights and morality are related ;)

You have yet to convince me of that.

[AlphaMale]

The difference between need and want is not perception

But the difference between moral and immoral is perception?

The rights of people clash all the time.

Not the rights of moral people (those who pursue their own interestings while recognizing the rights of others.

I do not see how you can sit there and seriously tell me that mass genocide is ensuring survival. Once again, need and want do not rely on perception. You are twisting my words. The fallacy is known as a straw man.

I was content to argue in the abstract. You brought up Hitler. So in fact, you built the straw man. It's not twisting your words, it's carrying them out to their logical conclusion.

You have yet to convince me of that.

Ok, then answer this:
If I have a RIGHT to my life, it is imMORAL for you to take it. You don't see the connection?

[LycanSpectre]

But the difference between moral and immoral is perception?

Yes. Morality does not effect your survival; doing something immoral does not mean you will die. Needs are different. If you do something that denys you your needs (IE I dont need to drink for a week), you will die. Morals are fluid, Needs are concrete.

Not the rights of moral people (those who pursue their own interestings while recognizing the rights of others.

I disagree.

I was content to argue in the abstract. You brought up Hitler. So in fact, you built the straw man. It's not twisting your words, it's carrying them out to their logical conclusion.

You were content to bring up atrocities. I provided an example of an atrocity, and told you that I thought such acts were unrelated to the duscussion. You ignored that.

Ok, then answer this:
If I have a RIGHT to my life, it is imMORAL for you to take it. You don't see the connection?

In my eyes, you are comparing apples and oranges. You ignore the opposite end of that statement, which I have explained several times. I have already stated that rights clash.

[DarkWolf]

Rights and morality are related.
You have yet to convince me of that

Right adj.:
1. Conforming with or conformable to justice, law, or morality.

Right n.:
1. That which is just, morally good, legal, proper, or fitting.

http://dictionary.reference .com/search?q=right
It may just be an online thing, but bear in mind Dictionary.com is of the world's most accurate online dictionaries.

--

So, what is a "moral"?

Well there are varying definition depending on use, however they are all concerned with "good and bad", and that is a matter of psychology. What one person thinks of as "good", may very well be "bad" to somebody else. Why is this? Because the good and bad complex is based entirely on psychological schemas gained as you grow up. You grow up in a society where stealing is considered bad, so you gain the social schema of "stealing = bad".

Morality is not related to animal nature, only human. The cat has no moral views on the mouse it kills. Why? Because put simply the cat is following the animal nature within it, and so, psychological schemas of society (a moral) no longer apply.

So justification is found when your "bad" action coincides with your animal nature. Self preservation, is an example. You are not going to go to prison if you punched somebody who was trying to stab you. But then again, laws aren't always following the moral. Laws were partly enforced for control, so when you consider the "right vs moral", law doesn't enter into it, because laws are rarely dependant on either.

Just because you have a right to something legally, doesn't mean somebody can't take it. A right means only that following morals and laws you have control or ownership over something, but somebody lacking moral view, is exempt from the "right" and has power to take it, legally or not.

A right isn't some divine power of ownership, it is a legal document in somebody's filing cabinet.

[AlphaMale]

Morality does not effect your survival; doing something immoral does not mean you will die.

Not so my friend. It's when your survival is at stake that you need morality the most. For example, if a man is starving and attacks me to meet that need, I will respond with any and all force at my disposal seriosly injuring or killing the person. His immorality got him killed. Or he can take the moral road and find a proper and moral way to get the food he needs. Thus he lives.

I provided an example of an atrocity, and told you that I thought such acts were unrelated to the duscussion. You ignored that.

I didn't ignore it. I said I disagreed; then I explained why. If an attrocity (of any sort) is a violation of rights, then how can you say attrocities aren't related to a discussion about rights?

LS,
This is an interesting debate, but we've reached the point where we are just repeating ourselves. I consider my rights to be absolute and not up for grabs by anybody. My right to life is absolute. If someone manages to kill me, it's not because I had no right to life; it's because someone was immoral and violated that right. If someone needs something of mine for their survival, I don't consider that a legitimate claim. If they think they have a right to use force to take it, they will quickly find me excercising my right to self-defense.

Just because you have a right to something legally, doesn't mean somebody can't take it. A right means only that following morals and laws you have control or ownership over something, but somebody lacking moral view, is exempt from the "right" and has power to take it, legally or not.

The power to do something does not equal the right to do that thing.

Those that proclaim the loudest that there are no rights, will scream the loudest when their's are violated.

[DarkWolf]

The power to do something does not equal the right to do that thing.

Those that proclaim the loudest that there are no rights, will scream the loudest when their's are violated.

Exactly.

[Necro Mortis]

True, well done.