Announcement: Your votes are in! The January 2019 Philosophy Book of the Month is The Runaway Species: How Human Creativity Remakes the World by David Eagleman and Anthony Brandt.

rights revisited

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"); such homework-help-style questions can be asked and answered on PhiloPedia: The Philosophy Wiki. If your question is not already answered on the appropriate PhiloPedia page, then see How to Request Content on PhiloPedia to see how to ask your informational question using the wiki.
Post Reply
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 2883
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: rights revisited

Post by Burning ghost » September 3rd, 2018, 8:41 am

Steve -

Easy. Article 13 - 15. It doesn’t take much to flaws here. If someone in dire circumstances wishes to they can claim the right to move into another country there by fall under the given laws and freedoms of the country. Many people do enter illegally and have leftist views propel the idea that they are entitled to refuge because of the rights lain dow by the UN. This is not something new.

I am certainly not against accommodating people in need and giving them citizenship if the people of the country want this and they enter legally.

They is a lot of chicanery on both extreme ends.

Eduk -

This isn’t about race. People prefer to attack Sausage Dog’s use of racist language rather than address the main issue. It is saddening, but part of discourse because where things touch upon politcal theory they inevitably bleed over into real world poltical views - there teh content of the real world should be seem as examples of how political theory plays out rather than as evidence of this or that theory working out.

Underneath this mess there is an interesting look at what is commonly meant by terms like “derserve”, “morality”, “ethics”, “law” and “justification”. It is all too easy to start plugging away at your own political agenda rather than address the issue of what is being said what context.

I don’t think for a second that “non-white” people or “immigration” is the issue here. Neither myself nor Sausage Dog has brought up those issues in this thread, they were brought in by others making an easy target.

As for mentions of Burke I am assuming Sausagen Dog can think for himself and that his view is not Burke’s entirely. I don’t know tbh? I am not concerned with that either. I am concerned with H&N and Sausage Dog agreeing basic principle of what constitutes “natural rights”.

I’ve found something useful here mayeb they haven’t. We’ll see what happens and I hope this doesn’t descend into any further before returning to the basic understanding of the arguments and positions being posed.
AKA badgerjelly

Eduk
Posts: 2271
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: rights revisited

Post by Eduk » September 3rd, 2018, 9:02 am

I don’t think for a second that “non-white” people or “immigration” is the issue here.
To be fair I have asked what the actual issue is, and what conclusions you draw, more than once. In the end I was forced to go it alone because no one will say what they mean. You have said it's not what you mean, but then complained about illegal immigrants and their political leanings, what am I supposed to think? Please tell me what the actual issue is.
Many people do enter illegally and have leftist views propel the idea that they are entitled to refuge because of the rights lain dow by the UN. This is not something new.
How many? How much of an issue is it relative to immigration as a whole? What is being done to prevent this? What are the costs/benefits of various immigration policies? Are you a lawyer? Do you work in immigration? Do you know anything about immigration? How do you know this? What are your qualifications? How do you know it is 'leftist' (as you put it) politics which drives people to immigrate illegally? How do you know people aren't just taking advantage of the situation and saying it is their right because that is what they think will give them the best chance in life? Do you think immigration is very simple?
Unknown means unknown.

User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 2883
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: rights revisited

Post by Burning ghost » September 3rd, 2018, 9:11 am

VERY simply put.

I have the right to do as I please understanding that others may not always approve of my thoughts and actions. Regardless I can still try and do as I see fit. People have the right to support my endeavors or hinder them.

That is the baseline.

To go further into this the things we wish to do are shaped by what is taken up as socially acceptable and socially valuable (which could mean in any economic capacity material and/or abstract - money, resources, abilities, attitude, etc.,.)

Our natural disposition is a product of our society as much as our society is the product of our natural dispositions played out over various magnitudes from individual to individual and nation to nation, brother to sister and family to family.

Ideas of who derserves what comes into play with the distribution of resources and the accumulation of property. This factor brings about questions regarding how to share excess, and what is deemed as excessive. Fungibility is also a issue when appropriating material wealth to less obvious aspects such as free time, lesuire and education.

Then there is “justification.” Separate from societal law justification for an action can be extended through time not just a matter of the present condition - meaning someone may justify taking something from someone because someone else took from them, or future cast they put something aside in preparation of worse days and then find themselves subject to envious eyes in times of need. Herein lies game theory and how trust is divided among people by way of how they behave and allowing them to adjust from a situation that hurts others to a situation that benefits others.

Everyone’s basic rights are that they can do as they will. After that they have to earn as best they can the respect of others to put into effect their will. Some get a head start because nature is not fair - wha is derserved is not an issue of what is “fair” in this respect.
AKA badgerjelly

User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 2883
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: rights revisited

Post by Burning ghost » September 3rd, 2018, 9:19 am

Eduk -

Not really interested in talking about immigration. A certain level of movement of people is healthy. Generally the pushing and pulling from right and left makes thing amble along. If I was to voice concern it would be the same topic with which I would voice hope too. That is mass global communications and the over all explosion of standards of living across the globe over the past two decades - we’ll see how things go.

Over all I’m optimistic about the future of humanity. Things are looking quite good.
AKA badgerjelly

Eduk
Posts: 2271
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: rights revisited

Post by Eduk » September 3rd, 2018, 9:34 am

I have the right to do as I please understanding that others may not always approve of my thoughts and actions. Regardless I can still try and do as I see fit. People have the right to support my endeavors or hinder them.
Isn't this exactly what does happen?
I am still confused about exactly what you are arguing for or against. Are we really talking about snow flakes, lefties, compelled speech (via Jordan Peterson), free speech (on university campuses)?
Unknown means unknown.

User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 2883
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: rights revisited

Post by Burning ghost » September 3rd, 2018, 9:38 am

Eduk -

I wasn’t arguing for anything. H&N had a disagreement with Sausage Dog. I was trying to understand what it was because at the base they seemed to be saying the same thing.
AKA badgerjelly

Steve3007
Posts: 5638
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: rights revisited

Post by Steve3007 » September 3rd, 2018, 9:39 am

Burning ghost wrote:Easy. Article 13 - 15.
UDHR wrote:Article 13.

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Article 14.

(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 15.

(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

I don't see how you can use the above articles simply to escape dire circumstances - i.e. poverty.

Article 13 gives no rights to citizens to live in any country but their own. It just says they can leave home, come back home and move about within their home.

Article 14 seems to say explicitly that political persecution has to be demonstrated - i.e. being punished for doing things that are crimes in the country of origin is not enough. Being in hardship is not enough. And even then it says people have the right to "seek" it. That's a bit like a provision in employment law in the country where I live, which states that employees have the right to "ask" for flexible working hours. It doesn't force the employer to grant it. Although article 14 also then says you have the right to "enjoy" it. I'm not sure how to interpret that. It seems odd to tell people that they have the right to enjoy something. I'd have left that one out.

I don't see any of these articles as giving anyone an automatic right to move to another country against the will of the government of that country. When article 15 says "No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality" I take that to mean that, if you've committed no crime, you can't be held against your will in your country. I don't think it means you can force another country to make you one of its nationals. I'm certainly not allowed to suddenly become, say, a US citizen if I want to.
Burning ghost wrote:I am certainly not against accommodating people in need and giving them citizenship if the people of the country want this and they enter legally.
Well, on the face of it, the above articles of the UN UDHR don't seem to me to allow people to seek accommodation purely on the basis of need. They seem to allow it specifically on the basis of political persecution. So they seem to be stricter than you.
hey is a lot of chicanery on both extreme ends.
I'm sure there is a lot of chicanery. But I think that will always be the case whenever there are declarations, constitutions and laws that can be interpretted differently by different people, depending on their position on the political spectrum. In general, it seems to be very difficult to create any such declarations, constitutions and laws that avoid that. Hence the controversy and debate surrounding the appointment of top judges by political leaders.

Eduk
Posts: 2271
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: rights revisited

Post by Eduk » September 3rd, 2018, 10:23 am

I wasn’t arguing for anything. H&N had a disagreement with Sausage Dog. I was trying to understand what it was because at the base they seemed to be saying the same thing.
Sorry you seemed adamant it wasn't about race. How do you know this? Could it be about race? Could it be about something other than what is being directly said? Perhaps that is why what is being said makes no sense? Could it be to do with not doing all that great at life?
Unknown means unknown.

Fooloso4
Moderator
Posts: 3519
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: rights revisited

Post by Fooloso4 » September 3rd, 2018, 10:32 am

Steve3007:
As I said to Burning ghost, it seems clear to me that rights, such as those set out in the UDHR, are prescriptions, not descriptions. Or, as ThomasHobbes said in an earlier post, they are aspirations. Same general idea. It seems highly unlikely to me that the writers of the UDHR mistook these rights for descriptive laws of physics.

So protection comes from the extent to which the strong agree to be obliged to defend those rights.
This raises several questions:

What justifies these prescriptions? Why should a nation aspire to equal rights for all? Why should the strong defend those rights?

How one might answer depends on whether rights are understood as inherent or given. This is connected to the distinction between ‘natural’ and ‘conventional’ rights. Do you have a right to life as a matter of convention or is it a matter of convention that your right to life is protected? Does the language of ‘rights’ even get at what is most basic? We do not, for example, think in terms of rights when we nurture and protect our children.

A related question is whether there is a clear distinction between basic rights and contingent rights?

Eduk
Posts: 2271
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: rights revisited

Post by Eduk » September 3rd, 2018, 10:38 am

What justifies these prescriptions? Why should a nation aspire to equal rights for all? Why should the strong defend those rights?
I would say for existential reasons.
Unknown means unknown.

Fooloso4
Moderator
Posts: 3519
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: rights revisited

Post by Fooloso4 » September 3rd, 2018, 10:41 am

Eduk:
I would say for existential reasons.
I am not sure I understand what you are saying.

Eduk
Posts: 2271
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: rights revisited

Post by Eduk » September 3rd, 2018, 10:50 am

Well put simply I believe fairness is beneficial for chances for life to exist. It's a complicated calculation of course, but existence, for me, is the nub of the issue.
Unknown means unknown.

Fooloso4
Moderator
Posts: 3519
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: rights revisited

Post by Fooloso4 » September 3rd, 2018, 10:54 am

Eduk:
Well put simply I believe fairness is beneficial for chances for life to exist. It's a complicated calculation of course, but existence, for me, is the nub of the issue.
Since you do not frame this in language of rights I wonder what you might say about this question I posed:
Does the language of ‘rights’ even get at what is most basic?

Eduk
Posts: 2271
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: rights revisited

Post by Eduk » September 3rd, 2018, 11:06 am

Does the language of ‘rights’ even get at what is most basic?
I liked Burning Ghost's summary. I will paraphrase.
People do what they do
In this sense there is no such thing as a right as people will do what they do and it is impossible for this not to be the case. Certainly there is no 'define God here' given rights in order to make rights objective.
However in another sense I may wish to confer rights on others (and myself) because I think that would make the best possible world for me (and others - and for me again). For example I neither wish to be a slave nor to own a slave, therefore whatever my position in society (which I do not know before birth) I do not wish their to be slavery in the past, present or future. I wish this on grounds that I don't want to be a slave (which most would agree with) and then on grounds of empathy and my nature that I don't want to own slaves (less would agree with me, well most would say they agree but considering the number of slaves a lot of people are lying). I also believe that owning slaves is itself sub optimal so even if I had no empathy I still don't think it would be a great idea other than in contrived circumstances (which I wouldn't know about before they occurred).
Unknown means unknown.

Eduk
Posts: 2271
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: rights revisited

Post by Eduk » September 3rd, 2018, 11:07 am

whoops quote fail :)
Unknown means unknown.

Post Reply