Should people have a right to privacy?

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
Post Reply
Ecurb
Posts: 2138
Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm

Re: Should people have a right to privacy?

Post by Ecurb »

GE Morton wrote: June 6th, 2022, 12:51 pm

*Sigh*. Does Crusoe alone on his island have liberty? Who "granted" it to him?
Crusoe has no "right" to liberty alone on his island. Such a right would be utterly meaningless.

Repeating yourself over and over ad nauseum doesn't make you right, GE. It doesn't make you a reasonable interlocutor, either.

Also, don't tell me I have a "hard time understanding". I'm perfectly capable of understanding your silly position, GE. I (and all other reasonable people) just find it unreasonable. Rights are nothing more than obligations. All of your nonsense about first posssession without harming others is irrelevant to that point. You may believe that it is a reasonable method of conferring rights (obligations on the part of others). But many others disagree. Genghis Khan, for example, thought he could gain property rights even if he DID harm others. So have a great many others in human history. And they were right! They did gain property rights!
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Should people have a right to privacy?

Post by GE Morton »

Ecurb wrote: June 6th, 2022, 5:15 pm
Crusoe has no "right" to liberty alone on his island. Such a right would be utterly meaningless.
It only seems meaningless to you because you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge its historical meaning, which is abundantly clear, in favor of an ad hoc Newspeak meaning.
I'm perfectly capable of understanding your silly position, GE. I (and all other reasonable people) just find it unreasonable.
You apparently don't know the meaning of "unreasonable" either. With what principle of reason does it conflict? "Unreasonable" doesn't apply to definitions; only to arguments. Definitions are either accurate or inaccurate, depending only upon whether they reflect historical or customary usages of the term defined. Nor is an argument "unreasonable" merely because someone disagrees with its conclusion. To be unreasonable it must include false premises or violate some logical rule. Which of those errors do you think I've committed?
Rights are nothing more than obligations.
Well, that is quite obviously false. Obligations have a factual basis; they do not appear ex nihilo. They arise from some specific, empirically verifiable event or state of affairs, such as making a promise, entering into a contract, inflicting an injury, etc. Rights are not obligations; the term denotes one class of states of affairs which give rise to obligations. They do so because those states of affairs have moral significance --- i.e., acts which inflict no losses or injuries on other persons.
Ecurb
Posts: 2138
Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm

Re: Should people have a right to privacy?

Post by Ecurb »

GE Morton wrote: June 6th, 2022, 7:11 pm
Ecurb wrote: June 6th, 2022, 5:15 pm
Crusoe has no "right" to liberty alone on his island. Such a right would be utterly meaningless.
It only seems meaningless to you because you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge its historical meaning, which is abundantly clear, in favor of an ad hoc Newspeak meaning.
I'm perfectly capable of understanding your silly position, GE. I (and all other reasonable people) just find it unreasonable.
You apparently don't know the meaning of "unreasonable" either. With what principle of reason does it conflict? "Unreasonable" doesn't apply to definitions; only to arguments. Definitions are either accurate or inaccurate, depending only upon whether they reflect historical or customary usages of the term defined. Nor is an argument "unreasonable" merely because someone disagrees with its conclusion. To be unreasonable it must include false premises or violate some logical rule. Which of those errors do you think I've committed?
Rights are nothing more than obligations.
Well, that is quite obviously false. Obligations have a factual basis; they do not appear ex nihilo. They arise from some specific, empirically verifiable event or state of affairs, such as making a promise, entering into a contract, inflicting an injury, etc. Rights are not obligations; the term denotes one class of states of affairs which give rise to obligations. They do so because those states of affairs have moral significance --- i.e., acts which inflict no losses or injuries on other persons.
It doesn't matter if obligations have a factual basis. Why would it? Whatever their basis, if an individual's rights mean obligations on the part of other people, then Crusoe's "rights" on an insland where he is the sole inhabitant are meaningless. The state of affairs minus the obligations does not confer rights. This is so obvious that I'm astounded you don't understand it. Of course Crusoe is at liberty to behave as he wishes (given the restrictions of nature). But his right to do so is utterly irrelevant.

The Constitutional Bill of Rights makes this perfectly clear: Each right enumerated specifically lists the obligations:

1) Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.....

2).....the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

4) The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated....

I could go on and on. The founding fathers, at least, recognized that rights are no more than obligations.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Should people have a right to privacy?

Post by GE Morton »

Ecurb wrote: June 6th, 2022, 7:53 pm It doesn't matter if obligations have a factual basis. Why would it? Whatever their basis, if an individual's rights mean obligations on the part of other people, then Crusoe's "rights" on an insland where he is the sole inhabitant are meaningless.
Er, no. The term "rights" doesn't mean obligations, in the lexical/definitional sense of "mean." They imply obligations. Though I agree there is a sense of "means" which is equivalent to "implies." But that implication is irrelevant to defining properties of rights and to the truth conditions for rights claims.

(You're failing to distinguish between two distinct meanings of "means," a term which has many other meanings as well).

And, no, that Crusoe has rights is not "meaningless" in the absence of others. His having them --- the truth of propositions predicating those rights to him --- depends only upon whether he was the first possessor of the things to which he claims rights. He just has no occasion, while alone, to assert those rights, anymore than he would have occasion to assert that he is 6 feet tall. But he is 6 feet tall. When Friday arrives he will have occasion, and likely will assert the rights he held prior to Friday's arrival.
The Constitutional Bill of Rights makes this perfectly clear: Each right enumerated specifically lists the obligations:

1) Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.....

2).....the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

4) The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated....

I could go on and on. The founding fathers, at least, recognized that rights are no more than obligations.
Yes, rights imply obligations, in the examples you cite, upon the government. But no, those phrases don't entail that rights are "no more" than obligations. It is only because they exist that anyone has those obligations. As I said before, obligations don't arise ex nihilo, but from states of affairs which logically precede them.
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Should people have a right to privacy?

Post by Pattern-chaser »

GE Morton wrote: June 6th, 2022, 12:36 pm And I've told you several times what having a right means --- it means that you acquired the thing to which you are claiming the right without inflicting loss or injury on anyone else.
Pattern-chaser wrote: June 6th, 2022, 12:40 pm By what right - on what authority - did you "acquire" this thing?
GE Morton wrote: June 6th, 2022, 12:44 pm None. Why do you assume some "authority" is needed? You are your own "authority."
So your 'rights' exist because you take them for yourself? I thought so. So someone bigger and stronger than you can take those rights away from you? Yes, I thought that too. It looks like you'll need to negotiate with your fellow humans. Perhaps if you agree to grant each other these 'rights' and to respect the rights that you each claim for yourselves, you could make it all work as you would like it to?

There are no 'natural' rights, but only those you are granted by others, or that you are strong enough to claim and defend (enforce) for yourself. It's no wonder Americans need such devastating firepower; thank the Gods for the AK-47, the Enforcer of Rights!
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Should people have a right to privacy?

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Pattern-chaser wrote: June 6th, 2022, 6:46 am The "Liberty" you refer to can only exist because everyone else carries out their role to respect it, and not violate it.
GE Morton wrote: June 6th, 2022, 12:38 pm Oh, that's right. But it must have existed before the violation, or there would have been nothing to violate.
Pattern-chaser wrote: June 6th, 2022, 12:43 pm Alright then. The "Liberty" you refer to, as you understand it, exists only because other people grant it to you. If the people don't grant it to you, you cannot have Liberty.

Better?
GE Morton wrote: June 6th, 2022, 12:49 pm Well, no, PC. If someone refrains from stealing my car, he does not thereby "grant" it to me. Your car, your house, even your life and body, were not "granted" to you by everyone who refrains from taking them from you.
The fact that other people do not take (steal?) these things from you is the 'right' that they grant you. They expect you to grant them the same right in return: not to take the things they have claimed for themselves. Rights are granted, mutually.

GE Morton wrote: June 6th, 2022, 12:41 pm "The "Liberty" you refer to can only continue to exist because everyone else carries out their role to respect it, and not violate it."
Pattern-chaser wrote: June 6th, 2022, 12:44 pm Never mind continuing to exist, this 'Liberty' can only start existing if and when people grant it to you.
GE Morton wrote: June 6th, 2022, 12:51 pm Does Crusoe alone on his island have liberty? Who "granted" it to him?
No, Crusoe does not have 'liberty'. He is on an island. He is alive. He might remain so if he works at it. What meaning might "liberty" have, in Crusoe's situation? He has the liberty not to drink, and to die of thirst, or not to eat, and starve. Is that 'liberty'? No, it's a nonsense, pure and simple. Liberty is a human-created 'right' that Crusoe does not have or need when alone. ... This is because 'rights' are granted by other humans. In the absence of these other humans, there are no 'rights', nor can there be, nor is there a need for them.

Crusoe has what he needs on his island. He has no 'rights', or need for them. They might become necessary/useful when and if he meets Man Friday...?
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
Good_Egg
Posts: 782
Joined: January 27th, 2022, 5:12 am

Re: Should people have a right to privacy?

Post by Good_Egg »

Pattern-chaser wrote: June 6th, 2022, 12:44 pm
GE Morton wrote: June 6th, 2022, 12:41 pm "The "Liberty" you refer to can only continue to exist because everyone else carries out their role to respect it, and not violate it."
Never mind continuing to exist, this 'Liberty' can only start existing if and when people grant it to you.
That would be the case if liberty were a legal right. No legal right exists prior to a law-making institution.

But the claim here is that certain liberties are moral rights or natural rights which do not derive from any grant of rights by a law-making institution. Some acts were morally wrong before any such institution existed.

Also, the legal rights that you possess do not disappear if everyone else goes away on holiday. They are not voided if for a period of time there is nobody for them to apply to.

Similarly, whatever moral rights Crusoe or anyone else possesses today, the acts that they prohibit remain morally wrong if we look back to the time when he was the only person on the island.

A right does not pop into existence at the point where circumstances mean that there is the possibility that it would be violated. And then disappear again when that possibility goes away because someone is once more alone.

There is a difference between a proposition becoming true at a particular point in time and a proposition that has always been true becoming relevant at a particular point in time.
"Opinions are fiercest.. ..when the evidence to support or refute them is weakest" - Druin Burch
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Should people have a right to privacy?

Post by Pattern-chaser »

GE Morton wrote: June 6th, 2022, 12:41 pm "The "Liberty" you refer to can only continue to exist because everyone else carries out their role to respect it, and not violate it."
Pattern-chaser wrote: June 6th, 2022, 12:44 pm Never mind continuing to exist, this 'Liberty' can only start existing if and when people grant it to you.
Good_Egg wrote: June 7th, 2022, 8:46 am That would be the case if liberty were a legal right. No legal right exists prior to a law-making institution.

But the claim here is that certain liberties are moral rights or natural rights which do not derive from any grant of rights by a law-making institution...
...which brings us back to my question: what is the source of "natural" (or "moral") 'rights'? If you have such 'rights', who/what conferred them upon you? It seems to me that, if I searched life, the universe, and everything, I would find no evidence at all of 'rights'. I might find humans, animals, planets and galaxies, but not 'rights'. From whence come 'rights'?
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
Good_Egg
Posts: 782
Joined: January 27th, 2022, 5:12 am

Re: Should people have a right to privacy?

Post by Good_Egg »

I think they're called natural rights because their source is in the nature of human beings. Rather than in anything that human beings decide.

And clearly, if rights were everywhere complied with then you would be able to observe them indirectly by their impact on the behaviour of human beings.

As it is, you know the phrase "honoured more in the breach than in the observance". Such honouring is observable in the speech of human beings.

I suspect that your issue is less to do with rights not being observable, and more to do with natural rights being hard to distinguish by observation from merely-cultural customs.

But the question "should there be a legal right of privacy" is one we can all address, from our different ethical perspectives.
"Opinions are fiercest.. ..when the evidence to support or refute them is weakest" - Druin Burch
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Should people have a right to privacy?

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Good_Egg wrote: June 7th, 2022, 1:16 pm I think they're called natural rights because their source is in the nature of human beings. Rather than in anything that human beings decide.
At first glance, this seems to make sense. But when I look more carefully for the meaning your words carry, I find nothing. That's probably me being dense. 😐

Can you offer a specific example of one of these "natural rights"? And how would this 'right' emerge from the "nature" of humanity? If this right is violated, what would happen to the violator? I.e. is this 'right' enforced, and if so, how?


Good_Egg wrote: June 7th, 2022, 1:16 pm I suspect that your issue is less to do with rights not being observable, and more to do with natural rights being hard to distinguish by observation from merely-cultural customs.
You may be right. I cannot see these rights, nor can I see how they might differ from custom.


Good_Egg wrote: June 7th, 2022, 1:16 pm But the question "should there be a legal right of privacy" is one we can all address, from our different ethical perspectives.
The topic does not mention "legal" rights, but only a "right" to privacy. And anyway, legal rights are created and enforced by us; they don't emerge from somewhere else, unnamed and un-described.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
Good_Egg
Posts: 782
Joined: January 27th, 2022, 5:12 am

Re: Should people have a right to privacy?

Post by Good_Egg »

Pattern-chaser wrote: June 8th, 2022, 7:05 am The topic does not mention "legal" rights, but only a "right" to privacy. And anyway, legal rights are created and enforced by us; they don't emerge from somewhere else, unnamed and un-described.
We can perhaps distinguish 4 senses of "right":
- a legal right (a statute that says that you may do something, and anyone who prevents you is subject to legal penalty)
- a customary right (it is normal in your culture that you may do something and it would be bad manners to prevent you)
- a practical right (you get to do it in practice because nobody wants to prevent you, or everyone is deterred from preventing you)
- a moral right (it is morally legitimate for you to do it and morally wrong to prevent you).

The thread title asks "Should...". Which I read as a moral question.
"Opinions are fiercest.. ..when the evidence to support or refute them is weakest" - Druin Burch
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Should people have a right to privacy?

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Good_Egg wrote: June 10th, 2022, 10:44 am
Pattern-chaser wrote: June 8th, 2022, 7:05 am The topic does not mention "legal" rights, but only a "right" to privacy. And anyway, legal rights are created and enforced by us; they don't emerge from somewhere else, unnamed and un-described.
We can perhaps distinguish 4 senses of "right":
- a legal right (a statute that says that you may do something, and anyone who prevents you is subject to legal penalty)
- a customary right (it is normal in your culture that you may do something and it would be bad manners to prevent you)
- a practical right (you get to do it in practice because nobody wants to prevent you, or everyone is deterred from preventing you)
- a moral right (it is morally legitimate for you to do it and morally wrong to prevent you).

The thread title asks "Should...". Which I read as a moral question.
OK, so we (think we) know what different types of 'rights' there are. Which of these types covers the titular 'right' to privacy, I wonder?
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7935
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Should people have a right to privacy?

Post by LuckyR »

Pattern-chaser wrote: June 10th, 2022, 12:46 pm
Good_Egg wrote: June 10th, 2022, 10:44 am
Pattern-chaser wrote: June 8th, 2022, 7:05 am The topic does not mention "legal" rights, but only a "right" to privacy. And anyway, legal rights are created and enforced by us; they don't emerge from somewhere else, unnamed and un-described.
We can perhaps distinguish 4 senses of "right":
- a legal right (a statute that says that you may do something, and anyone who prevents you is subject to legal penalty)
- a customary right (it is normal in your culture that you may do something and it would be bad manners to prevent you)
- a practical right (you get to do it in practice because nobody wants to prevent you, or everyone is deterred from preventing you)
- a moral right (it is morally legitimate for you to do it and morally wrong to prevent you).

The thread title asks "Should...". Which I read as a moral question.
OK, so we (think we) know what different types of 'rights' there are. Which of these types covers the titular 'right' to privacy, I wonder?
The "right" to privacy was never a legal right, even though most assume it is. It was at best a practical right in that in the pre computer age very few had the motivation to actually look up personal information, even though it was legally public. Now, in the information age, it is no longer a practical right, so it has devolved into a possible moral right. That is folks subjectively feel it should be a right (even though it isn't).
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Should people have a right to privacy?

Post by Pattern-chaser »

LuckyR wrote: June 11th, 2022, 8:41 am That is, folks subjectively feel it should be a right (even though it isn't).
And yet, if those folks decided it will be a right, they could make it happen. These folks are human, and 'rights' are created, maintained and enforced by humans, so it is entirely possible. I wonder if it will happen? 🤔🤔🤔
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7935
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Should people have a right to privacy?

Post by LuckyR »

Pattern-chaser wrote: June 11th, 2022, 8:56 am
LuckyR wrote: June 11th, 2022, 8:41 am That is, folks subjectively feel it should be a right (even though it isn't).
And yet, if those folks decided it will be a right, they could make it happen. These folks are human, and 'rights' are created, maintained and enforced by humans, so it is entirely possible. I wonder if it will happen? 🤔🤔🤔
Kind of difficult to get the toothpaste back in the tube...
"As usual... it depends."
Post Reply

Return to “Ethics and Morality”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021