A sad day in the Holy Land.

[Dru]

[Ireneo_Funes]

About time!

[archenemy]

i am aware that someone can take life or virginity away (for example) but these actions are sanctionned by society not by the individual.

 

Huh?

i'd be quite incapable of giving you a succint/concise history of rights development (that you couldn't otherwise find out in a few minutes on the internet anyway) but modern unalienable rights have their roots in the philosophy of the enlightment (locke, rousseau, etc ...) and are based on the social contract or alternatively on god's will (depending on your political leanings). i also seem to remember that in antiquity, emperors were thought to have unalienable rights.

 

i don't know why you say you can't give me a concise history of rights dev and then go on and do just that. It is a good post though--thanks. I don't want the quick internet version, I appreciate the reminder about locke and rousseau--I need to reread and remember. I'll get back to you in a coupla months after I have read enough to know (a little bit) what the hell I'm talking about.

[foraker]

rousseau's "Social Contract" is all well can good in theory, as far as theory goes, but I very much doubt much would have come of it if French and American revolutions had not occurred. i very much doubt the nobility, except maybe a few, were going to grant sweeping rights to the peasants. thus, the rights we call 'inalienable' were acquired. and such things obviously change with time as a society becomes more affluent. two hundred years ago, i reckon a fair number of people would have had a good laugh at you if you said 'all people have an inalienable right to the best health care possible'. even today, a fair number of people, at least here, scoff at the idea.

[j_b]

i believe we mostly agree (sorry that it isn't clear) insofar rights arise from our collective consciousness. it explains my emphasis on no one having the ability to give or take away rights that are the product of the evolution of human societies.

[archenemy]

this is where I get a little hung up. I can't get over the thought that rights can be taken away. Neither can I get over the thought that they are rarely given, but usually fought for. I don't know how that fits with my feeling that rights are just an idea in the first place. See, I still don't know what I am talking about--I'm just typing from the gut. But great questions and conundrums get me going on huge read-fests and give me something to spend my money on.

 

Oh, and foraker, I was just trying to remember another post today that mentioned something about more affluent societies becoming more lazy or some other negative trait. But you mention a positive outcome of social affluence. Another good thing to think on.

 

Fuck,I feel like a goddam nerd. Not a geek-nerd, but a philosophy nerd. Its a sure decline from here..

[Dechristo]

"Rights" are a product of political manufacture. "Rights" are only as real as the socio/political environment allows. It's well and good to ascribe to Man idealistic "rights" he should be allowed to enjoy, but that doesn't amount to jack for most of the world's population through history.

 

You can argue of the certainty of "rights" due you and mankind while you're dragged from your car, beaten, and robbed. But, the efficacy of your arguement evaporates with your consciousness when the reality-bearing bullet enlightens your brain.

 

In a world where few decide the law for all, it all hinges upon who decides what "truths to be self-evident".

[foraker]

archenemy, the other day i was just bored and frustrated at work and was feeling like causing trouble. ;-)

[EWolfe]

If human rights were treated as human privileges, we would all be a lot better off.