richardhutnik said: * The Declaration of Independence and the preamble, show intentions, or purposes in mind of the Founding Fathers, and why to even have a Constitution, rules of law, a society with law enforcement, and norms they would likely agree would fit in upholding a view of a social contract, if they were with Locke.

Yes. But what was Locke's idea of a social contract? That a government exists to protect the rights to life and property, and it properly derives its power from the consent of the governed.

richardhutnik said: * The lines between negative and positive rights get blurred, when people attempt to exercise them.  Like the pursuit of happiness and life, can come into conflict.  One can say that both are negative rights, but when my attempt to act to fullfill my happiness runs into an area without sufficient resources, someone is going to have to yield here and their pursuit will be restricted.

Not in that sense, they don't. You have a right to pursue your happiness, and to attain it if you can. If your happiness is something beyond your means like having a solid gold house or a 20 inch dick, then you may just be out of luck. But your rights aren't being violated just because you can't achieve what you want, so long as you are free to try to achieve. Where does a positive right enter into this at all? It doesn't. You are implying that someone should supply you with the means to pursue your goals, but no one is obligated to do any such thing.

When someone is dragged into the justice system and accused of a crime, then sure. Your liberty and ability to pursue your happiness are put on hold, while you are awarded a positive right that is built into the system in the form of provided legal representation. But this is an exceptional situation.

richardhutnik said: * If rights are seen as inalienable, and not given by governments, then rights can be infringed upon by other entities besides governments.  This is made mention before the discussion goes into people merely being free, because there is no government to stop them.

No. If they are inalienable, then they cannot be legitimately infringed upon by anybody.

richardhutnik said: * Laws are shaped and model by values and ethics, and a reflection of these.  All laws are a reflection of some ethical state desired to be upheld to maintain states in society that individuals wish to live in.  Because of the ability of said laws, combined with taxation, law enforcement, and so on... have an ability to maintain certain states, entities in society will gather around these states and attempt to make their ideal state from an ethical standpoint, come to pass.

Definitely not. Laws are often made by people in power for the benefit of people in power, and I'm pretty confident that laws such as affirmative action (legally mandated racial discrimination) and hate crime legislation (thought crimes) are considered unethical by a majority.

You seem constantly changing the point this thread is about. Originally you posed this quesiton:

richardhutnik said: I would be interested in seeing individuals who want to argue for rights-based ethical systems to be able to end up coming up with the best solution to this current issue regarding contraception and effectively argue that rights-based ethical systems can work.

I came up with a resolution, as a personal right here is opposed to groups. So one side is not covered in the area of personal rights, the groups (in this case the church as an employer) cannot claim individual rights. So no conflict. Also, a rights-based-system must not include every thinkable right, so we could discuss, if a right to get contraception paid from the employer should be part of the ethical system of choice. It is not part of the human rights for instance.

What you did over this thread: you claim individual rights for groups - no, as they not individuals, they get no individual rights.

You invent new rights and add them to other rights-systems - there are many rights-systems out there, that are consistent in itself. You can always destroy them, by adding nonsensical rights. You can define different rights-systems that can lead to completely different ethics. But they are different rights-systems.

You claim, that rights-based system can contain contradictions. Yes, so does EVERY ethical system. But usually the problematic cases are not common in reality.

You claim, that duties cannot be derived from individual rights. So what? Does every ethical system have to include duties? You only asked in the OP, if the system may work, not that it includes everything you want. You may not prefer a rights-based-system, but that doesn't mean it isn't working.

You say: "But a rights-based system doesn't provide food for homeless people." Maybe, but that's not the point. An ethical-system can come to the conclusion that food has to be provided for the homeless - or not. That doesn't mean it isn't a working and valid ethical system. Heck, the slave-traders had a working ethical system. We may not approve of it, but they had one.

So, that an ethical system doesn't do what you want, doesn't mean it isn't working. It only means you may prefer another ethical system. No problem with that. I also would add some rules to rights-based ethical system to make it complete. But that's a different point. That would be asking for 'which ethical system are you prefering'. And such a thread could get complicated, as there are tons of ethical systems.

You ask, if I can argue, that a rights-based-system can work. I think I argued that enough. The declaration of human-rights is a rights-only system. I would add some more rules to create up a society, but I think it's a great base. So my question to you is: can you show that the system of human rights doesn't work?

Mnementh said: You seem constantly changing the point this thread is about. Originally you posed this quesiton: richardhutnik said: I would be interested in seeing individuals who want to argue for rights-based ethical systems to be able to end up coming up with the best solution to this current issue regarding contraception and effectively argue that rights-based ethical systems can work. I came up with a resolution, as a personal right here is opposed to groups. So one side is not covered in the area of personal rights, the groups (in this case the church as an employer) cannot claim individual rights. So no conflict. Also, a rights-based-system must not include every thinkable right, so we could discuss, if a right to get contraception paid from the employer should be part of the ethical system of choice. It is not part of the human rights for instance. What you did over this thread: you claim individual rights for groups - no, as they not individuals, they get no individual rights. ------------------------------------------------------------------- So, that an ethical system doesn't do what you want, doesn't mean it isn't working. It only means you may prefer another ethical system. No problem with that. I also would add some rules to rights-based ethical system to make it complete. But that's a different point. That would be asking for 'which ethical system are you prefering'. And such a thread could get complicated, as there are tons of ethical systems. You ask, if I can argue, that a rights-based-system can work. I think I argued that enough. The declaration of human-rights is a rights-only system. I would add some more rules to create up a society, but I think it's a great base. So my question to you is: can you show that the system of human rights doesn't work?

Note: I edited this down, and stuck a line between the middle, to discuss the two points separately.

First, this thread has deviated some from the original topic, looking at rights themselves.  In light of this, other things were discussed, and continue to be.  Of course, the time things can stop being discussed, and this thread would end.  

In regards to your second point, it would depend on what is meant by working.  If working means, "provide some framework to answer ethical questions" then yes, a rights-based system can work. If it means "to be able to resolve ethical questions, without there being contradictions, and sometimes being on par with having no ethical system but have something akin merely the most resourceful in a fight and doesn't have flaws in its foundation" then no, a rights-based ethics system doesn't work. 

What has been discussed here is that, if you advocate for positive rights, then rights will conflict.  If you end up merely having purely negative rights (assuming that they are merely negative), then you can't show any sense of duty, unless the exercising of the rights are considered mandatory.  

I could end up arguing here that, in the case of negative rights, they either end up acting as positive rights, or end up being duties.  Take the example of criminal acts with victims.  In this, if you have a rights-based ethical system, based on negative rights, that would argue that there is a right to not be a victim, and this is a said negative right, and is a reason for a society to exist.  Well, to make this work, an individual would then come to expect upon society they live in to keep themselves free of criminals. This would then call upon society to come up with law enforcement, pass laws and so on, to protect people from criminals.  In doing this they would end up taxing people, taking their money against the will of people to do this, because it is agreed that people not have this.  The right to not be a victim ends up becoming a positive right, that would infringe on the rights of others to their own property and not theft.

In this, one then can end up saying, "But this doesn't need to happen.  People can end up paying for their own law enforcement and protection, why have taxes and fees and provide it for everyone?"  At this point, you no longer even have a negative right for everyone, to not have harm done to them, but you have a duty you impose on everyone.  It is a restriction on behavior.  It isn't a right, it is an obligation that people don't harm others.  Also, for a person who wants to be protected, they need to do it themselves, and that also becomes a duty.  It is very little different than a system where there is no morals or ethics either, because this exact state of self-protection, and use of aggression are seen as the rule of the wilds, with the stronger picking on the weaker failure to protect oneself means you failed in your own moral duty to protect yourself, so it is more of the consequence of a failure to meet one's own duty, than it is that one had their own rights violated.

In this, you end up with either rights in conflict due to them being positive rights without any means of harmonizing and the ethical system in conflict with itself, or you end up with something merely reduced to demands placed on individuals that need to be met, and failure to do so results in consequences, and not rights at all.

richardhutnik said:  In regards to your second point, it would depend on what is meant by working.  If working means, "provide some framework to answer ethical questions" then yes, a rights-based system can work. If it means "to be able to resolve ethical questions, without there being contradictions, and sometimes being on par with having no ethical system but have something akin merely the most resourceful in a fight and doesn't have flaws in its foundation" then no, a rights-based ethics system doesn't work.

If you apply this, there is no working ethical system. They all contain contradiction, they all have weak points. If you think it's so bad, name some example of a system that works better in this regard.

 

richardhutnik said:   I could end up arguing here that, in the case of negative rights, they either end up acting as positive rights, or end up being duties.  Take the example of criminal acts with victims.  In this, if you have a rights-based ethical system, based on negative rights, that would argue that there is a right to not be a victim, and this is a said negative right, and is a reason for a society to exist.  Well, to make this work, an individual would then come to expect upon society they live in to keep themselves free of criminals. This would then call upon society to come up with law enforcement, pass laws and so on, to protect people from criminals.  In doing this they would end up taxing people, taking their money against the will of people to do this, because it is agreed that people not have this.  The right to not be a victim ends up becoming a positive right, that would infringe on the rights of others to their own property and not theft.

You mix things up. An ethical system is for deciding, if something is right or wrong. Rights-based-systems see violatin of this rights as something wrong. Enforcing punishment for wrongdoing is something completely different. It has nothing to do with the ethical system. And no ethical system can enforce anything. The ten commandments are without some force putting out punishment for wrongdoers nothing. You also wrong, that you need a tax or paid law enforcement. There are other ways to enforce being in line with an ethical system, but that's usually more complicated so we stick in reality to central power that have taxes and pay for law enforcement.

 

richardhutnik said:  In this, one then can end up saying, "But this doesn't need to happen.  People can end up paying for their own law enforcement and protection, why have taxes and fees and provide it for everyone?"  At this point, you no longer even have a negative right for everyone, to not have harm done to them, but you have a duty you impose on everyone.  It is a restriction on behavior.  It isn't a right, it is an obligation that people don't harm others.  Also, for a person who wants to be protected, they need to do it themselves, and that also becomes a duty.  It is very little different than a system where there is no morals or ethics either, because this exact state of self-protection, and use of aggression are seen as the rule of the wilds, with the stronger picking on the weaker failure to protect oneself means you failed in your own moral duty to protect yourself, so it is more of the consequence of a failure to meet one's own duty, than it is that one had their own rights violated. In this, you end up with either rights in conflict due to them being positive rights without any means of harmonizing and the ethical system in conflict with itself, or you end up with something merely reduced to demands placed on individuals that need to be met, and failure to do so results in consequences, and not rights at all.

Again, you mix up things here. The ethical system answers if something is wrong or right. A society as a whole has much more to care about. And that's why an ethical system is only one part.

 

 

Again, which ethical system can deliver what you miss in rights-based-systems?

Mnementh said: richardhutnik said:  In regards to your second point, it would depend on what is meant by working.  If working means, "provide some framework to answer ethical questions" then yes, a rights-based system can work. If it means "to be able to resolve ethical questions, without there being contradictions, and sometimes being on par with having no ethical system but have something akin merely the most resourceful in a fight and doesn't have flaws in its foundation" then no, a rights-based ethics system doesn't work. If you apply this, there is no working ethical system. They all contain contradiction, they all have weak points. If you think it's so bad, name some example of a system that works better in this regard.   richardhutnik said:   I could end up arguing here that, in the case of negative rights, they either end up acting as positive rights, or end up being duties.  Take the example of criminal acts with victims.  In this, if you have a rights-based ethical system, based on negative rights, that would argue that there is a right to not be a victim, and this is a said negative right, and is a reason for a society to exist.  Well, to make this work, an individual would then come to expect upon society they live in to keep themselves free of criminals. This would then call upon society to come up with law enforcement, pass laws and so on, to protect people from criminals.  In doing this they would end up taxing people, taking their money against the will of people to do this, because it is agreed that people not have this.  The right to not be a victim ends up becoming a positive right, that would infringe on the rights of others to their own property and not theft. You mix things up. An ethical system is for deciding, if something is right or wrong. Rights-based-systems see violatin of this rights as something wrong. Enforcing punishment for wrongdoing is something completely different. It has nothing to do with the ethical system. And no ethical system can enforce anything. The ten commandments are without some force putting out punishment for wrongdoers nothing. You also wrong, that you need a tax or paid law enforcement. There are other ways to enforce being in line with an ethical system, but that's usually more complicated so we stick in reality to central power that have taxes and pay for law enforcement. richardhutnik said:  In this, one then can end up saying, "But this doesn't need to happen.  People can end up paying for their own law enforcement and protection, why have taxes and fees and provide it for everyone?"  At this point, you no longer even have a negative right for everyone, to not have harm done to them, but you have a duty you impose on everyone.  It is a restriction on behavior.  It isn't a right, it is an obligation that people don't harm others.  Also, for a person who wants to be protected, they need to do it themselves, and that also becomes a duty.  It is very little different than a system where there is no morals or ethics either, because this exact state of self-protection, and use of aggression are seen as the rule of the wilds, with the stronger picking on the weaker failure to protect oneself means you failed in your own moral duty to protect yourself, so it is more of the consequence of a failure to meet one's own duty, than it is that one had their own rights violated. In this, you end up with either rights in conflict due to them being positive rights without any means of harmonizing and the ethical system in conflict with itself, or you end up with something merely reduced to demands placed on individuals that need to be met, and failure to do so results in consequences, and not rights at all. Again, you mix up things here. The ethical system answers if something is wrong or right. A society as a whole has much more to care about. And that's why an ethical system is only one part. Again, which ethical system can deliver what you miss in rights-based-systems?

Me:

I was looking at the dicussion here of negative vs positive rights.  This argument of separating them comes normally from individuals who consider taxes as theft.  What I was arguing here is that if you do make being free from crime something to expect, it then would be considered a positive right, and place demands of tax dollars be taken from individuals, even individuals who believe they can pay for their own protection, and don't need to pay for the protection of others in the process.  If expressed as a negative right, then I argue it really isn't a right at all but a duty someone must exercise for themselves and act upon to make happen, and also a negative duty to not act on someone else.

In regards to ethical systems that work better than a rights-based one, presuming that ethical systems need willing compliance to work, I would say one that is duty-based, where individuals look after one another, mutually care for one another, and act in a kind and loving matter would work better than one where everyone argues they have rights for things.  The net impact of the society as a whole would be better overall.

richardhutnik said:   Me: I was looking at the dicussion here of negative vs positive rights.  This argument of separating them comes normally from individuals who consider taxes as theft.  What I was arguing here is that if you do make being free from crime something to expect, it then would be considered a positive right, and place demands of tax dollars be taken from individuals, even individuals who believe they can pay for their own protection, and don't need to pay for the protection of others in the process.  If expressed as a negative right, then I argue it really isn't a right at all but a duty someone must exercise for themselves and act upon to make happen, and also a negative duty to not act on someone else.

I don't think taxes are theft or something. But constructing from "violating a personal right of someone else is wrong" to "there has someone to enforce, that my rights aren't violating" is moving the whole thing to another level. No ethical system can enforce anything. That are laws and law-enforcement for. The ethical system is for providing a theoretical base, on which the laws are founded.

 

richardhutnik said: In regards to ethical systems that work better than a rights-based one, presuming that ethical systems need willing compliance to work, I would say one that is duty-based, where individuals look after one another, mutually care for one another, and act in a kind and loving matter would work better than one where everyone argues they have rights for things.  The net impact of the society as a whole would be better overall.

No, because a duty-based system has the same issues: it cannot enforce compliance. You can find situation, in which the duties are contradicting each other or are leading to harm if followed to the word. No ethical system can provide that.

Mnementh said: richardhutnik said: Me: I was looking at the dicussion here of negative vs positive rights.  This argument of separating them comes normally from individuals who consider taxes as theft.  What I was arguing here is that if you do make being free from crime something to expect, it then would be considered a positive right, and place demands of tax dollars be taken from individuals, even individuals who believe they can pay for their own protection, and don't need to pay for the protection of others in the process.  If expressed as a negative right, then I argue it really isn't a right at all but a duty someone must exercise for themselves and act upon to make happen, and also a negative duty to not act on someone else. I don't think taxes are theft or something. But constructing from "violating a personal right of someone else is wrong" to "there has someone to enforce, that my rights aren't violating" is moving the whole thing to another level. No ethical system can enforce anything. That are laws and law-enforcement for. The ethical system is for providing a theoretical base, on which the laws are founded. richardhutnik said: In regards to ethical systems that work better than a rights-based one, presuming that ethical systems need willing compliance to work, I would say one that is duty-based, where individuals look after one another, mutually care for one another, and act in a kind and loving matter would work better than one where everyone argues they have rights for things.  The net impact of the society as a whole would be better overall. No, because a duty-based system has the same issues: it cannot enforce compliance. You can find situation, in which the duties are contradicting each other or are leading to harm if followed to the word. No ethical system can provide that.

The thing is, if you go into the Libertarian camp, which is more into rights-based ethics, than antyhing else, they will argue that taxation is theft.  Because of this, I have to make mention of it.  And on one level it can be argued that it is theft, particularly when individuals refuse to believe there is such a thing as a social contract.

I also made mention of duty-based, because of the frame of mind it operates in.  I was saying an ethical system, where people think in terms of what their obligations are, rather than what their rights are, ends up producing self-compliance that actually benefits others. I would also note that you would take all that I wrote, not just one of duty-based but als the ones of mutual concern, and so on...  Such an ethical system, with people faithfully following, would produce one over where people argue they have rights, and would produce a better way to rebound from down times, than a strictly negative rights one.  Also, I would make note here to that it can also be argued that ethical systems contain no rights, and are merely based around duties.  Where those duties are derived is a separate issue though.

Another thing I have to ponder about, in connection to this, is where in a ethical system based around choice, is the means of redemption, particularly in the case where a person sees everything going wrong and would seek to have things stop and get help.  If there is no ethical obligation for people to intervene, how is it stopped?  I just ran into this song, which is being used to promote the latest Metal Gear game:

Ok, to add two more things to the mix here.

First, you have a blurring of rights being negative or positive when the interact. If I were to say that a negative right to a business owner would be that people don't tell him to run his business. That is his right. And then I can say that an individual has a negative right to have harmful smoke getting in their lungs that they don't want. Now, you put someone working in an establishment where people smoke, and that ends up turning what are normally negative rights into one person or the other advocating a positive right in that case. Smoking bans in workplaces end up coming down to this. Laws come to ban the smoking in the workplace, because there isn't necessarily work readily available for people. Also, the basis of the said right for the smoker side is an individual doing something of no value, outside of getting nicotine which has effects that is argued to help the smoker emotionally. But, they are addicted to the substance, so they can't up and quit easily. So, the entire basis of it is a person enslaved to a substance.

A second one would have to do with the uselessness from effects side of merely having a rights-based system, which uses laws and law enforcement to insure. In this is case, out of Spiderman, where Peter Parker could of stopped someone from robbing a business, but said he didn't have an obligation to do so. Under a rights-based system, he doesn't have to, particularly (as was seen in the more recent, but not most recent, original), the owner of the business scammed him out of getting paid. Story goes the criminal Peter Parker could of stopped kills his uncle later. By basing it around rights, you don't create a pro-active duty on a person. It wasn't looking after his own rights, or anyone else from that point, that drove Peter that point forth, but a duty to use his power to serve others to prevent what he saw as evil and get involved. Rights-based systems don't produce this.