By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - More evidence that rights-based ethical systems have flawed foundations.

richardhutnik on 15 August 2012
HappySqurriel said:
richardhutnik said:
HappySqurriel said:
richardhutnik said:
Mnementh said:
richardhutnik said:

Pretty much anything that isn't simply resolved comes about when you have rights in conflict.  When everything is merely framed in context of rights, there is a lack of yielding or seeing a larger collective good picture.  In short, you can't build an optimal ethical structure on rights alone or even one based mainly on rights.

Rights are conflicting, yes thats very old wisdom. But that doesn't mean you can't build an ethical structure based on rights, you only have to prioritize them.

You could say the same about rules: rules are conflicting with each other. Even if they come from a rules-system, like the 10 commandments from the bible: you can always build situations where these things are conflicting with each other. So - that's your point?

Part of the point.  The other part is that rights-based ethics systems end up with advocacy groups arguing for certain rights, and a conflict approach to end up resolving them.  You win the conflict and gain the ability to exercise your rights, at the expense of others.  Because of this arguing for rights, on one wants a certain right to have lower priority than another one.  The battle is over this right or that being superior.  Libertarians place Liberty above others (even to the extent of denying other rights exists).  You will see progressives placing the quality of life of individuals above others, including property rights.   Conservatives will place the right to preserve tradition above others.  Individuals who are capitalistic end up placing property rights above every other right.


I would like to see examples of people arguing for one negative right at the expense of another negative right ...

One of the ultimate entities that would fully manifest the exercising of negative rights is a rock.  A rock sits there, minds its own business and doesn't do anything.  Of course, it is not living and has no needs and doesn't bother anyone.  But it is not alive.

Pretty much when you argue negative rights, you are saying that what you do doesn't infringe upon me in any way.  One area this can happen is in the area of freedom of speech and freedom to not listen.  In a common area, an individual can say they are free to say what they want, and not have this right infringed upon.  Another person says they have a right to not hear what someone says, or be offended.  They will claim to not hear something is their right, as much as the person who says they do have a right to speak.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_rights

But the right not to be offended is not a legitimate right ... You are in control over your emotional reactions to what someone says or does, it is not up to someone else to protect your emotional reaction.

To use some examples, a racist may be offended by the presence of black people if a person has the right not to be offended then it is the obligation of the black person to resolve that situation; a homophobe may be offended by the discussion of homosexuality on television, and if a person has the right not to be offended then the television station should not be allowed to broadcast content that offends him.

Essentially, the right not to be offended is a poorly worded positive right; it is the right to have other people provide you with an emotional state of non-offence.

If the foundation of negative rights is to be left alone, then not being offended, or being impacted by others, would fit into this.  For example, by following what you are saying, the Westboro Baptist Church is in the right, for saying homosexuals are going Hell outside of a funeral.

And also, the distinction between positive and negative rights is subject to debate also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights#Criticisms

About every right can be argued to have a positive or negative aspect to it.  I would say this comes out, in part, to the desire of an individual to maintain or obtain a certain state, which they consider their right to have.  Anything that works against this state is seen as violating their rights. 



Around the Network
Mnementh on 15 August 2012

richardhutnik said:

 If you look at the arguments in this thread, people would argue that only negative rights are rights, and they never conflict, because if everyone lived by the motto of being left alone, everyone would leave each other alone, and no one would have any rights violated.

Negative rights have more tradition and are usually more accepted. Even if positive rights are used, they are usually less prioritized than negative rights. Human rights are negative rights. And yes, negative rights are seldom conflict. It's possible, but very hard. And in the end you can find for every system situations, that let the system conflict in itself. So I see no point in this.

 

richardhutnik said:

In regards to conservatives, they will argue, for example, they have a right to raise their kids a certain way, and keep the public square clear of obscenity.  They say their rights as parents warrant this.  And there are others also.  They ARE personal rights.  For the conservative, values they have personally, also belong in society as a whole, because they are collectively shared.  Again, the value of tradition, ends up being elevated above the values that progressives have, for example.  A progressive, for example, would have little qualms going into a church and disrupting a religious service, for political or reasons of ethical concerns.

"For the conservative, values they have personally, also belong in society as a whole..." - so they are no personal rights and no negative rights. At this point the discussion ends. Clearly positive right and rights that you have over others have far more potential to conflict. See, your right to slave a person conflicts with the right of the person to be free. A system of positive rights (the right to own slaves, the right to rule the country from birth = monarchy, ...) is not a free society. The conservatives in your example want to force their opinion on others. You might call that legitimate, but the slavery in the united states was legitimate back then too.

What you do here in the thread is the opinion, that stuff should be forced on others, then you label it 'rights' and say that a rights-based-system is flawed. That's an strawmen-argument:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

So, if you want to challenge the idea of a ethical system based on personal rights, you should choose examples from such a system.



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024

10 years greatest game event!

bets: [peak year] [+], [1], [2], [3], [4]

Mnementh on 15 August 2012

richardhutnik said:

Pretty much when you argue negative rights, you are saying that what you do doesn't infringe upon me in any way.  One area this can happen is in the area of freedom of speech and freedom to not listen.  In a common area, an individual can say they are free to say what they want, and not have this right infringed upon.  Another person says they have a right to not hear what someone says, or be offended.  They will claim to not hear something is their right, as much as the person who says they do have a right to speak.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_rights

You claim that all thinkable right has to be in a rights-system. That would be the same as to say, that rule-based-system can't work, as every thinkable rule contain conflicting rules. The right of free speech is part of one rights-based-systems - the human rights charta. The right to not be offended is not part of that system. Based on that system it is clear who is in the right and who is wrong.

You could build another system, that contains the right of not get offended but not the right of free speech. Again one of the conflicting parties is in the right based on that system, the other not. Only it's the other party now. You could make also a system, that contains both rights and proritize them. Easy enough.

Most people on the world (besides some crackpots and dictators) agree that the human rights are a good system. I also choose to favor the system of human rights over other ethical system, for instance the ten commandments from the bible.

If you want a real argument - tell me, can you construct a conflict on the human rights? I think thats possible, but I also think the constructed situation is absurd.



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024

10 years greatest game event!

bets: [peak year] [+], [1], [2], [3], [4]

Mnementh on 15 August 2012

richardhutnik said:

If the foundation of negative rights is to be left alone, then not being offended, or being impacted by others, would fit into this.  For example, by following what you are saying, the Westboro Baptist Church is in the right, for saying homosexuals are going Hell outside of a funeral.

I think they have a right to articulate their opinion. But all other people have the right to say, that the Westboro Baptist Church consists of a bunch of idiots.



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024

10 years greatest game event!

bets: [peak year] [+], [1], [2], [3], [4]

badgenome on 15 August 2012
richardhutnik said:

If the foundation of negative rights is to be left alone, then not being offended, or being impacted by others, would fit into this.  For example, by following what you are saying, the Westboro Baptist Church is in the right, for saying homosexuals are going Hell outside of a funeral.

Again, there's a difference between having a right and being ethically right. The WBC are not in the right here, as they're awful, vile people. But despite the recent law against it, they are certainly within their rights to do so so long as they're not interfering with the funeral itself. And since the Roberts court has already ruled 8-1 for Westboro in Snyder v. Phelps, I can't see them upholding this law.



Around the Network
richardhutnik on 15 August 2012
Mnementh said:

richardhutnik said:

Pretty much when you argue negative rights, you are saying that what you do doesn't infringe upon me in any way.  One area this can happen is in the area of freedom of speech and freedom to not listen.  In a common area, an individual can say they are free to say what they want, and not have this right infringed upon.  Another person says they have a right to not hear what someone says, or be offended.  They will claim to not hear something is their right, as much as the person who says they do have a right to speak.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_rights

You claim that all thinkable right has to be in a rights-system. That would be the same as to say, that rule-based-system can't work, as every thinkable rule contain conflicting rules. The right of free speech is part of one rights-based-systems - the human rights charta. The right to not be offended is not part of that system. Based on that system it is clear who is in the right and who is wrong.

You could build another system, that contains the right of not get offended but not the right of free speech. Again one of the conflicting parties is in the right based on that system, the other not. Only it's the other party now. You could make also a system, that contains both rights and proritize them. Easy enough.

Most people on the world (besides some crackpots and dictators) agree that the human rights are a good system. I also choose to favor the system of human rights over other ethical system, for instance the ten commandments from the bible.

If you want a real argument - tell me, can you construct a conflict on the human rights? I think thats possible, but I also think the constructed situation is absurd.

I had stated that one of the issues with a rights-based ethics system is disagreement on what constitutes rights vs what doesn't.  I believe I also said that you can have other ethical systems based on something else, and the system still have rights.  The problems are issues with prioritizing and inclusion, and the difficulties resolving.  There is also a failure to account for outcomes of behaviors and utilizing these outcomes in determing the right decision or even prioritizing. Other systems don't have this issue, but have others.



richardhutnik on 15 August 2012
badgenome said:
richardhutnik said:

If the foundation of negative rights is to be left alone, then not being offended, or being impacted by others, would fit into this.  For example, by following what you are saying, the Westboro Baptist Church is in the right, for saying homosexuals are going Hell outside of a funeral.

Again, there's a difference between having a right and being ethically right. The WBC are not in the right here, as they're awful, vile people. But despite the recent law against it, they are certainly within their rights to do so so long as they're not interfering with the funeral itself. And since the Roberts court has already ruled 8-1 for Westboro in Snyder v. Phelps, I can't see them upholding this law.

Again, this goes back to the issue of an ethics system being rights based.  Whe dealing with an ethical system, there is either being ethical right or being ethically wrong (of course, there is also the undefined ethically).  If you base a system on rights, where do you tell that WBC is not in the right here, when they are in fully keeping with their said rights.  If you want to now argue that thereis more to an ethical system than rights, then you move out of a rights-based framework into something that brings other things in.  In doing this, you end up showing that a rights-based ethics system is flawed foundationally.

Do move beyond just rights, one can look to other systems of ethics based around other things besides rights:

http://voices.yahoo.com/an-overview-ethic-theories-systems-6450186.html?cat=7



badgenome on 15 August 2012
richardhutnik said:

Again, this goes back to the issue of an ethics system being rights based.  Whe dealing with an ethical system, there is either being ethical right or being ethically wrong (of course, there is also the undefined ethically).  If you base a system on rights, where do you tell that WBC is not in the right here, when they are in fully keeping with their said rights.  If you want to now argue that thereis more to an ethical system than rights, then you move out of a rights-based framework into something that brings other things in.  In doing this, you end up showing that a rights-based ethics system is flawed foundationally.

Do move beyond just rights, one can look to other systems of ethics based around other things besides rights:

http://voices.yahoo.com/an-overview-ethic-theories-systems-6450186.html?cat=7

Who decided that an ethics system based on rights is limited to taking only rights into consideration? Rights are simply the basis. In this case, the federal government is the worst party involved because it is engaged in violating the basic free speech rights of the Westboro Baptist Church, and this has the unfortunate effect of turning the WBC into some sort of First Amendment martyrs instead of just being the hate-filled bunch of cranks that they are. That doesn't mean that the Westboro Baptist Church aren't also wrong for celebrating the deaths of soldiers in front of their grieving families in a gratuitous attempt to hurt their feelings, even though they aren't violating their basic rights.



richardhutnik on 15 August 2012
badgenome said:
richardhutnik said:

Again, this goes back to the issue of an ethics system being rights based.  Whe dealing with an ethical system, there is either being ethical right or being ethically wrong (of course, there is also the undefined ethically).  If you base a system on rights, where do you tell that WBC is not in the right here, when they are in fully keeping with their said rights.  If you want to now argue that thereis more to an ethical system than rights, then you move out of a rights-based framework into something that brings other things in.  In doing this, you end up showing that a rights-based ethics system is flawed foundationally.

Do move beyond just rights, one can look to other systems of ethics based around other things besides rights:

http://voices.yahoo.com/an-overview-ethic-theories-systems-6450186.html?cat=7

Who decided that an ethics system based on rights is limited to taking only rights into consideration? Rights are simply the basis. In this case, the federal government is the worst party involved because it is engaged in violating the basic free speech rights of the Westboro Baptist Church, and this has the unfortunate effect of turning the WBC into some sort of First Amendment martyrs instead of just being the hate-filled bunch of cranks that they are. That doesn't mean that the Westboro Baptist Church aren't also wrong for celebrating the deaths of soldiers in front of their grieving families in a gratuitous attempt to hurt their feelings, even though they aren't violating their basic rights.

A rights-based ethics system frames arguments for right and wrong around how much rights are upheld.  The system has a much more absolutist view than that of the likes of Utilitarianism, and the measure of it is that rights don't get violated.  Other frameworks/systems have other measures, like one based on virtue and how close things correspond to ideal states of being and behavior.

So, you are judging the situation, if rights based on what here?  What right do you feel that the individuals have at the funeral which is superior to that of the WBC's right of free speech that WBC claims it has.

 



badgenome on 15 August 2012
richardhutnik said:

A rights-based ethics system frames arguments for right and wrong around how much rights are upheld.  The system has a much more absolutist view than that of the likes of Utilitarianism, and the measure of it is that rights don't get violated.  Other frameworks/systems have other measures, like one based on virtue and how close things correspond to ideal states of being and behavior.

So, you are judging the situation, if rights based on what here?  What right do you feel that the individuals have at the funeral which is superior to that of the WBC's right of free speech that WBC claims it has.

Rights should be the foundation of a good ethical system, not the totality of it. Why do you insist that a system of ethics based on rights cannot take into account one single other thing? That seems unnecessarily and impractically rigid.