Fundamental rights

[Theaetetus]

Only one fundamental ethic is necessary. Everyone is free to do as they wish as long as they don't not limit another individual the right to do the same. In other words, one's freedom ends where another's begins.

I think the hyper individualism that dominates society today fails to understand that in order for freedom to exist there are necessary limits--especially respect for the other.

[Didymos Thomas]

Theaetetus - I wish human beings were capable of maintaining that standard.
We cant seem to manage this sort of respect in any area - from government to personal relationships.

The notion of 'rights' seems to come from hyper individualism. We began to think about what I deserve rather than what I should do. The maxim you quote is a restatement of the ethic of reciprocity with a reminder that we have free will.

[Theaetetus]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Theaetetus - I wish human beings were capable of maintaining that standard.
We cant seem to manage this sort of respect in any area - from government to personal relationships.

The notion of 'rights' seems to come from hyper individualism. We began to think about what I deserve rather than what I should do. The maxim you quote is a restatement of the ethic of reciprocity with a reminder that we have free will.

I wish humans were capable of maintaining that standard as well. It seems that institutional dogma has become too dominant a force for it to ever be a reality. It seems that it can be upheld in some respects, but the maxim is broken whenever convenient. At least there is hope and the future.

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

So what? People can claim to have a right to go to the moon just as easily as they can claim a right to healthcare, or anything else. Doesn't mean they have that right -doesn't even mean they should have that right.

Of course, I never said that it does.

And that's what these rights amount to - what people want. What they think they can safely demand. 10,000 years ago the whole notion of rights would have been insane, but today, we can claim some rights and be reasonably satisfied with the response to our claim by government.

You keep making the same mistake. Normative rights are a matter of morality, and morality must be metaphysical thus transcending what people have, claim, or can get. If there are fundamental rights, they stem from ontology of people and mind.

[Holiday20310401]

And you're making the wrong assumption of saying that morality is metaphysical

[Theaetetus]

Morality is relational and emotional if properly applied. Metaphysics has nothing to do with morality unless you really think that an invisible man will judge you upon death.

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Originally Posted by Holiday20310401

And you're making the wrong assumption of saying that morality is metaphysical

It is not an assumption. Morality necessitates human behavior that transcends natural causation and scientific inquiry. It requires that the actor be their own cause, a free will, and thus can never be categorized outside the realm of the metaphysical.

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Originally Posted by Theaetetus

Morality is relational and emotional if properly applied. Metaphysics has nothing to do with morality unless you really think that an invisible man will judge you upon death.

No, metaphysics has everything to do with morality unless you hold the unfortunate position of the compatibilist. The natural causal determinism of the empirical sciences does not afford room to real choice, a necessary component of morality. A moral actor must transcend determinism and become a causa sui and this is certainly a matter of metaphysics.

[Didymos Thomas]

You keep making the same mistake. Normative rights are a matter of morality, and morality must be metaphysical thus transcending what people have, claim, or can get. If there are fundamental rights, they stem from ontology of people and mind.

Where is the mistake? I said, "The only rights you have are the ones you refuse to give up."
And that's true. We can talk about metaphysics and morality all day long, and conclude that we have some right - but that doesn't mean we actually have the right, that we can exercise the right. The speculation is idealization. Not much room for ideals in politics and law.

If your objection is that we should have this or that right for moral/metaphysical reasons, chances are I agree with you.

The natural causal determinism of the empirical sciences does not afford room to real choice, a necessary component of morality.

You might be interested in Daniel Dennet's Freedom Evolves. Interesting book.

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Where is the mistake? I said, "The only rights you have are the ones you refuse to give up."
And that's true. We can talk about metaphysics and morality all day long, and conclude that we have some right - but that doesn't mean we actually have the right, that we can exercise the right. The speculation is idealization. Not much room for ideals in politics and law.

If your objection is that we should have this or that right for moral/metaphysical reasons, chances are I agree with you.

The mistake that I thought you were making was dismissing the discussion of fundamental rights on the basis of their lack of material feasibility.

It is still an important discussion even if we can guarantee that our arguments will be heard by the powers that be. In the end, even a skeptic like me admits that we must have an idea of what should be to know how to organize what is.

Ironically, we probably wouldn't agree on the foundation of rights as I condemn (probably inconsistently) moral realism as rubbish. I just wanted to play devil's advocate and try to frame this discussion correctly.

You might be interested in Daniel Dennet's Freedom Evolves. Interesting book.

I've read it. It is a very interesting book, but I cannot help but feel he fails to save compatibilism and free will.