Fundamental rights

[Jazzman]

This term suggests that there are some basic rights which are undeniable and which all other rights can be deduced from. But is that an objective truth or just an ideology to save the peaceful coexistence? What is a right and are there really some particular rights which are inextricably linked with the idea of rights? Was Thomas Hobbes right when he thought of rights as general claims which nobody questions? That would mean that there are no fundamental rights as long as there are people who contravene them.

[Arjen]

I think you are touching the very reason laws are created. As long as nobody questions them the only rights you have are the ones 'given'. WHat can be given can be taken away though. So the declaration of human rights is not a 'great' as people often think. It was merely the first step in taking those rights from the populace. The reason this is done is because every being born has one thing in common: the souvereign rule of its body. As long as people are able to see that slavery cannot exist and therefore that had to be remedied by the ruling class as Hobbes wel knew I think. His Leviathan requires the unquestioning obedience (<--slavery) of the populace after all.

[Didymos Thomas]

The only rights you have are the ones you refuse to give up.

And when the government comes to take away one of those rights, you'll probably only be able to enjoy it in the grave.

[Ramsey]

Personally I view rights as a way us humans placed ourself above all other creatures on this planet.

The only rights we have are those we cannot control. For example, bodily functions, and reproduction, growth, and so on. All rights exceeding these limits should not exist in anyway. Free speech is not a right, but rather a development of human culture, the fact of the matter is, no speech is free, all speech can offend is some way. Personally Rights above those we cannot control should be subject to immorality rather than right.

For example if X finds what Y has said as immoral, then X should be able to appeal for a sort of right of way beyond what Y has said. If you catch my drift. this would allow conversation to progress. However for such a system to work, both speakers must be highly developed in thought.

However, I have only used free speech as an example.

Back to the topic at hand. Fundamental rights should only be those actions humans have not conscious control over.

[GoshisDead]

Its right in the word, 'Rights' its a question of ethics. Are there unalienable ethics?

[jlance3504]

In this question, we must consider first what we take for granted. If we believe in things of the metaphysical world they may form the basis for what we see as "fundamental rights". Without the metaphysical, however, we must refer to the laws of nature. The reality of "survival of the fittest" is that there are no rights, just a struggle. Any "rights" that are perceived in the secular world may be the result of the realization that relationships (whether human, animal, environmental, or otherwise) are important to the coexistence of all matter. Then again, I could and may be wrong.

[Doobah47]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

The only rights you have are the ones you refuse to give up.

And when the government comes to take away one of those rights, you'll probably only be able to enjoy it in the grave.

I'd agree with the 1st statement; one wouldn't consider a 'right' unless one came upon a reason to consider it as a 'right', so if one decided that it must be accepted, then the refusal - or the fight - would incur the encompassing of the 'right'.

However, it is surely obvious that 'rights' are simply niches in the law which allow room for social/commercial manouvre. Although one might decide that one is provided a 'right' to do something by the contextualisation of that thing not harming one's ethics, and so not acting within the law.

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

The only rights you have are the ones you refuse to give up.

And when the government comes to take away one of those rights, you'll probably only be able to enjoy it in the grave.

This view only looks at rights in their positive sense and skirts the issue rather than addressing it.

When one speaks of fundamental rights, one can only speak of rights in the normative sense as obviously we will never have a world of absolute positive legal rights. If there are universal human rights, they are moral rules of abstinence and obligation placed on people in regards to a particular individual. If there is a universal right to freedom from aggression, for example, it is not a universal legal right, it is a universal moral rule.

I have found that the principle pollution within political and legal discussion is a lack of delineation between what is normative and what is positive. It is obvious that government law (and especially the violence that upholds this law) does not make right, but the implications are lost because people don't hold true to this plain fact.

Even saying that and being a libertarian, I do not believe in fundamental rights as I don't believe there is an absolute moral code.

[Didymos Thomas]

This view only looks at rights in their positive sense and skirts the issue rather than addressing it.

My statements were not limited to positive rights. Same holds true for negative rights.

If there is a universal right to freedom from aggression, for example, it is not a universal legal right, it is a universal moral rule.

And no matter how much we might talk about such a right, any right be it positive or negative, government crashes the party.

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

My statements were not limited to positive rights. Same holds true for negative rights.

I was contrasting positive law with normative law.

And no matter how much we might talk about such a right, any right be it positive or negative, government crashes the party.

The non-existence of the legal/positive right has no bearing on the existence of the moral/normative right.

When we say that everyone should have the right to healthcare, we say that they have a moral right to healthcare, and that someone who does not have access to healthcare has had the right violated.