Subject:
|
Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 18 Jun 2004 14:59:40 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2410 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
> > Would it be acceptable to refer to "inherent preferences" instead of "inherent
> > rights?"
>
> The problem here is the conflation of legal notion with absolute reality.
> Rights are the legal/political expression of an aesthetic that nearly everyone
> (involved in the discussion) supports. While I wrote before that I was siding
> with John, that was much too simple. The philosophical doctrine that invents or
> supports rights in the United States is one of inherency. There are cases in
> which the Supreme Court writes that the rights of men existed before the state.
> But none of that changes the reality that rights are merely an ancient legal
> construction.
>
> So are rights really inherent? Yes. And no. Our system must treat them as if
> they are so, in order to function properly. But are they really, really? The
> simple fact that not all cultures through time and space recognize the same
> rights seems like a pretty simple clue that they are not.
This is a very nice summation, overall.
> And I'm not sure that changing "inherent rights" to "inherent preferences" is
> really worth-while without knowing your goal. Are we having a legal discussion
> or a scientific one?
A good distinction to bear in mind. I don't think I have the ammunition to
prove my case scientifically, so I should probably say I'm aiming for the
philosophical angle.
To clarify:
By "inherent rights" I have inferred that we (all of us) are discussing
something fundamental to humans that is proof against denial or oppression. By
this definition, I would assert that the so-called inalienable rights to life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are certainly not inherent, since they can
be taken away. As a philosophical postscript, I admit that some might argue
that the rights are still "there" even though they are prevented from being
expressed, but I submit that this is a rhetorical distinction. If rights is
denied beyond any hope of reclamation (such as the rights of lifelong slaves),
then this is not meaningfully different from true destruction of those rights.
By "inherent preferences" I mean the basic behavioral inclinations common among
humans of disparate cultures, though clearly not absolutely universal. These
preferences would necessarily be less formalized in structure than the legal
construction of "rights," but the tradeoff for this loss of technical
sophistication would be wider application. As examples, I suggest such basic
universal preferences as the desire not to be injured or killed, the desire not
to be held inverted for prolonged periods, the desire not to be forced to dwell
in darkness for prolonged periods, the preference of pleasure rather than
discomfort, and that sort of thing. Granted, there may be examples of people
who really do prefer to be be oriented with their feet over their heads, or who
really enjoy being injured (such as certain religious ascetics, for example),
but these are probably isolated cases that we can address as they come up.
But I like your assertion that our system *must* treat these rights as inherent,
which is basically like saying that society at large is agreeing to treat them
as such (ie, the societal acceptance of social constructs). This isn't much
different from any other entrenched tradition, as long as the society retains
the ability to amend or modify those traditions.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
| Given that explanation, I think we both agree that discussion of "inherent rights" must assume that it is a social/legal construct. And that discussions of these general topics might be better served focussing on "inherent preferences." At least (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
| (...) The problem here is the conflation of legal notion with absolute reality. Rights are the legal/political expression of an aesthetic that nearly everyone (involved in the discussion) supports. While I wrote before that I was siding with John, (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
218 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
