You have an innate right not to have aggression carried out against you. This right does not disappear if someone overpowers you - it is merely infringed upon.
Printable View
You have an innate right not to have aggression carried out against you. This right does not disappear if someone overpowers you - it is merely infringed upon.
This is true in a sense, and it's certainly important to protect our rights. But I think you're misusing the word "rights". The slaves in the south had the right to freedom, even if they didn't possess freedom itself. Having the right to something and having it are two different things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
See that's where I get lost. The slaves had no rights. It doesn't matter what they deserved, it matters what the law says. If we all have these rights why make laws?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
I think yall are splitting hairs saying well they have that right they just can't exercise it. They are one in the same
Don't you think it's an important distinction? I mean, why did we free the slaves?Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
To give them rights.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
Why don't we free the cows to give them rights then? Is it because they don't naturally possess rights?Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
The philosophy stems from Christian faith Strike, that God created men equal, with no kings. They late imposed kings on themselves. Whether you believe in Christianity or not though, the philosophy is that people DO have those rights. The reason that slavery is a crime and had to be stopped is because there was something wrong with it. That is that people's rights were being infringed on. The slaves had their rights, they just were not allowed to exercise them. The reason that murder is a crime is because it infringes on a persons right to life and pursuit of happiness. The person has the right, but they can be murdered and the right will be violated. That does not mean that they did not have it, it simply mean that the criminal commited a crime by violating it. That is paramount to the entire philosophy, and if you miss that, you are missing the entire point that the founding fathers were making.
:yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
That's religious philosophy I can agree with.
Because we don't deem it necesarry to give them rights.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
The slaves had no rights and were considered property until the 13th 14th and 15th amendment. Property has no rights. The constitution gave them rights. If you can't excersise rights you don't have them. America gives you these rights because we believe it necessary for the best governing of our country.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
I belive all Americans have these rights and should but am not going to campign for the ridding of the caste system in India.
That's not an answer, that's just another question.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
I think we're quibbling on definition again. I think we mean the same thing but disagree on terminology. But then again, I could be wrong about that.
No, they did not have LEGAL rights, but they had "certain unalienable rights" giving by God, that the government was infringing upon by not honoring. That is why the law needed to be changed so that it would not infring on their inate rights. That is the entire point Strike: People have inate, inalienable rights, and the government should respect and protect those rights, because the previous government did not. The whole point is that there is a difference between the rights a society gives you and the inate and inalienable rights you are endowed with by your Creator.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
I like people to have legal rights, but I don't think these innate rights exist. From a darwinist (I won't say atheist) perspective, I don't see where they come into play. Even from a Christian perspective, there aren't really such things as innate rights. Where does the Bible mention them?Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
Legal rights are the only rights you have. The slaves were property beforehand. How can property have rights?Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
The government only needs to give the rights it see fit. God doesn't get involved in politics.
Why is it morally right to give slaves rights if they are property?
Since property deserves no rights, how do you explain why it is morally correct to free slaves?
Human beings deserve human rights, and slavery is an example of infringing upon those rights. That is why slavery was abolished. If slaves had no natural rights or human rights, no one would have attempted to give them what is theirs by natural right; freedom. It may be taken away by an individual or the state, but it is an insult to the dignity of all human beings for us to be treated as cattle or garbage.
One could argue it wasn't morally right. They sure tired back then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy
If it wasn't morally right why was it common practice?
Because it is a nice thing to do and saves them from suffering? There's no such things as innate human rights applicable to all people in all cultures. What we can do is grant them legal rights to ensure a decent quality of life. You're not born with rights, you're given them, and they can be taken away just as easily (as in the right itself is lost, not just infringed).Quote:
Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy
Why don't we deem it necessary?Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
If you were paralyzed, would you say that you had no legs?Quote:
The slaves had no rights and were considered property until the 13th 14th and 15th amendment. Property has no rights. The constitution gave them rights. If you can't excersise rights you don't have them.
Why is murder wrong, Strike?
Is a crime only a crime because it infringes a person's perceived rights? Or is it because it causes harm, is generally not a good thing to do, and such examples of acting without consent is bad for society?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
]Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
They cant verbalize grievances.
In essence. I wouldn't actually say that but you get the idea. The matter is slaves were property and by definition property can't have rights. So how can one say there rights are locked up simply waiting to get out?
Without government power, they would have no rights. Saying you are owed something is great but I don't think it's going to stop the Klan from lynching you. They certainly didn't think blacks had any rights.
It's not wrong in all cases. War, defense of family, when it's state sponsored. Those are good and legal murders because the state gives them weight.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
Saying you have the right to anything is a very empty phrase. Ask the Dalits. Or women in Islam. Different cultures have different entitlement ideas.
Rights have changed over time.
I voted no. I believe in God given rights, so they are not innate.
No (major) religion bans slavery.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk
edit: I guess I should change that to no major religion originally banned slavery and no major religious text banned slavery.
You can want something without having it. Something can exist without you seeing it. A tree falling in a forest makes a sound even if you don't hear it. You have rights even if the law says you don't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
That's something our culture has drilled into you. Our rights are not the same as everyone else's and if they had discovered the new world and scrambled for Europe. We would be singing a very different tune.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
Our culture has drilled it into me because, people, left to their own devices, strongly desire life, liberty, and happiness. The source of natural rights is people. Empathy is a natural emotion. We're social creatures.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Other cultures can allow for ritual sacrifice and slavery, but by and large those killed and enslaved don't desire to be. No one who writes the law would write it so that the color of their skin meant they had to be a slave.
You are arguing for oppression based on whoever is in power determining what is right. Not just arguing that this is reality--but that it is right. That's the distinction I was making. That was my analogy with the paraplegic--you are arguing that he has no legs because he can't us them, but clearly he still does.
Perhaps. But Does it mean profanity all when the paraplegic can't use the legs? I mean it's great to have but if they don't do anything does it matter if he has them or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
I agree with you to an extant, I'm just arguing practice. Also should the people who can use there go around trying to help those who can't?
Well, some learn to walk again through effort. I would say it does matter, very much.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
For people may be property in practice, and under the law, but they still desire freedom in a way that other property does not. That is because of an innate difference between a person and, say, a cow or a building. That innate difference is the right to liberty.
Murder is wrong because you are depriving someone of life (I'm ignoring killing in self defense because that's not really murder - someone has decided to act against you without your consent and you are resisting). If murder was only illegal because it would be bad for society - would it be fine in a society with say, an abundance of males like the Vikings? If most males commit murder against males, not a huge loss for society - and thus acceptable?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
“No one person is born with their "freedom"(however that is defined, exactly)”: I agree. Social determinism is one of the heaviest weights to start with.
There are no “natural” rights as such. All rights are determined upon cultural and social links.
You have slaves when the slaves are not seen as humans, or if you considered slaves as genetically inferior, the good old separation between Greeks and Barbarians…
If a population doesn’t share your faith, it can be enslave or killed, or used as you wanted.
The big step forwards in human rights was a UNIVERSAL definition of human rights, not based on gender, race, colour and religion. It took some time for implementation mind you, and it is still not perfect. But the principles are there…
Now what freedom or rights have a person staving in Africa? What are the right of the kids born in the favelas in Brazil?
“You have whatever rights you are willing to die for.” That is pillaging of war, not rights.
Did you face this choice? It is a nice sentence but what does it means?
Freedom or death is not a choice. Death to the oppressor is more an option.:beam:
What about people who can’t fight: The elderly, the disables?
Put 2000 men with bows in front of a platoon of modern soldiers, they have no chance. So they have no right? Or they will be dead.
This is wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Reenk Roink