Are there any? Naturally there's no inherent "right" to anything I suppose, other than an apparent right to exist in the time being, but even that might be taking "it" too far. If there are no inherent rights...... Societal values are represented by the formulation of societal contracts, which are based of the views of the majority for the most part, or in some cases a minority that holds "power" that then determines what they are and the masses simply propagate them. So, are human rights in turn determined strictly by societal values regarding the human condition of society at large? What ought to be not only respected as rights, yet also protected, and by what means?
Everyone has a right to exist, as you said, and therefore a right to maintain that existence. Everyone owns themselves, and therefore their labor. This being the case, any natural resources which are taken and transformed to any significant degree by man's labor become his property. Because we own ourselves, we have the right to be sole arbiter of our actions, and not to be beholden to the desires of anyone else. For this reason, we have the right to put our own happiness above all else. The only limitation is that we cannot violate the rights of others, which are the same as ours. For this reason, all our normally-accepted rights are intact. Theft violates others' right to property, murder violates others' right to exist, unlawful imprisonment violates their right to choose their own actions, unlawful search and seizure again violates property rights, etc. You see where I'm going with this.
I do see where you are going with this, however let me give an example of a situation that exemplifies the fact that often one mans "freedom" or "rights" infringe upon another's: So, we "have the right to exist and maintain that existence." A man is starving and really has no other viable means to get food at this point than to steal it. He steals what he needs from a store, the man who owns the store than looses "property" that he owned and apparently worked for. There's many "things" that could be addressed as situationaly acceptable perhaps...I'm not 100% sure. As with theft, I'll address another one of those "rights," murder. You said it violates one's right to exist, than is there ever a justified murder? Is the case of murder being "right" or "wrong" constantly subjective? Is it always to be classified as "unjust" for ending that persons existence and their right to it? As you can see defining these rights may be hard enough, especially for a large group of people to universally accept them, however implementing them as a social contract in which people abide by set means of upholding them can be even more difficult.
Situational ethics-dichotomies.I did not take the class in college,but relative to that,there's certainly some dichotomies in my thinking regarding the taking of life,stealing and generally breaking the social contract.I'm against killing ,but war which involves mass killing, ww2,for example, required it if we were to remain free of all that the worst in Nazi-ism would bring.So I suppose I can be against war and yet on the other hand condone killing in war for what society considers the right reasons.I think these men that load up their computers with child porn should somehow be treated for what most of us consider an abhorant act or pastime..But if they act on these desires,(and I'm not going into the heinous acts that have been perpetrated on children--we all know what they are)I can also see them being eliminated for being monsters.I guess that's a matter of degree.They according to society,have broken one of the main conracts--that is,to do no harm to children.A man I worked with once told me that during the big depression of '29 he was desperate and was taking groceries from a store to feed his children,since he had no job.The owner caught him and he told the owner"Look,I have hungry children and I'm going to take these groceries --you can shoot me,call the cops or write down what I'm taking and I will pay you back when I get a job".The owner made the decision to write everything down for some weeks after that and when my friend got a job,he paid it all back.I'm against stealing ,but it turns out the store owner did the right thing and let my friend break the social contract.I don't know--I guess you take things as they come and stick to your core values and/or disregard your core values in a given situation and live with your decision.As far as the accepted contract between us all and the law--that is, we're all equal under it--it seems that that contract is frequently broken due to massive amounts of money and/or power standing squarely between justice and injustice.That's a break in the contract.On the other hand,I believe in jury nullification in certain circumstances.Another break in the contract.
Let me clarify. You have the right to work for your own existence, and not to be stopped from doing so. No one else exists to facilitate your existence, and you are not justified in stealing to survive. In short, you have a right to you existence so long as you can maintain it without forcing others. A murder is only justified if the victim is, or is attempting to violate your rights. You are justified in killing someone to defend yourself or your property. This does not, in my opinion, extend to retribution after the fact, if the threat is gone. Basically, you forfeit your rights when you attempt to take away those of someone else. Similarly, you are not justified in locking someone up if they pose no threat to you. You are justified in doing so if you know that they will attack you as soon as you let them out.
I think, i agree with the snake avatar guy on the whole rights thing, but the op made a point to where it can get confusing depending on the situation. so what i think is morals, or just behavior, is entirely situational.
The only reason we have it so good in the western world and can sit up high, claim we are better and judge the rest of the world for lack of human rights is becuase our success has come from shitting all over the rest of the world. Whether it be 8 year olds stringing shoes together for Nike in the Phillipines or families risking life and limb in quarries in India so we can have stone benchtops in our kitchens, we are just as guilty for the abuse of human rights as the governements of those nations
I think that everyone deserves a fair chance at life. I don't think anyone was created more or less better than anyone else, therefore our chance at life should be equal. I don't think killing is justified, and neither is stealing (although I've stolen a bunch before)... but then again, that is coming from someone who has grown up in a pretty secure environment with funds to live and survive and even have excess throughout my entire life... so my 'rationale' has got to differ immensely from someone who has had a rougher life, or has always been taught 'eat or die' .. 'kill someone or be killed' .. etc etc.
What about severly mentally or physically handicapped people, who are unable to provide for themselves? Should they just be left in the dirt to die? Or would it be just for them to recieve help from someone else to survive?
They will die without help, of course. I think it's great if someone helps them, but no one aside from their parents is morally obligated to, in my opinion. It's kind of a grey area, I'll admit, because I would probably think someone was an asshole if they just left a person there to die. But then again, I don't think anyone is obligated to sacrifice their life for someone else. So I would have to still stick to my original line: you're not morally obligated to help them, but it's good if you do.
Wait a second, so you're trying to tell me there's no justification whatsoever for white supremacy??? This is a hard one for me.....I didn't really think "disabled" people needed much help until I started to mingle amongst them, hear their stories, their situations etc....then eventually I somewhat became one as I am today. Now, it's a huge bitch....I understand now what they go through, and not even to the full extent...I can still use my legs, just not very well. It's so hard to accept help when you cannot provide or do something for yourself, then again I doubt that every "disabled" person shares those sentiments...I just love being self sufficient. It's like a punishment having to accept help knowing you cannot do something yourself because you're physically limited. It's definetely one of those "you have to experience it" type of deals to get an idea of what it's like otherwise you'll most likely be like the vast majority of people and take your health for granted....I know I did.
I certainly do not take my health for granted. I have my share of health issues. Nothing so awful as what you describe (yet -- and never, if I can avoid it), but enough to make me aware of the possibilities, and of the unpleasantness of not being self-sufficient. I still don't think that anyone is obligated to spent their life caring for someone who can't do it for themselves.
Yeah sir I know where you are coming from. I am not disabled in any way... however I have spent the past few years volunteering with 'special needs' kids/young adults at the YMCA..... I swear I can pretty much break down and cry if I think enough about it. And I have many times. There are actually people who weren't given a fair shot at life, in my opinion..... makes me hate life even more than I already do. But then again, who's to say that they aren't enjoying life as much as, if not more, than I enjoy my own? Either way they'd never be able to be self-sufficient, and that saddens me. If I had the time and money to, I'd help out anyone worse off than myself.... but then again, gotta worry about my own quality of life, which is where the selfishness kicks in.
I definantely see what your saying, but i find this way of looking at life a very selfish one, its all about whats best for the individual, not for anyone else, thats their problem. not that i see an obligation anyone to help anyone other than themselves, but its just the nice thing to do. but yeah, i guess it dosen't go against you precepts, if someone feels the desire to help someone else, and they freely do it, there is still freedom there.
