“I think the ideals and conjectures of "rights" along with "entitlements" are purely factitious or imaginative having no existence amongst nature but instead only existing in civilization as an extension of moral idealisms”.
What are your opinions on this statement?
2007-11-21 05:05:58 · 9 answers · asked by Unathi 3 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
There are no intrinsic rights. All rights are gifts.
As such, I can think of stones which have had more rights than people. There are idols that have had thousands of unwilling humans sacrificed to them. There are gemstones protected so fiercely that it would probably be worth your life just to look upon them. There are archaeological relics that are found and preserved at a cost that would feed millions.
None of this would be so unless we wished it.
You have a right when someone lets you. That is all.
2007-11-21 05:13:59 · answer #1 · answered by Doctor Why 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I agree with the letter of the statement in that 'rights' and 'entitlements' are in fact constructs of society and civilized living and not a natural phenomenon. I don't agree with it's sentiment however. I do believe that a person living in society has certain unconditional entitlements. The right to live and pursue personal enrichment seem to be conditions that should not be in dispute. All things being equal, is can be said that even these 'right' are debatable, but if society is to function sucessfully, ther have to be certain rights afforded each citizen in order for the society to function.
2007-11-21 13:18:07 · answer #2 · answered by Gee Whizdom™ 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I half agree.
"Nature" certainly isn't going to acknowledge anyone's rights or entitlements. Nature is a beautiful, but brutal place. So I agree with that part.
But to say rights and entitlements are imaginary because they exist only in civilization is absurd. Civilization itself is not imaginary, so how/why would the elements of civilized society be considered so?
2007-11-21 13:13:12 · answer #3 · answered by David Carrington Jr. 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
"The concept of individual rights is so new in human history that most men have not grasped it fully to this day. In accordance with the two theories of ethics, the mystical or the social, some men assert that rights are a gift of God—others, that rights are a gift of society. But, in fact, the source of rights is man's nature.
"The Declaration of Independence stated that men "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights." Whether one believes that man is the product of a Creator or of nature, the issue of man's origin does not alter the fact that he is an entity of a specific kind—a rational being—that he cannot function successfully under coercion, and that rights are a necessary condition of his particular mode of survival.
"The source of man's rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A—and Man is Man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man's nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgement, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational." (Atlas Shrugged.)
2007-11-22 02:16:01 · answer #4 · answered by Mr. Wizard 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I agree. If the judiciary agreed, too, the law and punishment would be totally different. People not claiming those rights would open up the way for the next evolutionary step.
2007-11-21 13:32:05 · answer #5 · answered by socrates 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think that statement is made by someone whose ideology is aristocratic and would veiw him/herself as a ruler over others. This statement is only one interpretation of "rights" et al - that the laws of the lands are what grants said "rights".
Another perspective is that "rights" are granted by Nature and/or Nature's God. This perspective does not permit any other human or legal authority to suggest he/she/it grants an individual said "rights". These "rights" can never be taken, borrowed, given, or sold by anyone - including the owner.
2007-11-21 13:17:12 · answer #6 · answered by barchanon 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I would agree in principle but disagree in detail. It seems to have the same prevalent dogma that human beings are not part of nature or that we are in some way against nature. The objects we produce are said to be "artificial" in opposition to "natural".
We observe and study animal behavior and social organization in animals as part of "natural" science but when it's a matter of human behavior and human organization it no longer falls under "natural" science. I think this is a bit of mistake as we are every bit part of nature and things we do (including social conventions we have) are very much "natural" although perhaps contingent.
2007-11-21 13:14:20 · answer #7 · answered by somrh 2 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Tell yourself the "right to life" does not exist in the nature of humans; then go find someone to kill you. Don't let them do it, just ponder it. Do you now think rights have no existence in nature?
2007-11-22 01:01:16 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
We are born with rights.
Rights cannot be given, they can only be taken away.
Rights can be either taken away by force or intimidation or coercion or murder or etc., or we may choose to give them away.
Entitlements are more of a contractual agreement or decision devised by the participants.
2007-11-21 13:26:12 · answer #9 · answered by SHE_ROWDY 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋