[atreestump]

What are your views on rights? Are they innate, or are they constructed? Do you think rights are a good thing to have in society, or do you believe they cuase problems?

[thetrizzard]

Interesting question as to whether Rights are innate or not, I’m not sure what you mean by innate in this context. Anyway, one could argue as Levinas does, that our own subjectivity is in some way defined by our ethical responsibility to the Other in the face-to-face, for him the ethical is pre-ontological and is therefore contra-Heidegger and National Socialism. Maybe ‘rights’ are a legislated extension of this responsibility and in that sense they are innate (in a relational sense) and yet constructed in response to actions / events. The idea of someone or something having ‘rights’ certainly derives from the ethical domain of life and in my view they are without doubt ‘good’ for society and for any sentient beings (in whatever form) for that matter. To ask whether something is good is in itself an ethical question, and maybe even the very call and response structure of questioning itself has an ethical dimension. An obvious example of the ‘goodness’ of rights (following the reference to National Socialism) would be the introduction of the European Convention on Human Rights after the abuse of state power resulting in atrocities of the 2nd World War when people were discriminated against and in some cases horrifically exterminated en masse merely on the grounds of prejudice against a persons race, beliefs, gender, sexuality, disabilities etc. The balancing of people’s rights do however create ethical dilemma’s and the law is an interpretive / hermeneutical art rather than a science, so we may not always get it right…sometimes all we have is the weight of probabilities, sometimes undecidables resulting in an impasse or an injustice, we know this, this is life, this has been the case for millennia, yet isn’t the whole of the legal system based in some way on the notion of rights and protecting rights and when judgements (ethical decisions based on the current law) are made correctly, do we not believe this to be Justice?

[atreestump]

In the Levinas, Heidegger and Derrida book, I just started reading about what you mentioned here! 

I think I can agree with that definition of ‘innate’ or at least we can say thry are a priori as sn episteme.

I find the rights inquiry interesting as it brings up the role of the state as giver and taker of rights and in some regards, they can be a bit of a con, but let’s not deny the progress of course.

[thetrizzard]

Personally, I see the development and adoption of Human Rights by various countries as a major step forward for respecting difference, especially in a world that is increasingly globalised and interconnected. It paradoxically transcends prejudice based on differences yet respects difference at the the same time….I feel that if there could ever be a common humanity or a new world religion then here would be the place to start, maybe it’s already started

[kFoyauextlH]

Rights are constructed with fists as often appears in propaganda imagery. No one has rights and all existence is invasive ad perturbing. We did not consent to be born, nor to know suffering nor largely to die. We were unrightfully brought about and irresponsibly tortured and taken away. Rights are an important notion and tool to impose or pressure people with but a human will get away with whatever thy can when they can if there was no concern regarding anything, so concern should be made for them in order to better control and predict their behavior and if they remain without concern they should be considered a threa and captured and killed for “abusing” their chains.

[thetrizzard]

Agreed, rights aren’t innate and have to be fought for, but the fighting for betterment is innate but it’s only known a posteriori….making it according to Kantian terminology ‘synthetic a priori’

[kFoyauextlH]

Very cool and true!

[atreestump]

Personally, I see the development and adoption of Human Rights by various countries as a major step forward for respecting difference, especially in a world that is increasingly globalised and interconnected. It paradoxically transcends prejudice based on differences yet respects difference at the the same time….I feel that if there could ever be a common humanity or a new world religion then here would be the place to start, maybe it’s already started

Globalisation certainly brings into focus a clash of cultures and we could perceive our globalised world as a closed system, but it is a novelty, never before have we been faced with such considerations. I think rights require a pre-condition of compassion, which must stem from self-respect and not low self esteem, which is often the problem as to how rights are perceived by some to be ‘taking away’ of ones rights when some are given to others.

We need better education. Educating citizens to be consumers isn’t enough, schools should teach more independent options like self-employment and discourage high and mighty economic interests that lead to collective action problems caused by self-interest. What I mean by this, is that as someone who is self employed, I have to set a price for services that is fair, but is enough to sustain me, but all we see is competition and undercutting, people devalue themselves and daren’t ask for more or what is reasonable and then get resentful, but at the same time, they accomodate low valuations of labor and so they price themselves out of the market. Before rights for a living wage can be properly implimented, we need to elevate above the position of beggars in the market.

the fighting for betterment is innate but it’s only known a posteriori

Indeed, but this is being squeezed out of us all, competition makes people hard and harsh and they right off their own rights before they can even get to implimenting them as standards.

[Whisper]

I agree with thetrizzard concerning on their specific benefits. My ethic kind of sounds like Levinas. However, I think that they are innate. I agree with you all that they have to be fought for relentlessly. This is because they are predominantly epistemological and mystical. However, I do see a degree of them even in cultures you might see as oppressive and nonwestern. Certain cultures are able to accomplish other types of benefits through socialization that hyper individualist cultures can’t. People are and are not the standard for what rights should be. Keep on.

[Author]

Posts