-
P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat
Poll: Your perspective on rights
- Thread starter ebola?
- Start date
bleedingheartcommie
Bluelighter
thursday said:
But these hunter gatyhering tribes cannot afford to be slowed by the old. It is vital to their survival and way of life. Are you saying that it is wrong to bury the old? Should the whole tribe starve b/c one member is sick?
also, dont you think the class sytem (and private media) makes utillitarianism impossible?
GB
you are your body?
and yes, you would have to share underwear (that is if you wanted to)
people seem to think for some reason, that even though no one would own anything, and everyone had acces to enough stuff, people would still want to take shit away from you.
gloggawogga
Bluelighter
OK so then does that or does that not mean others can fondle with my body at their will? Whether or not we agree that 'natural rights' exist, can we agree that 'natural boundries' do exist? I mean our physical bodies are natural boundries, aren't they? We are all bound by our physical bodies and what they are capable of or not capable of, aren't we? And being the type of animal we are, don't we seem to like to extend our boundries too, by wearing clothes, by building houses, or by hoarding property, etc. etc?
Ok so I have to share the underwear that I wear only if I want to? Doesn't that make it 'my' underwear unless I share it? If we throw out the concept of 'property', don't we need to introduce some other concept to define our boundries?
In society, when we talk about rights, property, law, etc., aren't we talking about how boundries are drawn between what you can to and what you can't do? And even in a socialist commune, don't people still have personal boundries and don't people have to respect them, so that really in a socialist commune, people just extend their personal boundries alot less than in capitalist society?
Last edited:
bleedingheartcommie
Bluelighter
GL you are missing the point
No one would want your underwear
And simply telling people taht you don't wish to share would be just as effective as makeing laws protecting it. The difference is, there is no force.
No one would want your underwear
And simply telling people taht you don't wish to share would be just as effective as makeing laws protecting it. The difference is, there is no force.
gloggawogga
Bluelighter
^^^
You are missing my point. Simply telling people I don't wish to share defines a boundry, as does property law. In either case we define boundries, and in either case those boundries need to be respected. My point is the concept of 'personal property', whether or not it is worded that way, does not completely go away in a commune. It just becomes much more limited in scope.
Now your point is there is no force. Thats a good point. Certainly in healthy human relationships there is mutual respect for each others boundries and no need for force. The world we live in today is not like this however. And we can't force others to agree to whatever boundries are set, nor can we force them not to be forceful, unless we resort to force our selves which would defeat the purpose. We have to deal with the problem of forcefullness and disrespect for boundries somehow in a non-forceful way. Having more justly drawn boundries might go a long way to help, but I can't imagine that alone would completely eliminate the need/desire that some people have to be controlling and forceful.
You are missing my point. Simply telling people I don't wish to share defines a boundry, as does property law. In either case we define boundries, and in either case those boundries need to be respected. My point is the concept of 'personal property', whether or not it is worded that way, does not completely go away in a commune. It just becomes much more limited in scope.
Now your point is there is no force. Thats a good point. Certainly in healthy human relationships there is mutual respect for each others boundries and no need for force. The world we live in today is not like this however. And we can't force others to agree to whatever boundries are set, nor can we force them not to be forceful, unless we resort to force our selves which would defeat the purpose. We have to deal with the problem of forcefullness and disrespect for boundries somehow in a non-forceful way. Having more justly drawn boundries might go a long way to help, but I can't imagine that alone would completely eliminate the need/desire that some people have to be controlling and forceful.
Last edited:
The concept of "natural right" is specifically utilitarian. But that strategy is only necessary because people have gradually forgoten their animal nature as science has progressed (disguising our essentially biological essence).
I would say that instead of trying to find some "post rights" conception of morality....we should switch that to "pre-rights" and just realize that everyone feels pain and humiliation. And not just a vague notion that other people "probably feel pain just like me," but a 100% acceptance of the truth of that fact.
Empathy is the natural state of man. When we see someone in pain, our brain reproduces a facsimile of that pain that we actually experience. And even though it doesn't "hurt" like the original pain of the other person, it is real. It exists. It can be located in the same part of the brain. It has a neurochemical basis.
That is proof of empathy. But some people don't empathize as well as others. These people are what "natural" rights are aimed at. For them, society has to devise a suitable alternative framework, to convince them not to hurt people. That would be religion, rights, and law. Other people are hypersensitive to the pain of others and tend to become nihilists. The people left over (that can't empathisize and don't care about rights....or nihilists that secede from society) are those most apt to lash out against others, or become self-destructive, or both.
ebola?
Bluelight Crew
>>The concept of "natural right" is specifically utilitarian.>>
what do you mean by this? It seems, at first glance, to be blatently false.
ebola
what do you mean by this? It seems, at first glance, to be blatently false.
ebola
ebola?
Bluelight Crew
re: property rights ( gloggawogga)
Opponents of property-rights argue that there is a distinction to be made between possesion and property rights that we see under capitalism. "They" (mostly anarchists) would argue that possesion is the idea of claim via use, whereas property rights as they are currently conceived entail hoarding and labor-exploitation. Now, you could argue that possession is merely a different system of property rights, but I think this misses the point...the point being the exploitation and authoritarianism inherent in the status quo.
ebola
Opponents of property-rights argue that there is a distinction to be made between possesion and property rights that we see under capitalism. "They" (mostly anarchists) would argue that possesion is the idea of claim via use, whereas property rights as they are currently conceived entail hoarding and labor-exploitation. Now, you could argue that possession is merely a different system of property rights, but I think this misses the point...the point being the exploitation and authoritarianism inherent in the status quo.
ebola
bleedingheartcommie
Bluelighter
gloggawogga said:
This could be done by getting rid of all the laws. Without laws people would rely on customs again. The two are clearly in contention. But how we would go about getting rid of the laws, I have no clue... It seems the power structures how developed a much too vivid illusion of control/power.
gloggawogga
Bluelighter
Customs in many ways were just unwritten laws that existed before there were written laws. Customs can be opressive too. The underlying human problems go deeper, imho.
SgTaIrBoRnE
Bluelighter
no rights, just what you can and can't do. not by laws, but by ability. you can do anything you want, however, you have to be aware of the reactions of others due to your actions.
what exactly is the government that establishes rights and freedoms? just other people like you and me doing what they can. now, we can either listen and do what they want, or we can rebell and face their actions in return.
there is nothing stoping you from doing whatever you want to do but yourself. "rights" are just something made up. you can dispute all you want about what you are entitled to, but what you are entitled to is the desicion of others if you have to ask. sieze the day, do what you must.
what exactly is the government that establishes rights and freedoms? just other people like you and me doing what they can. now, we can either listen and do what they want, or we can rebell and face their actions in return.
there is nothing stoping you from doing whatever you want to do but yourself. "rights" are just something made up. you can dispute all you want about what you are entitled to, but what you are entitled to is the desicion of others if you have to ask. sieze the day, do what you must.
It would be false, if one were to buy into the nature/experience division. But I'm not doing that. The association of rights with "nature" is not really legitimate. So the invention of the concept "natural right" was a utilitarian phenomenon in that we created our own set of rules to follow. These rules, if adhered to, would result in less coercion between humans. So an assertion of natural right, like "Thou Shalt not Kill," is something we make up and tell people is true for expediency. It is utilitarian and expedient (like the social contract), because it is based on consensus. I suppose this only works if you deny the "nature" part of "natural rights" (because why even include it?)
There is no universal law that says stealing is wrong. In fact, scavenging animals obey a completely different law: stealing carcasses is right, because that is how you survive.
Humans are animals as well. We will seek to attain resources in whatever way we can. Since this can end up harming others, we have convinced ourselves that there are "commandments" or "natural rights" that we must adhere to. This is an inherently utilitarian enterprise, because it is meant for a specific cross-section of people: those that for whatever reason, need rules to keep them from coercing others, as opposed to those that do not.
However as I posted earlier, I can only ground rights in biological empathy. So this means that "natural rights" can only be justified through nature. Therefore, attempting to found "right" on anything besides biological empathy is fruitless (and consequently utilitarian).
My explanation could also be considered utilitarian in that.....say for example, my knowledge of biological empathy informs me that if I knife someone, they will experience pain. But what if I don't care? Well, I could also claim that even though I don't care about the guy I knifed and his pain, the act would detract from my ability to engage in future relations with him. So it can be utilitarian as well (but it doesn't have to be).
I also think that we should clarify some definitions: "Natural Right" means something different than "Natural Rights."
Natural Right refers to a virtuous, objective set of behaviors or ideals that exemplify the "right" way to live. It can encompass a lot more than just non-coercion.
Natural "rights" on the otherhand, have an element of justice and desert (people deserve not to be harmed).