Rights

[seer]

Love is as specific to each person as happiness is. A person may understand instinctively what they themselves consider love, but that doesn't mean anyone else understands it as love. Books like the The Five Love Languages illustrate that nicely.

No it's not. I lived in the Far East and people understand what it means to be kind or fair - whether we practice it is another story.

[Carrikature]

No it's not. I lived in the Far East and people understand what it means to be kind or fair - whether we practice it is another story.

I think we are speaking at two different levels. I don't dispute that all people understand fairness and kindness. Rather, I don't think that fairness/kindness take the same form for me as they do for you. Of course, there could also be differences between concepts. We may both understand kindness in much the same way, but our expression/understanding of love could be drastically different.

[Spartacus]

No it's not. I lived in the Far East and people understand what it means to be kind or fair - whether we practice it is another story.

I think Carrik is missing the point. People (and even cultures) may express love in certain ways, but that doesn't mean that they aren't trying all trying to express the same ideas.

[seer]

Rather, I don't think that fairness/kindness take the same form for me as they do for you.

What does that mean, give me a real example.

[Carrikature]

I think Carrik is missing the point. People (and even cultures) may express love in certain ways, but that doesn't mean that they aren't trying all trying to express the same ideas.

Yeah, that's why I said we were talking at different levels. As far as I can tell, the expression can be more relevant when discussing rights than the idea itself.

[Carrikature]

What does that mean, give me a real example.

I can think of several, especially since it's something I deal with on a regular basis.

For example, my daughter will be three at the end of May. To her, any offer of assistance is repulsive even if it's intended as a kindness. She doesn't want help and can get belligerent when it's given unasked. Similarly, my wife was roommates in college with a woman who was very offended if I opened the door for her. To me, I was raised with the idea that this is proper and good, an act of decency (kindness) that was expected of men. To the roommate, opening the door for others was insulting. In her opinion, this simple act was evidence that I thought her incapable of such things as opening the door for herself. It's silliness to me, but that's how she felt. Of course, some people may give me unasked for assistance, and I may or may not react well to it. Sometimes I don't want help, and sometimes I need help. Giving me what I want when I need it would be a kindness, for all that it would be nearly impossible for anyone to anticipate.

Of course, fairness is something else altogether, but it suffers from the same problems. Fairness to some entails all people having the same starting point from which to prove their worth. Others want everyone to have the same amount of income regardless of what they do. Still others consider it fair if the same action gets the same reward. I could say that all of these things can be examples of fairness even while recognizing that they're mutually exclusive.

I started off responding to your comment about love. Expressions of love are an ongoing challenge between me and my wife. Using the Five Love Languages concepts, the things she does to show love are the things I respond to the worst (and vice versa). The things I recognize as expressions of love are the most unnatural to her and vice versa. We both understand the concept of love, but what it looks like and how we express it are very different, even to the point of being unrecognizable to the other person. My parents are much the same way. My dad thinks love is, in part, providing for his family no matter that his idea of providing may entail working huge amounts of overtime. My mother would much rather be poor and have less so long as he was home on a regular basis during normal waking hours.

[Teallaura]

...

I'd be interested in hearing what conception of liberty you think the Founding Fathers were using. For the sake of clarity, I think we agree that happiness is left to the individual to define for all that I consider it a futile and misguided goal.

1) I'll get back to you - I need to reread some stuff.

2) Okay.

[seer]

Of course, fairness is something else altogether, but it suffers from the same problems. Fairness to some entails all people having the same starting point from which to prove their worth. Others want everyone to have the same amount of income regardless of what they do. Still others consider it fair if the same action gets the same reward. I could say that all of these things can be examples of fairness even while recognizing that they're mutually exclusive.

I started off responding to your comment about love. Expressions of love are an ongoing challenge between me and my wife. Using the Five Love Languages concepts, the things she does to show love are the things I respond to the worst (and vice versa). The things I recognize as expressions of love are the most unnatural to her and vice versa. We both understand the concept of love, but what it looks like and how we express it are very different, even to the point of being unrecognizable to the other person. My parents are much the same way. My dad thinks love is, in part, providing for his family no matter that his idea of providing may entail working huge amounts of overtime. My mother would much rather be poor and have less so long as he was home on a regular basis during normal waking hours.

If I believed this wasn't merely a distinction without a real difference I would say that no human being has any common ground with, or understanding of, any other human being. But that is not the case. And like I said in the past, the categories and concepts are universal even if, at times, content varies. But it doesn't vary some much as to become unrecognizable.

[shunyadragon]

You claim to disagree while simultaneously stating the exact same thing. By stipulating the rights as foundational and giving them precedence over democratic majority rule, you're proving that they are in essence antidemocratic.

It is the adjective anti democratic that I object to. I do not believe that democracy was ever simply supposed to be majority rule only. The Constitution and Democracy both play a role in governance.

[Spartacus]

It is the adjective anti democratic that I object to. I do not believe that democracy was ever simply supposed to be majority rule only. The Constitution and Democracy both play a role in governance.

It seems as though you're using the neoconservative definition of democracy rather than the classical one.

[Carrikature]

If I believed this wasn't merely a distinction without a real difference I would say that no human being has any common ground with, or understanding of, any other human being. But that is not the case. And like I said in the past, the categories and concepts are universal even if, at times, content varies. But it doesn't vary some much as to become unrecognizable.

That's a bit of an overstatement. Humans are complex, and it's entirely possible to share common ground in some areas while being devoid of understanding in others. My wife and I have quite a bit in common for all that our needs and desires differ. Regardless, the content most certainly can vary so much as to become unrecognizable, and this is exactly what happens between my wife and I when it comes to expressions of love. We literally do not see each other's actions as love even if they are in fact intended as expression of it. This isn't just opinion for me, this is drawn from near-divorce with outside counseling required to help us even notice what was happening. It still happens when we stop paying close attention, but at least now we know what to look for.

From what I can tell, not just from my own experiences nor limited to the discussion of rights or morality, there are terms that are universal in nature which nonetheless do not have an agreed upon definition. Kindness, love, justice, freedom, duty...all of these are things which most people can recognize as desirable within their personal definition and understanding even where their ideas differ from someone else's. The variances don't necessarily invalidate the concepts, but they do make it necessary to establish an agreed upon definition before they can be used as codified principles upon which to make political, social and moral decisions. Without that agreement, I dare say that it's inevitable for people to fight for the same word while aiming towards different outcomes. In fact, I think we see this play out in U.S. politics, though I'd expect it to show up everywhere.

[seer]

From what I can tell, not just from my own experiences nor limited to the discussion of rights or morality, there are terms that are universal in nature which nonetheless do not have an agreed upon definition. Kindness, love, justice, freedom, duty...all of these are things which most people can recognize as desirable within their personal definition and understanding even where their ideas differ from someone else's. The variances don't necessarily invalidate the concepts, but they do make it necessary to establish an agreed upon definition before they can be used as codified principles upon which to make political, social and moral decisions. Without that agreement, I dare say that it's inevitable for people to fight for the same word while aiming towards different outcomes. In fact, I think we see this play out in U.S. politics, though I'd expect it to show up everywhere.

I'm still not sure where you are coming from. If there was not real commonality in understanding then there really could be no meaningful connection. Look at it this way: You have a long movie line in the US, one in China, one in South Africa. In each line someone just jumps in up front. I'm willing to bet that 99% of the people in each line will see that act as unfair. A common understanding that crosses cultures.

[Paprika]

I'd suggest that these rights are not purely objective or subjective in nature. To correct a minor point, though, either case can be normative. Normative is contrasted with positive, not with subjective. For all of that, I find the usage of objective and subjective to be more problematic than anything, especially in these kinds of discussions.

I believe you're right here. As tentative improvement, I suggest a division between pragmatic choices with the intention of securing or extending one's power vs grounding in genuine concern for others' wellbeing.

Regardless, pluralistic societies are still capable of describing a concept of universal rights, but it must be done carefully. The right to life is something all people desire. The right to non-interference is another. These two alone are sufficient, in my opinion.

I agree it can be done. My question would be whether the description of rights can be done coherently, especially when different groups disagree on the contents of the rights while agreeing that "rights" in the abstract should exist.

Personally, I don't have definite any answers to offer, and have discovered that my current approach is fatally flawed. Need to go back to the drawingboard.

[shunyadragon]

It seems as though you're using the neoconservative definition of democracy rather than the classical one.

It is uncertain how you are defining your terms; 'neoconservative democracy?' and 'classical democracy?' Need some help here. Virtually all democracies in history were and are 'Constitutional Democracies,' and democracy functions within Constitutional restraints to protect the rights of individuals and minorities. The 'Constitutional Democracies' evolved from documents like the Magna Carta to create a balance of power, to the 1700s in Europe and USA.

[Paprika]

It is uncertain how you are defining your terms; 'neoconservative democracy?' and 'classical democracy?' Need some help here. Virtually all democracies in history were and are 'Constitutional Democracies,' and democracy functions within Constitutional restraints to protect the rights of individuals and minorities. The 'Constitutional Democracies' evolved from documents like the Magna Carta to create a balance of power, to the 1700s in Europe and USA.

Please take this disagreement over the meanings of 'democracy' elsewhere.