Originally posted by Paprika
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Philosophy 201 Guidelines
Cogito ergo sum
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Rights
Collapse
X
-
Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:
go with the flow the river knows . . .
Frank
I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.
-
Originally posted by seer View PostI'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.
Aspect #1:
People are complex. I like some things and dislike others. You like some things and dislike others. Some of the things you dislike may be things I like, and vice versa. BUT. It could also be that our likes and dislikes overlap in some places. For example, you might like lima beans while I can't stand them, but we both might really like classic rock. It's possible for us to connect over things we agree on while ignoring or minimizing the things we disagree on. The point is that 'no real commonality' as you express it is applied too narrowly. We might agree on some aspects of love while disagreeing on others. We can share some sort of agreement, and we can both recognize that the concept is more or less similar enough to allow us to use the same word in everyday discussions.
Aspect #2:
Topics are complex. It's not enough to say that fairness is recognized by all in a single instance, even if that could happen. I doubt that it does happen very often, and I'd suggest that you recognize the truth of this as evidenced in part by your 99% number above. Rather, you'd have to show that fairness is recognized by all in the same way for nearly every instance. Further, people may come to the same conclusion for different reasons. A society with a caste system, for example, could have members complain of unfairness because of treatment received from other members of their social level while having no regard at all for lower levels. A member of the lowest level may claim that all people should be equal and so enjoy identical treatment.
At the end of the day, I don't think people share the amount of commonality you think they do. Sure, we use the same terms, and the ideas more or less look the same (at least superficially), but I could say that about a lot of things that seem to be the same but actually aren't (religious beliefs are a huge and obvious example). It's more likely that people assume everyone else has the same idea of charity as they do unless they witness other people acting in a way that doesn't jive.I'm not here anymore.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Carrikature View PostAspect #2:
Topics are complex. It's not enough to say that fairness is recognized by all in a single instance, even if that could happen. I doubt that it does happen very often, and I'd suggest that you recognize the truth of this as evidenced in part by your 99% number above. Rather, you'd have to show that fairness is recognized by all in the same way for nearly every instance. Further, people may come to the same conclusion for different reasons. A society with a caste system, for example, could have members complain of unfairness because of treatment received from other members of their social level while having no regard at all for lower levels. A member of the lowest level may claim that all people should be equal and so enjoy identical treatment.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostCarrikature, you can not dismiss my example so easily. I think you recognize, that yes, just about everyone in those lines would see the line jumping as unfair i.e. wrong. There is no reason to try and confuse the issue. And we would see it as unfair for similar reasons. If I were to follow your reasoning, you would think that there would be little agreement as to the unfairness of the act - but we both know that would not be the case.Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Spartacus View PostIt presumes a society in which movie theaters exist. That's hardly universal.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostThen take any situation where people have been waiting in line, for almost anything. Waiting for food, medical care, clothing or to see the King. The reaction will be the same.Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.
Comment
-
Seer, your situation presumes several things: everyone in the queue is of the same social station and is seeking the same good with the same urgency. It is possible that people may be predisposed to accept an implicit social contract that the first person in line will be the first served, but that's not always the case, even with highly religious people.Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Spartacus View PostSeer, your situation presumes several things: everyone in the queue is of the same social station and is seeking the same good with the same urgency. It is possible that people may be predisposed to accept an implicit social contract that the first person in line will be the first served, but that's not always the case, even with highly religious people.
I doubt it, no matter what "implicit social contract" we accept I believe that line jumping would viewed as unfair, even if we did not voice that opinion, or were resigned to the outcome. Men like Marx, Lenin, Mao, Robespierre, etc... had to appeal to a sense of fairness that transcended cultural norms and the 'explicit' social contracts of the time.Last edited by seer; 04-24-2014, 03:48 PM.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostI doubt it, no matter what "implicit social contract" we accept I believe that line jumping would viewed as unfair, even if we did not voice that opinion, or were resigned to the outcome. Men like Marx, Lenin, Mao, etc... had to appeal to a sense of fairness that transcended cultural norms and the 'explicit' social contract of the time.Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Spartacus View PostThe very idea of an orderly queue with undifferentiated members is not universally present or even universally accessible. Do you doubt my examples?Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostLet me ask you - what if they were waiting for food to feed their family? Or medical care? But there can be situations where fairness is not expected. But having been to many outdoor concerts in my time, even there, jumping the line for a porta-pottie would have been frowned on.
Your experiences with concert porta-potties don't invalidate my experiences trying to get seats at crowded Masses.Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Paprika View PostJoseph Ratzinger observes that in many erstwhile democratic systems, there are key, central antidemocratic elements, often referred to as rights. Now it may be that the majority of a society agrees on all the rights it legally recognises at certain instances of time, but the point of these rights - or at least one point of them - is to restrict the power of the majority, whether directly exerted through referendums or indirectly through elected representatives to change the law; vox populi is not vox Dei.
I believe that this observation is uncontroversial. The issue that it raises, however, is: what should these rights be? Are they merely subjective, decided by whoever is in power, or are they normative, at least in part? If normative, that is, grounded in some real objective moral standards, how are they to be determined in pluralistic contexts where there are differing norms?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Paprika View PostQuote Originally Posted by Carrikature View Post
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.
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.
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.
In the societal level, people have raised questions "should I expect fire protection? or Should I pay equally for fire protection if I don't have property?" Also "Should I have health benefits? Do we have an obligation to subsidize health care for people who don't wish to afford it or can't afford it?" Or are people not only allowed to eat the food they have ... but are also to be assured that they have a certain amount of food available to them?
It is interesting on this latter issue, the biblical requirement on Israel was that people be allowed to glean the harvested fields for remaining crops. As such there was a provision by which an impoverished family could still obtain food -- with some restrictions on the farmer.
Another interesting aspect of Israel was that each family was given a division of the land allocated to each tribe. So there was never an ultimate hoarding of land by rich people. I would think life would be more equitable if each family had their own land. (I'm not sure how water was shared and divided though.)
Then on the social level there was the requirement to use the tithe of the land not only for one's own feast -- but on a certain schedule they were to share the feast with a priest and a poor family -- if memory serves. Also there was the requirement to return a man's lost beast to him.
It gets to be a little more difficult to resolve on some issues arising in America's history -- when should a store owner or employee be allowed to discriminate against a customer and when is it inappropriate? Sometimes in these situations there is a threat against a person's life if he was willing to serve those whom others wouldn't serve.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostRights are subjective and agreed upon by society in general. The founding fathers got it wrong. It was their subjective view that all men are created equal, that we all have by God the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, of course their view didn't pertain to slaves. Only property owners in their subjective view had the right to vote. Apparently women weren't created equal either from their subjective perspective since they didn't have the right to vote either. In a democracy, rights are subjectively determined by the people through their elected representatives. Women had to fight to win their right to vote for instance. But if there is an objective moral standard pertaining to rights, could someone point it out?Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Spartacus View PostIf they were waiting in line to feed their children and knew that there were limited food supplies, I rather doubt they'd be willing to wait in line and risk ending up with nothing.
Your experiences with concert porta-potties don't invalidate my experiences trying to get seats at crowded Masses.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
|
161 responses
514 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
Yesterday, 05:44 PM
|
||
Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
|
88 responses
354 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
03-01-2024, 09:27 AM
|
||
Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
|
21 responses
133 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
03-25-2024, 10:59 PM
|
Comment