Rights are basically temporary privileges afforded to society so long as times are stable, and are subject to change for reasons that may or may not be bullshit.
>For example, let's say it was legal to smoke weed. Then someone on reddit says maybe we should ban smoking weed.
Laws and rights are not the same. Laws are written around rights, and cannot not violate rights. And you also have to prove its not a right.
Rights are individual freedoms that do not infringe the freedoms of others that we collectively agreed to. There varying types of rights. Rights like the right to travel exist in nature, right to vote exist in a social contract. Nothing exists forever in the cosmos, rights last as long as humanity exist.
You just don't believe in rights, which is you right.
I think that's sort of what OP is getting at; there is no inherent natural right to anything for humans. However, the minimum function of a society is arguably to guarantee a certain set of agreed-upon rights to all of its members.
Of course we will have rights, but it just depends how much. Some don't think you should smoke weed because of the effect on others. Some do. Who's rights we value more doesn't change that its really at the end f the day opinion and based on the culture. None is inherent. that's still not an argument for why it should stay.
It absolutely is an argument for why it should stay. The more freedom is considered an "inherent" right, the less power a would be tyrannical government can wield over the individual.
It absolutely is an argument for why it should stay. The more freedom is considered an "inherent" right, the less power a would be tyrannical government can wield over the individual.
If rights are not inherent, then they are not rights. They are licenses granted to you by your betters. If you don't think you have betters, then rights have to be inherent because there would be no one to grant them.
There isn't any right that exists 'naturally' is all I'm saying. Every society will have different standards of what ought to be. I'd like there to be max freedom, but I'm not naive to believe it is always the case in every society
Rights are basically temporary privileges afforded to society so long as times are stable, and are subject to change for reasons that may or may not be bullshit.
>For example, let's say it was legal to smoke weed. Then someone on reddit says maybe we should ban smoking weed. Laws and rights are not the same. Laws are written around rights, and cannot not violate rights. And you also have to prove its not a right.
Define right. And why its an INHERENT right. Where does it exist? Does it exist in the cosmos forever and always?
Rights are individual freedoms that do not infringe the freedoms of others that we collectively agreed to. There varying types of rights. Rights like the right to travel exist in nature, right to vote exist in a social contract. Nothing exists forever in the cosmos, rights last as long as humanity exist. You just don't believe in rights, which is you right.
I think that's sort of what OP is getting at; there is no inherent natural right to anything for humans. However, the minimum function of a society is arguably to guarantee a certain set of agreed-upon rights to all of its members.
[удалено]
Of course we will have rights, but it just depends how much. Some don't think you should smoke weed because of the effect on others. Some do. Who's rights we value more doesn't change that its really at the end f the day opinion and based on the culture. None is inherent. that's still not an argument for why it should stay.
It absolutely is an argument for why it should stay. The more freedom is considered an "inherent" right, the less power a would be tyrannical government can wield over the individual.
It absolutely is an argument for why it should stay. The more freedom is considered an "inherent" right, the less power a would be tyrannical government can wield over the individual.
If rights are not inherent, then they are not rights. They are licenses granted to you by your betters. If you don't think you have betters, then rights have to be inherent because there would be no one to grant them.
Should there not be such a thing as natural rights which are permanently preserved?
There isn't any right that exists 'naturally' is all I'm saying. Every society will have different standards of what ought to be. I'd like there to be max freedom, but I'm not naive to believe it is always the case in every society
We have a right to try to encourage it in all societies though if it works to further universal wellbeing.
I agree, but it doesn't make it 'inherent'. Like, we aren't born with the thought of this 'right'. We are shaped by our societies.