What is to prevent any 'abused' group from following the Gay marriage example?

[GePap]

Aeson brough up natural rights, saying that man has a natural right to marry-but only man with woman, so that the government was incapable of granting that right to homosexuals since they lack it in nature..

Imran and I said that was nonsense-no natural rights period, only government can grant rights

boris stated no natural rights, but it is society, NOT government, that is the originator of rights-and since societal norms on marriage are changing or have changed, same sex marriage as a right has arrived.

The debate is ongoing.

[loinburger]

So are you on the side saying that law is equivalent to morality or that government defines morality or something like that?

[Ramo]

I believe he's saying that rights are a legal concept (like laws). Really, it all depends on how you define "rights." In most contexts, the legal definition is appropriate, so that's what I generally associate with rights.

[GePap]

Originally posted by loinburger
So are you on the side saying that law is equivalent to morality or that government defines morality or something like that?

NO, becuase rights have diddly to do with morality-rights define what each actor in the system is capable of doing. NOw, one can come and assign a moral value to something, like deciding free speech is morally good, but in truth free speech is amoral.

So no, law and morality are not the same thing. Governments set laws, society sets moral standards, but the two are not in any way equivalent, even if people come to assign moral values to rights.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Ramo
In most contexts, the legal definition is appropriate, so that's what I generally associate with rights.

As do I, but I don't go so far as to say that "legal rights" are the only kinds of rights, while at the same time dismissing the dictionary definition of the term "right" as well as many common useages of the term (e.g., "universal declaration of human rights") that have a tenuous-to-nonexistent legal basis. It's all well and good for someone to say that, e.g., the dictionary or the United Nations or whoever is using the term incorrectly, but I'm trying to figure out if that's what GePap is saying, or if he's saying that morality == legality, or what.

[GePap]

I answered your question.

[loinburger]

In that case, on what basis do you justify the claim that your use of the term is correct, and that the dictionary, the United Nations, Amnesty International, et al are using the term incorrectly? Because you say so?

[Elok]

Loin, you should debate more often. Anyway, the question at hand as I see it is, "if rights do not come from the law, or 'society' in the sense of an unofficial populist government whose penal system consists of throwing rocks and dirty looks, where do they come from?" "Rights" as an absolute truth without origin or need for justification is very close to how one might define God, and we all know how well that idea is received, here and elsewhere, as grounds for social policy.

To be honest, he did sorta answer the question, by saying that rights are only a manifestation of the gov't. He has to define it as something, and the bottom line is that we can't *know* for certain that anything we believe is true. To turn it around, what else might rights be?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by GePap


Imran and I said that was nonsense-no natural rights period, only government can grant rights

boris stated no natural rights, but it is society, NOT government, that is the originator of rights-and since societal norms on marriage are changing or have changed, same sex marriage as a right has arrived.

Yes, and if you look at Thomas Jefferson's correspondence on the origins of Anglo-Saxon Common Law (and thus the origins of English and American common law) he finds that they are rooted in the tribal customs and practices of the pagan Angles, Saxons and Jutes (with later additions from the pagan Vikings).

If we accept that they had these customs and practices before they formed anything resembling a state, be it a kingdom, or republic, or despotism, then we must find that the tribal societies settled on certain ways to resolve disputes (over land, or honour, or property) that might otherwise have escalated into the kind of blood feuds that go on to the crack of doom in parts of the Balkans, Georgia and Southern Italy, which do not have the same sort of 'compensation for injured honour' approach.

These ways of circumventing intertribal violence then became enshrined as 'rights'- I believe a similar situation exists in the isolated societies of New Guinea, some of whom had/have social structures so basic that they had no collective noun for themselves, or their individual tribe.

Pigs are a sign of wealth and social status, the only domesticated creatures being dogs and pigs, their society being a mix of agrarian (taro and sweet potato farming, carried out by women) and hunting (male dominated).

These people still have 'rights' and 'laws' in the absence of a 'government'- rights to be compensated for a lost pig, or to defend oneself against accusations of witchcraft.

http://ethics.sandiego.edu/resources/cases/Detail.asp?ID=22

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Elok
Anyway, the question at hand as I see it is, "if rights do not come from the law, or 'society' in the sense of an unofficial populist government whose penal system consists of throwing rocks and dirty looks, where do they come from?" "Rights" as an absolute truth without origin or need for justification is very close to how one might define God, and we all know how well that idea is received, here and elsewhere, as grounds for social policy.

"Because God says so" isn't the only possible basis for morality, nor do all systems of morality claim to have a monopoly on some sort of "absolute truth" whichamajigger.

To be honest, he did sorta answer the question, by saying that rights are only a manifestation of the gov't.

He's made this claim, but the claim itself is not a basis for justifying said claim, unless "because I say so" is in fact the basis on which he justifies it.

To turn it around, what else might rights be?

I'm content to use the dictionary definition that GePap used earlier: a right is "That which is just, morally good, legal, proper, or fitting." Hence, rights derive from the law and/or from morality.

[Elok]

But where does morality derive from? If we have to decide what "rights" are, how do we determine morality? I think all morality is at least a little theistic, for assuming a world of rights and wrongs existing for their own sake. And if a system of morality doesn't have absolute truth, how can it claim universally existing rights?

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Elok
But where does morality derive from?

I don't believe that the specific source of morality is relevant to the discussion, just as the specific source of laws (i.e., the specific form of government in use) is not relevant to the discussion. The exception would be if morality is equivalent to legality (such as in the case of a theocracy, perhaps), but GePap has already rejected this possibility.

Similarly, a claim along the lines of "different systems of morality determine moral rights differently from one another, therefore all moral rights are bogus" is no more valid than is the equivalent claim that "different legal systems determine legal rights differently from one another, therefore all legal rights are bogus."

I think all morality is at least a little theistic, for assuming a world of rights and wrongs existing for their own sake.

Moral systems do not exist for their own sake any more than legal systems exist for their own sake. (Even theistic morality exists for the sake of God or gods or ancestor ghosts or whatever.)

And if a system of morality doesn't have absolute truth, how can it claim universally existing rights?

Legal systems generally do not define universally existing rights, so I don't see why moral systems are constrained to only defining universally existing rights.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Society shifted after the law was changed, but that doesn't refute my points, because there's no reason that a law can't influence the way society thinks about something, certainly. But had the law NOT done so, had public opinion not changed, I guarantee you the law would not have stood for long, because it is ultimately the will of society that maintains the law, not vice-versa.

Likewise, society influencing law doesn't refute my points. It simply isn't a right until the legal authority (government most often than not) puts society's choice into words.


Loin: Basically, Boris, GePap, and I all agree that natural rights are bunk (and therefore marriage being a natural right between man and woman is dumb), but we are fighting like Communist splinter groups over a minor point about whether society or government grants rights, which, in today's world, really doesn't change anything.

[loinburger]

In that case, I'm rooting for Bukharin.

[GePap]

Originally posted by loinburger
In that case, on what basis do you justify the claim that your use of the term is correct, and that the dictionary, the United Nations, Amnesty International, et al are using the term incorrectly? Because you say so?

The dictionary gives 7 or 8 definitions of that word- and just like "cool" has come to signify something other than a gradiation of cold, the usage of words change slightly over time. The UN an AI may use the word differently-I would argue with them on their usage- just cause the UN and AI use it in some slightly different way does not make them right either.

Molly:

These ways of circumventing intertribal violence then became enshrined as 'rights'- I believe a similar situation exists in the isolated societies of New Guinea, some of whom had/have social structures so basic that they had no collective noun for themselves, or their individual tribe.

So in other words, these groups created a method by which legitimacy could be granted to a set of action. Of course, without an authority to enforce any of this, any individual at any one time could break the norms, and either win due to force of personality and popularity, or lose due to lack of support.

And you are correct to put rights in """.

Bukharin was fat- Trotsky all the way.