Rights and privileges

[ZenitYerkes]

Originally Posted by Banefull

Well Zenit, I am not sure if such a thing is possible. Everything has to come from a few basic fundamental assumptions that come from subjective sources.

For ex: In mathematics, every single theorem is derived from other theorems and postulates. Postulates are those basic assumptions that we accept without proof simply because they are the most basic things and there is nothing more fundamental or more basic to prove them with.

This analogy applies to this attempt to define what constitutes a fundamental right. We have to pick and choose what basic concepts to build the framework for defining the rights. If you take the world as a whole, considering all the different viewpoints, some would say that society and mankind have to be equitable therefore, justice is a fundamental right; however, others would say that does not matter -- so long as society remains harmonoius and peaceful, there is no need for justice. Even with things like food, as I mentioned above, not every culture saw that as a fundamental right.

This is our predicament:
What basic concepts do we pick as our base to build the framework?

It is EXACTLY Maths from where I am taking my logic scheme! That is such a precise science for three things: first, they do make a difference between assumed, yet to prove knowledge and already tested, demonstrated theories (you've got theorems and laws there); and second, even the most basic premises of Maths are tried out: back in the 18th century, a mathematician wrote an essay proving how 1+1=2 -despite it being so obvious. And third, any assumption they make is common sense and close to reality; though as I said before, that doesn't mean it will remain unquestioned.

Whereas philosophy and morals specially are so conditioned by the fancies and personal interests of people (most of the times the powerful within a group or society) that it becomes more a bunch of compiled opinions of people regarding reality than an actual analysis of it.

This is what I mean by the computer analogy. Most of morals nowadays are greatly traditions and assumptions which only support comes from the authority of your group or the time the tradition has gone on. When you take one, you don't know how or why it works well -but it does; however there are always tricky situations on which you don't know which side to pick, whom to defend or what to believe in.

Another analogy I'd like to mention, is the building one. Certain truths are strong materials with which to make one, but assumptions are just scaffolds which serve as provisional support. And if you build on scaffolding directly...

So I want some objectivity here. Measuring happiness, comfort or suffering is not what I try -those are greatly subjective and subjectivity would mean not everyone would recognize our rights as useful, common sense and universally beneficial, no matter the circumstances, unless we push them to accept them.

What I do not want, at all.