Rights and privileges

[ZenitYerkes]

Yes, but why is it beneficial? Right to property for example is highly questionable, -for it can be the origin of many injustices. Also, the definition of justice itself is really vague.

I agree with Sempu, though -and expanding that idea, those are the basics of of consensus rights. The problem is that you can't ask everyone if they support your law, or have all individual postures pointing to the same direction. Just as there are people who believe health care is a right, whereas others think it's a privilege.

So... what I was looking for in the very first place, is an objective way to determine what should be declared a right which needed supply from collective effort, or a privilege everyone should get on their own. For that, taking the idea of HNM of defining the needs of an individual to stay alive and grow in a personal level should be useful.

[Banefull]

Originally Posted by ZenitYerkes

So... what I was looking for in the very first place, is an objective way to determine what should be declared a right which needed supply from collective effort, or a privilege everyone should get on their own.

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?

[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.

[Woodsprite]

If you read the lexicon (which you'll probably never do in your life), you'd get a better understanding.

Until then, I'm not discussing this further with someone who's never cared to learn or understand any of what it says...

[Isard]

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

If you read the lexicon (which you'll probably never do in your life), you'd get a better understanding.

Until then, I'm not discussing this further.

Then you're taking whoever wrote that at their word. And going off what they consider moral and right.


You're never going to get a direct line to God on what he wants Woodsprite.

[Woodsprite]

I just have to respond to this: Do you even know what the word "lexicon" means?

[Isard]

I know it as a language database of sorts. I have something similar for Mando'a.


But you're still relying on others to interpret the message. You've never gotten the direct message. So citing the bible isn't really a viable argument, because in the end, you're just citing an interpretation that you agree with. aka: what you personally think is right.

[Tsyal Makto]

Yes, a book that advocates death by stoning is a wonderful thing to build a society on. It worked sooooo well for 17th century Massachusetts.

I don't know how anyone could misinterpret something like...

Originally Posted by Deuteronomy 17:2-5

If there be found among you ... that ... hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them ... Then shalt thou ... stone them with stones, till they die.

Originally Posted by Deuteronomy 13:5-10

If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers ... thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die.

[Banefull]

Originally Posted by Tsyal Makto

Yes, a book that advocates death by stoning is a wonderful thing to build a society on. It worked sooooo well for 17th century Massachusetts.

I don't know how anyone could misinterpret something like...

Belief in religion or not Tsyal Makto, the West draws a lot of its heritage from the Bible. I am not making this up. Its an integral part of history and it still has a lot of influence in your life whether you recognize it or not, believe in it or not.

Do you believe that life has value? That concept comes directly the Judeo-Christian line of thought. Belief in basic fundamental rights to things like food is a Judeo-Christian concept. In ancient Hebrew society, you had right to not starve to death. You were allowed to go into someone else's field of grain and take enough to eat, no questions asked. The practice was called gleaning. In a lot of other cultures at the time, if you were starving, then too bad. That idea lives on today and documents like the United Nations Charter can trace some of their concepts back to that.

Do you like hospitals? If you had a heart attack you would be brought to the emergency room no questions asked. The very concept of hospitals comes from the Judeo-Christian concept of charity. The idea that we have to help the less fortunate lives on today through that original line of thought.

I am not trying to push my views or anything but you would be blind not to consider all of the other ways the Bible has had an impact on history.


Responding to your post I will say this:

Bad things did happen but does that mean the religion or the text is evil? Or rather is it, that some of those people who claim to be followers are evil?

If someone, after seeing the movie Avatar, proceeds to blow up the headquarters of some international corporation killing dozens, does that make the movie Avatar bad? Or is it the person who committed the act that was bad?

I also have a question for you:
Why the double standard when it comes to the topic of religion? A lot of people advocate a scholarly analysis of everything, to explore and to discover more. If you were truly interested in the truth (and by truth I mean learning for the sake the knowledge) then you would not dismiss it without exploring it first. After all, is it not the mark of an educated mind to entertain an idea without making it his or her own?

[Tsyal Makto]

Originally Posted by Banefull

Belief in religion or not Tsyal Makto, the West draws a lot of its heritage from the Bible. I am not making this up. Its an integral part of history and it still has a lot of influence in your life whether you recognize it or not, believe in it or not.

Do you believe that life has value? That concept comes directly the Judeo-Christian line of thought. Belief in basic fundamental rights to things like food is a Judeo-Christian concept. In ancient Hebrew society, you had right to not starve to death. You were allowed to go into someone else's field of grain and take enough to eat, no questions asked. The practice was called gleaning. In a lot of other cultures at the time, if you were starving, then too bad. That idea lives on today and documents like the United Nations Charter can trace their some of their concepts back to that.

Do you like hospitals? If you had a heart attack you would be brought to the emergency room no questions asked. The very concept of hospitals comes from the Judeo-Christian concept of charity. The idea that we have to help the less fortunate lives on today through that original line of thought.

I am not trying to push my views or anything but you would be blind not to consider all of the other ways the Bible has had an impact on history.

Those are all good things, and yes, while they might have biblical origins, I still don't see it as a reason to have religious law as part of society. Maybe many centuries ago, but now those values are an inherent part of humanist thought, as well. The Enlightenment took those ideas and expanded on them in a secular fashion. (Not to mention how it helped expand beyond some of the restrictions of biblical law, such as women's rights and gay rights).

Biblical rule is fine and dandy with me on a personal level, if people want it for themselves and their own homes, but is obsolete on the state level, and has shown itself to be overly-restrictive, if not downright dangerous in this position, as well (Crusades, feudalism, theocracy, etc).

Originally Posted by Banefull

I also have a question for you:
Why the double standard when it comes to the topic of religion? A lot of people advocate a scholarly analysis of everything, to explore and to discover more. If you were truly interested in the truth (and by truth I mean learning for the sake the knowledge) then you would not dismiss it without exploring it first. After all, is it not the mark of an educated mind to entertain an idea without making it your own?

No double standard. I have been scholarly about organized religion, as well as the history of religion and it's effects on society. I guess I've just explored it with a cycnical eye, because I've seen what happens when something with the manipulation power as religion is used by people in power. Like I said, religion on a personal level is a wonderful thing, but as soon as people start trying to push it onto the public stage, then we've got a problem. In the modern, enlightened world, the Bible seems like a rather flimsy way to determine what rights people have. Basic human dignity is one thing, biblical law is quite another.

For example, is it wrong to allow gay marriage, because it is not a Judeo-Christian value? Even though it does not negatively effect human dignity (might even expand it), and has no detrimental effect on society other than that it goes against God's suppossed will?

[Banefull]

Originally Posted by Tsyal Makto

Those are all good things, and yes, while they might have biblical origins, I still don't see it as a reason to have religious law as part of society. Maybe many centuries ago, but now those values are an inherent part of humanist thought, as well. The Enlightenment took those ideas and expanded on them in a secular fashion. (Not to mention how it helped expand beyond some of the restrictions of biblical law, such as women's rights and gay rights).

Biblical rule is fine and dandy with me on a personal level, if people want it for themselves and their own homes, but is obsolete on the state level, and has shown itself to be downright dangerous in this position, as well.

I would not say that the bible imposes restrictions on women (bear in mind this is a personal view).
Edit: Deleted rest of paragraph; want to keep thread on topic.

As for gay rights I do not have much of an opinion yet as I am not really knowledgable of the arguments put forth on each side but even there I can think of some other reasons why the concept should be opposed off the top of my head. I would think that government should work to protect the general health of the public (I don't want to go further on this as we have already derailed this thread too much).



The very act of applying religious teachings to state law is not dangerous. The very moral code of the Bible is interwoven into our laws even today. In fact, you could even say that the teachings are, to some extent, part of our law. The problem comes when you give any institution unchecked powers. Most of us would agree that a dictator with unchecked powers is a bad thing. The same thing applies with the Church which is an institution, it should not have unchecked power. The concesus today outside and even within the church is that it should not even have any sort of direct political power whatsoever.

Edit: Yes we should get back on topic

[Woodsprite]

We are not going to turn this into a Bible debate thread. This is not the time or place. And if you would read the Bible in context, you'd know those teachings were meant for the Jewish society in ancient days, completely unrelated to the new covenant which cancels out these teachings...

...But you wouldn't know such things because you never cared to study or learn what the Bible says. I refuse to debate this topic with people who have zero knowledge on this subject.

[Isard]

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

We are not going to turn this into a Bible debate thread. This is not the time or place. And if you would read the Bible in context, you'd know those teachings were meant for the Jewish society in ancient days, completely unrelated to the new covenant which cancels out these teachings...

...But you wouldn't know such things because you never cared to study or learn what the Bible says. I refuse to debate this topic with people who have zero knowledge on this subject.

Not debating the bibles message. I'm just pointing out that your interpretation of it is no more valuable or accurate than my own.

[Tsyal Makto]

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

We are not going to turn this into a Bible debate thread. This is not the time or place. And if you would read the Bible in context, you'd know those teachings were meant for the Jewish society in ancient days, completely unrelated to the new covenant which cancels out these teachings...

...But you wouldn't know such things because you never cared to study or learn what the Bible says. I refuse to debate this topic with people who have zero knowledge on this subject.

Gary North and Rousas Rushdoony.

That is all.

[Advent]

Well, I've got knowledge considering the Bible, but I don't want to jump into an argument, if you know what I mean.

Back on to the main topic.

I think that, like any animal, a Human has the right to survive, simply because it exists. However, since Humans are sentient, feeling creatures, they should have the right to survive in whatever way they deem suitable.
If you put a Human in a cage for no reason, it'd be the same as trapping an animal. It's cruel. Humans can freely think though, so they'd be more emotionally damaged from such a thing.

To put it simply, I think we deserve extra care. Why? Because emotionally and physically, we are fragile.
Of course, the reason we've gotten so far is because of our mental power, so we're strong in that at least.