Rights and privileges

[Woodsprite]

No one is saying we should have religion as a state-sanctioned law-giving system. I disagree with it myself, and so did the founding fathers.

What Banefull was saying is that we shouldn't discount our Judeo-Christian heritage as a country just because we may not agree with everything it teaches. We've come a long way because of it, and it is the basis for many laws we have today.

But anyway, come on; let's keep this a non-religious discussion. It wasn't Zenit's intent; this is about means for an end to carry out rights and priviledges. I didn't understand that before. Anyway, what are the means? What is the end? Well, these are debatable subjects.

[Banefull]

Hmmm, a good start would be to find something that is universally beneficial and universally accepted and I think there is but one thing that fits the bill.

The golden rule:
Treat others as you would have them treat you.

Every religion, every culture, every view -- Christianity, Buddhism, Confucianism, Secular Humanism, Mythology, and Primal Traditions, has some expression or acknowledgement of this concept. Some views like Buddhism, Confucianism, and Christianity have this concept spelled out formally while others have an informal sense of it.

I would argue that nothing else matters so long as this principle is acknowledged and followed. If we want food, then we will provide food for others also. If we want to be able to speak freely, then we will respect what others have to say. If we want time to be alone, then we will give others the time to be alone.

[Sempu]

Originally Posted by Banefull

Hmmm, a good start would be to find something that is universally beneficial and universally accepted and I think there is but one thing that fits the bill.

The golden rule:
Treat others as you would have them treat you.

I would argue that nothing else matters so long as this principle is acknowledged and followed.

Ah, if only it were that simple. But how we would like to be treated is not always how others would like to be treated. A meat lover serves a vegetarian spare ribs, believing he's too skinny. A frat friend takes a Muslim to a strip joint, or gives donuts to a friend training for the marathon.

Sure, you can abstract the rule to say that it should be used to help people be happy; mind you, some people don't want that either. These were gross examples of mistakes that happen in relationships all the time: well-meaning people try to help but do not understand the other person. I find more helpful to have the rule:

Treat others as they would like to be treated.

And then you have to find out how they would like to be treated, which promotes the communication and understanding that should be taking place.

[Sempu]

Originally Posted by Sempu

Treat others as they would like to be treated.

And it's not that simple either. The heroin addict wants one thing only, his next fix; do you help him get it? The beggar on the corner wants a dollar, and swears it is for food or bus fare. You know the odds are 100 to 1 he will use it for booze or drugs. Do you give it to him knowing the chances that you will be contributing to his destruction? A friend has written a brilliant debut play. But his vengeful girlfriend told him it was crap and he swore off writing. Do you send it to your agent friend anyway?

Sometimes - often - what someone wants isn't the best thing you can do for them. Maybe a better rule is:

Treat others as their highest consciousness would like to be treated.

And then there is not only communication, but learning.

[Woodsprite]

Originally Posted by Sempu

Sometimes - often - what someone wants isn't the best thing you can do for them. Maybe a better rule is:

Treat others as their highest consciousness would like to be treated.

And then there is not only communication, but learning.

It's essentially the same thing. "Treat others as you would have them treat you" is inferring that the best interest of the person is always apparent, even when it may not be for the actual individual. Whether someone wants something good or bad, the good is obvious, while the bad is also obvious.

Both your arguments are unclear. You assume that if you treat the person the way you would want to be treated, that automatically means it includes everything you desire. That's not entirely true. The person you treat takes these actions negatively. No matter what the action, if the person you do the action for takes it as a negative one, and you are aware he/she thinks of them this way, you are not following the golden rule; you are following your desires in what you would want back from them, not necessarily what they want. That's being selfish. They wouldn't want to have meat or go to a strip club, just as you wouldn't want to pray in a mosque or eat vegetables for the rest of your life.

As for the heroin argument, the best interest of the person (as I said before) is always obvious. A person may want a fix, but you, as well as society, understands that heroin leads to consequences. By being a friend, you would prevent him from taking more, which is productive and leading to a better life. You are thus doing for him what you would want done to yourself if you had a heroin addiction. Being a friend doesn't necessarily mean doing all for him that he wants. Being a friend can mean doing things for him that he may not desire, but will be thankful for in the future.

[Human No More]

Woodsprite, stop trying to turn this into YET ANOTHER religious war. If you continue, don't complain if this thread gets closed. Everyone else, don't feed the troll.

Back on topic... I say that rights are basic - what people need to survive (food, shelter, warmth, love), and what they naturally have (freedom of speech, freedom of movement, the right to choose who to associate with), the only thing that is not a right is infringing on other people's.

[Woodsprite]

Jake... we were off that subject... ? Try reading all the comments before making a judgement next time, please. Thank you...

[Sempu]

People--just about everyone, it seems--have this desire for a simple statement of what's right. Intellectuals especially want a sort of unified field theory, an E = mc**2 for moral direction if you will. But this breaks down; I'll illustrate.

I maintain that the real principle (yes, this is my third take on it, I've been working up to this) is "Follow your heart." And the counterargument goes, "But suppose your heart tells you to steal from the 7-11?" Then, I say, that's not your heart, that's something else. The challenge in life is to figure out how to listen to your heart, because it will not steer you wrong.

But then the counterargument goes, "But how can we use a rule like that? This guy over here said he was following his heart when he ripped off the 7-11, what are we supposed to do?" Well, that's a different question: it's gone from what are you supposed to do to what are other people supposed to do? The rule only applies to yourself.

And it will be the same with anything else you come up with. Try asserting your fundamental right to life when you're being eaten by a bear. A right is only meaningful when it is tested, and leads to some kind of action. This is why the Bill of Rights is such a big deal.

[Tsawke`Iheyu]

I read around here some stuff which kinda made me dizzy... what's wrong with Religion, it has nothing to do with the rights and privileges we have on Earth. These rights and privileges were supposed to mean freedom, equillibrium, evolution. Post Revolutionary civilisation transformed everything into a pattern-based life, totally split from the real meaning of being a Terran.

And come on, "tradition" should be a closed case. The rules of the world put that in front only if it's a national birthday or a collonial anniversary. They don't do that cause the "tradition" is meant to go on for the next generations and the concept will perish ahead of our day by day actions, like go to work/ school come back home, things that already are a tradition. We go to work cause it's a "tradition". We go to school from the same reason, it's like we are forced to do that.
Religion the same, has become a lost concept... a lost language, a splitted and cutted into pieces idea. Thousands of years ago people from Egypt were present at the ceremonies with the smile on their faces, not because "D'uhh ! You don't believe in God you're a sinner !" and then stamped as a non-Christian/ Buddhist/ etc. I look at the ceremonials in my country where they bring very rare bones of Saints (I don't know about all of this...) and people become nuts and want to touch the bones with all costs ! I mean come'on ! Where is the order ? Where is the respect for Religion as so many think they have ? Where is the fundation ? It was all lost since 1054 after year zero. There are so rare the people that go to Church to pray as a deep thought, the more are those who go to Church forced. Sad thing...

I know a saying, a very small, but very-very important saying which we should take it very serious : "I leave you the ground and a flower, it's only your fault if it dies". It depends on each and every one of us what we can "extract" from this phrase.

[Banefull]

Originally Posted by Tsawke`Iheyu

These rights and privileges were supposed to mean freedom, equillibrium, evolution.

That statement is a product of tradition in itself. You were most likely raised up believing that societies advance. That very notion of progress traces its history all the way back to western thought and was passed on to you. Not everyone in the world would say that rights are for evolution or advancement. Also as I mentioned above, not every culture values justice. Everyone seems to be so used to the single definition of rights that they grew up with that they forget it is not universal.

Edit: What I am getting at with all these posts is that there are some serious issues in defining what constitutes a universal right. We cannot assume that the principles we always grew up with, believe in, or support are fundamental rights.

[ZenitYerkes]

They're not products of tradition as long as you reach them by yourself and not assuming your culture's teachings. There's a difference between believing in X because you were taught so, and doing so because you recognize and have reached the conclusion that it is by yourself only.

We're not conditioned by our environment or traditions. I am supposed to be posh, Catholic and conservative -it's my environment and all I know so far. Am I any of that? Not at all.

[ZenitYerkes]

They're not products of tradition as long as you reach them by yourself and not assuming your culture's teachings. There's a difference between believing in X because you were taught so, and doing so because you recognize and have reached the conclusion that it is by yourself only.

We're not conditioned by our environment or traditions. I am supposed to be posh, Catholic and conservative -it's my environment and all I know so far. Am I any of that? Not at all.

[Banefull]

We make conclusions based upon what we have seen, learned, or experienced in our environment. We cannot make conclusions without observations. Tradition is an integral part of that influence. In many cases it is not the governing factor of our conclusions but it still plays a role in many others. More often than not our basic understanding of human rights comes from what we have learned. I would probrably be correct in saying that had you been born into a different time period or different place in the world, you not have the same views as you do now.

Now some ideas, some concepts of rights, may be better than others but how do we determine which ones are better? You said that we need to find something that is universally beneficial and accepted and I still maintain that is the golden rule. Or perhaps not so much the golden rule but at least a concept of reciprocal treatment -- "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours". It is the very reason why humans band together. They need collective security, shared resource production, or companionship. At a basic level if someone offers something, then they can expect to have it provided for them also when it is needed. In a hunter gatherer group, most individuals would sacrifice themselves to protect their friends. Each friend has the knowledge that their friends would do the same in turn for them. Without this societies cannot form.