If one considers rights to represent some form of cultural ideology - representing a communities fundamental beliefs concerning social interaction, rule of law, social hierarchies etc., then defining 'rights' will vary depending upon time and space. As for what 'rights' represent, this again can depend upon one's own cultural and social persona. Rights only have meaning within one's own cultural environment. For example:
In, for example, America if someone was to kill another, the victims family would see it as their "right" for the law enforcement agencies to investigate and apprehend the killer, and for the judicial system to convict him. The killer, on the other hand, sees it as his "right" to a free and fair trial and for an attoreny to prove his innocence - depsite these two rights contradicting each other.
However, amongst the !Kung bushmen of South Africa, and numerous Siberian tribes, if a member of one family was to kill the meber of another, it would be considered culturally acceptable for the victims family to demand the "sacrifice" of one of the perpetrators family as a kind of revenge-killing. This practice still continues today, depsite contradicting all aspects of western concepts of "human rights"
Rights are not a universal phenomenon, they are subjective, non-linear, and entirely dependent upon cultural association.
Mark
Originally posted by mmanuelI would have to agree with mmanuel there.
If one considers rights to represent some form of cultural ideology - representing a communities fundamental beliefs concerning social interaction, rule of law, social hierarchies etc., then defining 'rights' will vary depending upon time ...[text shortened]... -linear, and entirely dependent upon cultural association.
Mark
I think that they most probably stem from an individuals sense of self. That they come from basic instincts present from birth. You feel that you should be allowed rights so that you can go about your life with a certain security. Your personnal 'rights' in which you believe would lead on from your own sense of self worth and what you believe to be 'right' or 'wrong'.
James
Originally posted by jimmi tI would disagree fwith jimmi t however, rights are not derived from internal feelings but rather derived from someones metaphysic. The original post of asking a group of culturally diverse people to define rights is a moot point. It is similar to asking a question like "what is the meaning of life?". you will recieve a lot of replies that you agree with on some level, but none that wholly satisfy your own perception. That is because, as stated before, rights are a subjective and fluid concept.
I would have to agree with mmanuel there.
I think that they most probably stem from an individuals sense of self. That they come from basic instincts present from birth. You feel that you should be allowed rights so that you can go abou ...[text shortened]... worth and what you believe to be 'right' or 'wrong'.
James
To respond to royalchicken - where do rights come from? - i think Bourdieu's idea of symbolic systems as structuring structures offers a believable, if somewhat slightly marxist answer:
"Unlike myth, a collective product collectively appropriated and consumed, ideologies serve particular interests which they tend to present as universal interests, common to the whole group. The dominant culture contributes to the real integration of the dominant class (by ensuring immediate communication among all its members and distinguishing them from the other classses); to the fictitious integration of the society as a whole, and hence the demobilisation (false consciousness) of the dominated classes; and to the legitimisation of the established oreder by the establishment of distinctions (hierarchies) and the legitimisation of these distinctions."
Basically by the dominant group/class granting lower classes "rights" it legitimising its position as the superior group/class, and makes its teneur more acceptable to those beneath them.
On a lighter note, a great quote from Catch-22: "he [Yossarian] was jeopardisiong his traditional rights of freedom and independence by daring to exercise them" - classic
Mark
Originally posted by VargIt is not easy.
But we are fallible, so god must be too right?
Doesn't sound like a very good all-powerful being. 😛
What rights did the Jewish people have?
What rights did the slaves have?
What rights did the coolies have?
We should think more in terms of responsibilites.Forget rights.
Linda
Originally posted by missleadAh, but Linda highlights the point that (I believe) bbarr and I were trying to make - that the concept of rights is only relevant in the context of actions, or responsibilities. It is my view, and that of many others, that it is the responsibilty of governments, and individuals living among those governments, to try and defend the rights of people living under those regimes and elsewhere. Their actions therefore should define the rights that they perceive because they seek to develop a framework wherein those rights can be freely exercised.
It is not easy.
What rights did the Jewish people have?
What rights did the slaves have?
What rights did the coolies have?
We should think more in terms of responsibilites.Forget rights.
Linda
-mike
Originally posted by legionnaireI agree. (Sorry I attacked you earlier...) This is characteristic of taking an abstract approach here-defining something not by what it is so much as what its function is, the same way that my queen's bishop is best defined not in terms of its shape, colour, etc. but in terms of how it moves and where it fits in relation to the other chess pieces (chess communities have great analogy potential). Similarly, by defining, as you do, 'rights' as a kind of inversion of the conept of moral obligations - "I am morally obliged to do/not do X to Y" becomes "Y has the right to experience/be spared action X from me." - you create a very useful concept (the way I see this, in view of the generic example above, is that you have flipped the concept 180 degrees through the subject-object dichotomy, and its basic concept is invariant). Now, according to the view that rights arise in responsibilities, we are free to talk in terms of morals and imperatives. This is what bbarr was trying to extend before, with the Kant quote, and I think some useful ideas lie in the direction that was taking.
Ah, but Linda highlights the point that (I believe) bbarr and I were trying to make - that the concept of rights is only relevant in the context of actions, or responsibilities. It is my view, and that of many others, that it is the responsibilty of governments, and individuals living among those governments, to try and defend the rights of people livin ...[text shortened]... because they seek to develop a framework wherein those rights can be freely exercised.
-mike
Perhaps the best starting point of a discussion of "rights" might best be served by studying the anthropological establishment of the term, then follow it up to the next stage, or "conceptualization".
To avoid emotional interference with the argument, i suggest that we not study the human evolution of "rights", but transfer to chimpanzees. The human mechanisms of politics and religion (among others) tends to enter the discussion too early and spoil the underlying arguments.
The morphology of conceptualized "rights" might make better sense if we study the inherent (or sociologically defined) "rights" of a baby chimpanzee, seeing how it's ability to act and interact within it's community evolve. Can it do all things at all times? Are there limits as to it's actions and groupings? How does it become the dominant breeder in the community? Is the "garnering" of wealth within the chimp community a "thing" that can be appendant to "rights" in said trancendent discussion.
A preliminary assessment is, however required.
1 - Is the study of a species different from ours germane?
2 - Can we logically consign the gleanings from such a study of chimps to ourselves?
3 - After the establishment of 1 and 2, we would need to establish the part of speech of the term "right" and the plural "rights" in the anthropological study. Noun or adjective or something else.
4 - After "conceptualization" does the part of speech change for the term, or can we aquire it as the same part of speech?
I will wait for feedback on the notion. Mike
Originally posted by StarValleyWyFirst, Mike, I am entirely glad that you're bringing the "anthropology of cc's" in here. I think it is an effective thought structure. However, first I am going to answer each of your points to as great an extent of analysis as I can. First, while I believe 'emotional interference' is a potent threat to our discussion (see orkyboy's posts in this thread), and also that the mundanities of politics and religion tend to overshadow the actual abstractions taking place, I don't know enough of the salient points of the social structure of Pan Troglodytes to know if the comparison is good.
Perhaps the best starting point of a discussion of "rights" might best be served by studying the anthropological establishment of the term, then follow it up to the next stage, or "conceptualization".
To avoid emotional interference with the argument, i suggest that we not study the human evolution of "rights", but transfer to chimpanzees. The ...[text shortened]... or can we aquire it as the same part of speech?
I will wait for feedback on the notion. Mike
However, you seem to know your stuff, and our discussion in our second game is enough to assure me of that. On to your second point. In this regard, I think that we can extrapolate our interpretations of chimpanzodynamics wrt any point on which, in view of your first query, we already determined to be accurately modelled by chimpanzees. This is tautological; all I'm saying is that your first two points fit together in an important way and basically ask the same question.
Your third point is where it becomes interesting. Read my post to legionnaire, read legionairre's post, read misslead's post, and read the colloquy between bbarr and myself. Clearly, 'rights' can be defined in terms of moral obligations as outlined therein. It seems we have a noun. Here is the definition I sought before, as I would formulate it (within a subject-object metaphysics):
Right: the expression within the object of the subject's moral obligation towards said object. Also plural 'rights'.
This of course does not further the discussion of moral obligations/responsibilities, which was started by several people earlier.
The fourth point you make is interesting, and needs answering only if you say more about how it is to be 'conceptualized'. I would hold the above definition constant, and shift our discussion to moral obligations. The chimpanzee seems quite a good place to start with this.
Originally posted by royalchickenPoint #4
[The fourth point you make is interesting, and needs answering only if you say more about how it is to be 'conceptualized'. I would hold the above definition constant, and shift our discussion to moral obligations. The chimpanzee seems quite a good place to start with this.[/b]
If we study chimps and manage to come up with a list of "chimp rights"... then we might be entitled to make a list of "pre-cognitive" rights. This list might , or might not be valid after being "rationalized through a conscious process". This is what i call (rather glibbly) as "conceptualization". A better way of looking at the list might be to say that "Precognitive" might be thought of as fait accompli. If we arrive at a list of these done deals for chimps... can that list transfer up to "sentient beings", ie, survive the process of "conceptualization"? Or perhaps more fundamentally... Does the fact that we are homo "Sapien" change the precognitive list built on the backs of chimps?
Originally posted by StarValleyWy(Good pun...🙂) This is very interesting, but it is a possibly a good way to break things up. We could consider 'precognitive' rights, namely those rights (and I use my above definition) that exist by virtue of the physio-biological nature of a being, and 'intellectual' rights, namely those rights that exist by virtue of a being's ability to reason. I think to bridge the leap from chimp to human, it is imperative that we incorporate the latter (think about it: freedom of speech, et al. all depend on reasoning ability, and it is necessary when constructing a system like this to explain as many things as apossible). So your "precognitive rights" become "moral obligations towards beings based on the fact that those beings are alive", and "intellectual rights" are "moral obligations towards beings based upon their ability to reason". however, say for example that we want to entertain bbarr's claim (that I agree with) that moral obligations (if they exist) are rooted in reason. Thus any person who is morally obliged to do or refrain from some action must be capable of reason. Thus we can't consider rights entirely in the chimpanzee framework, because chimps can't, by the above 'principle', have moral obligations unless they can reason.
Point #4
If we study chimps and manage to come up with a list of "chimp rights"... then we might be entitled to make a list of "pre-cognitive" rights. This list might , or might not be valid after being "rationalized through a conscious process". This is what i call (rather glibbly) as "conceptualization". A better way of looking at the list ...[text shortened]... the fact that we are homo "Sapien" change the precognitive list built on the backs of chimps?
Originally posted by royalchickenAhem... here "comes" a double, NO, A TRIPLE! ...
[b](Good pun...🙂)
The pun was a "generational" thing. Younger people might not "get it".
< still thinking about my next response, and visiting with guests and helping grandkids get computer games loaded and... you see my problem?>
Mark,
I am not able to stay in this discussion today. Obligations. But what do you think of building a "precognitive" list for our chimps. Here is a starter, albeit very hastily and not thought out list for starters. I'll check back tomorrow.
1 - chimp A has right to be fed by mother.
2 - chimp B has right to try and steal milk of A's parent.
3 - mother of A has right to choose between A or B as to which to feed.
4 - father of B has right to kill A if mother of A is a "drifter" and he knows he can't be the father of A. (this happens on occasion, but not so much as in Lion Prides)
Apologize for such an abreviated list... Feel free to add, subtract and/or change any of these... Got to run. Mike
ps... 4 generates one whammy of an argument for the "Congnitive" equivelent list! Old human saying... "too damned bad we don't eat our children any more!" ... used when kids are out of control. Like right now!😛😕