Finding Common Ground

[The cheeseman Don't you dare go Hollow!]

What rights would you say are human rights (inviolate and sacrosanct) and what rights would you say are civil rights (given by the gov't and able to be taken and given)? What is something that is considered a right that you think should not be considered one?

[Frustration]

10 hours ago, cheeseman said:

What rights would you say are human rights (inviolate and sacrosanct) and what rights would you say are civil rights (given by the gov't and able to be taken and given)? What is something that is considered a right that you think should not be considered one?

Good question.

10 hours ago, cheeseman said:

What rights would you say are human rights (inviolate and sacrosanct)

Freedom of speech(including both online and in print), religion(both in choice and practice), assembly, travel, privacy, Labor(meaning I can choose who I work for and for what), protest, self defense(Including the use of lethal force, and using it in defense of others), Property, the right to defend said property, life, courtship(meaning I choose who I marry), and several more that's just all that's coming to mind at the moment.

10 hours ago, cheeseman said:

and what rights would you say are civil rights (given by the gov't and able to be taken and given)?

Voting

10 hours ago, cheeseman said:

What is something that is considered a right that you think should not be considered one?

Abortion.

 

What about you Cheeseman?

[The cheeseman Don't you dare go Hollow!]

3 hours ago, Frustration said:

What about you Cheeseman?

John Locke outlines three human rights: life, liberty, and property. Those are the only things I believe are human rights, with everything else being a civil right or a privilege.

Webster's 1828 dictionary defines these as: Life: In a general sense, that state of animals and plants, or of an organized being, in which its natural functions and motions are performed, or in which its organs are capable of performing their functions. Liberty: Freedom from restraint, in a general sense, and applicable to the body, or to the will or mind. The body is at liberty when not confined; the will or mind is at liberty when not checked or controlled. Property: The exclusive right of possessing, enjoying and disposing of a thing; ownership.

A lot of the things you listed as human rights would fall under that definition of liberty, life, or property.

Civil rights are defined by the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy as "...rights against discrimination, initially denoting discrimination based on race and ethnicity but soon expanding to include sex, disability, sexual preference and other salient categories of social and personal identity."
I would say that in addition to that, civil rights are also anything to do with the people and functions of government. Such as: voting, equality of opportunity, or anything that the above listed human rights do not cover.

In the case of something like self-defense, I would say that that falls under the right to life, because you when you have a right, you should be able to ensure and protect that right for yourself and others. A human right is something that is literally impossible to give up: your life can only be taken from you, and at that point your just dead; you always have the liberty of your own mind; and, as John Locke wrote, "Every man has a property [emphasis mine] in his own person, this no one has a right to but himself."

[Wittles he/him]

1 minute ago, cheeseman said:

John Locke outlines three human rights: life, liberty, and property. Those are the only things I believe are human rights, with everything else being a civil right or a privilege.

Webster's 1828 dictionary defines these as: Life: In a general sense, that state of animals and plants, or of an organized being, in which its natural functions and motions are performed, or in which its organs are capable of performing their functions. Liberty: Freedom from restraint, in a general sense, and applicable to the body, or to the will or mind. The body is at liberty when not confined; the will or mind is at liberty when not checked or controlled. Property: The exclusive right of possessing, enjoying and disposing of a thing; ownership.

A lot of the things you listed as human rights would fall under that definition of liberty, life, or property.

Civil rights are defined by the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy as "...rights against discrimination, initially denoting discrimination based on race and ethnicity but soon expanding to include sex, disability, sexual preference and other salient categories of social and personal identity."
I would say that in addition to that, civil rights are also anything to do with the people and functions of government. Such as: voting, equality of opportunity, or anything that the above listed human rights do not cover.

In the case of something like self-defense, I would say that that falls under the right to life, because you when you have a right, you should be able to ensure and protect that right for yourself and others. A human right is something that is literally impossible to give up: your life can only be taken from you, and at that point your just dead; you always have the liberty of your own mind; and, as John Locke wrote, "Every man has a property [emphasis mine] in his own person, this no one has a right to but himself."

I would like to object to those being the only human rights. I think the pursuit of happiness is something that every human should have the right to. (I'm pretty sure it was an enlightenment ideal introduced later though) I don't disagree that life, liberty, and property are basic human rights, I think that every person has the right to do what fulfills them. To clarify, what I define as "the pursuit of happiness" is the pursuit of the things that bring a person the most joy, what someone is able to find a meaning that may not be apparent to others, like art.

Spoiler

Sorry if that was a bit repetitive

 

[The cheeseman Don't you dare go Hollow!]

Just now, Wittles of Shinovar said:

I would like to object to those being the only human rights. I think the pursuit of happiness is something that every human should have the right to. (I'm pretty sure it was an enlightenment ideal introduced later though) I don't disagree that life, liberty, and property are basic human rights, I think that every person has the right to do what fulfills them. To clarify, what I define as "the pursuit of happiness" is the pursuit of the things that bring a person the most joy, what someone is able to find a meaning that may not be apparent to others, like art.

  Reveal hidden contents

Sorry if that was a bit repetitive

 

Okay, that's fair. After all, "the pursuit of happiness" is right in the beginning of the American Declaration of Independence. However, "the pursuit of the things that bring a person the most joy" is very broad. What if what I enjoy the most is theft? Or murder? Or vandalism? I don't disagree with you that the pursuit of happiness is important, but I do disagree with your definition as it's too broad.

Do you perchance have an external definition of the term?

[Wittles he/him]

Just now, cheeseman said:

Okay, that's fair. After all, "the pursuit of happiness" is right in the beginning of the American Declaration of Independence. However, "the pursuit of the things that bring a person the most joy" is very broad. What if what I enjoy the most is theft? Or murder? Or vandalism? I don't disagree with you that the pursuit of happiness is important, but I do disagree with your definition as it's too broad.

Do you perchance have an external definition of the term?

What exactly do you mean by "external definition"?

I did consider that, and I think that things like theft or murder are ultimately corrosive to the spirit/mind. I think I would refine the definition to define it as the pursuit of things that fulfill a person's soul in a way I think that immoral acts would actively do the opposite.

[The cheeseman Don't you dare go Hollow!]

30 minutes ago, Wittles of Shinovar said:

What exactly do you mean by "external definition"?

A definition from a source that isn't yourself. Such as from Webster's 1828, John, Locke, Thomas Hobbes, or someone/thing like that.

[Mason Wheeler]

Keep in mind that "pursuit" was a noun meaning "thing with which one occupies one's time," not a verb meaning "chasing after," 250-ish years ago.

[Wittles he/him]

3 hours ago, cheeseman said:

A definition from a source that isn't yourself. Such as from Webster's 1828, John, Locke, Thomas Hobbes, or someone/thing like that.

3 hours ago, Mason Wheeler said:

Keep in mind that "pursuit" was a noun meaning "thing with which one occupies one's time," not a verb meaning "chasing after," 250-ish years ago.

I found an article that talks about this, and it says something that parallels this. The right to pursue happiness is kind of the act of being happy. So essentially in the declaration of independence where it is used it means people have a right to find joy. I use joy here because I think it conveys what is meant by happiness better in this context.

[The cheeseman Don't you dare go Hollow!]

I understand the point you're making, but the definition I used of liberty states "freedom from restraint" (Webster's 1828 dictionary). So, wouldn't the pursuit of happiness/joy/the act of being happy be encompassed under that definition? After all, if you are free from restraint, are you not able to do what brings you joy?

Edited April 18, 2023 by cheeseman
grammar

[NameIess]

If we’re talking about things that can’t be taken away by an external force, then life and liberty don’t qualify, while pursuit of happiness does. Unless you’re arguing that life is required for pursuit of happiness.

If instead we’re talking about what shouldn’t be taken away, then life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness are a good start, in that specific order. Meaning that in general it is permissible to preserve life by infringing on liberty, and preserve liberty or life by restricting pursuit of happiness.

Edited April 20, 2023 by Nameless*

[That1Cellist he/him]

I made an SU with this in it, but I was redirected here, so here’s something on my mind.

It‘s sad, actually. These people are all children of God, and they all have such great potential. Even if you do not believe in God, you can agree that other people are human beings. That's part of why I hate being angry and annoyed. These people have the potential to do wonderful things, and though we may see things differently, think differently, or act differently, I really don't see a reason to be angry. Why are we so mean to others? Being mad with a set of people as a category that is out of their control doesn't make sense. Or simply dubbing people "annoying", and not even attempting to look beyond that. We can all change, and in my experience, people will ten to mimic what is given. I had a conversation with my mom recently. She asked me, "Why does everyone think that teenagers love obnoxious things and mediocrity?" I'm pretty sure the answer to that question is that it is what we are given. Sure, we may tend to enjoy crude things, but when that becomes entirely what is fed to us all of the time? As Pi states in Life of Pi by Yann Martel, "A person can get used to anything, even to killing." And though obviously that is more dramatic, it truly does show how things are. Other people, no matter if you fundamentally disagree with them on many, things that are very important to you, are still humans. It is not okay to vilify certain categories of people, simply on common shared traits or disagreements with you. Would you not rather be happy instead of in a constant state of anger? And can you not imagine that other people want to be happy also? I feel that some problems that we see today are based off of people saying that we should come together, but nobody wanting to give anything up. We all say, "We should come together and be better as a people." But the thing is that we disagree on how that should be done. But, if we come to see others as more human beings, and look at their viewpoints beyond simply decrying them as "evil", or "obnoxious", I think that we would be able to love them more, despite our disputes or disagreements that were hitherto points of contention. Can we please rise above simply hurling insults at the other people, and saying everything is their fault?

People are dying. Mental health disorders are on the rise. All sorts of problems are increasing. And yet we yell at each other still. Please, let's try a little harder to give up petty grievances and do better as a people. I think, if we all try to do better, people will see that and follow our examples, even if it's simply subconscious mimicry.

Thanks.

Edited April 21, 2023 by That1Cellist

[Ranryu she/her]

I love the idea of this thread.

I’m just gonna watch and see what you guys talk about.

[The cheeseman Don't you dare go Hollow!]

I love being on this thread. It's a great place to (mostly) peacefully discuss our moral, philosophical, and other beliefs.

And we can argue about candy, which is even better.

[Frustration]

On 4/21/2023 at 4:38 PM, That1Cellist said:

I made an SU with this in it, but I was redirected here, so here’s something on my mind.

It‘s sad, actually. These people are all children of God, and they all have such great potential. Even if you do not believe in God, you can agree that other people are human beings. That's part of why I hate being angry and annoyed. These people have the potential to do wonderful things, and though we may see things differently, think differently, or act differently, I really don't see a reason to be angry. Why are we so mean to others? Being mad with a set of people as a category that is out of their control doesn't make sense. Or simply dubbing people "annoying", and not even attempting to look beyond that. We can all change, and in my experience, people will ten to mimic what is given. I had a conversation with my mom recently. She asked me, "Why does everyone think that teenagers love obnoxious things and mediocrity?" I'm pretty sure the answer to that question is that it is what we are given. Sure, we may tend to enjoy crude things, but when that becomes entirely what is fed to us all of the time? As Pi states in Life of Pi by Yann Martel, "A person can get used to anything, even to killing." And though obviously that is more dramatic, it truly does show how things are. Other people, no matter if you fundamentally disagree with them on many, things that are very important to you, are still humans. It is not okay to vilify certain categories of people, simply on common shared traits or disagreements with you. Would you not rather be happy instead of in a constant state of anger? And can you not imagine that other people want to be happy also? I feel that some problems that we see today are based off of people saying that we should come together, but nobody wanting to give anything up. We all say, "We should come together and be better as a people." But the thing is that we disagree on how that should be done. But, if we come to see others as more human beings, and look at their viewpoints beyond simply decrying them as "evil", or "obnoxious", I think that we would be able to love them more, despite our disputes or disagreements that were hitherto points of contention. Can we please rise above simply hurling insults at the other people, and saying everything is their fault?

People are dying. Mental health disorders are on the rise. All sorts of problems are increasing. And yet we yell at each other still. Please, let's try a little harder to give up petty grievances and do better as a people. I think, if we all try to do better, people will see that and follow our examples, even if it's simply subconscious mimicry.

Thanks.

@That1Cellist

You bring up some good points, many of which I myself agree with, and I'm more asking to see what you think, and get a greater underrstanding of your ideology here.

My question is what do you do when someone does hold an evil ideology?

Edited April 25, 2023 by Frustration

[Lord Gregorio he/him]

On 4/17/2023 at 9:44 PM, cheeseman said:

What rights would you say are human rights (inviolate and sacrosanct) and what rights would you say are civil rights (given by the gov't and able to be taken and given)? What is something that is considered a right that you think should not be considered one?

I'm so behind on this thread (and all the others). This question is a super interesting one though because I feel like it's hard to answer (for me at least). I think the government should be able to take away any of our civil rights and they aren't to be taken and given and messed around with as they sometimes have been or are being.

To be a bit more precise, before you correct my illiterate typing . I think the constitution should be what is able to restrict someone's more complicated rights. I believe with what cheeseman said a little after about this question. I think life, liberty and property (as well as pursuit of happiness or whatever) are super important, for example, for the United States to remain free.

The civil rights part feels more complicated, but maybe it isn't. The constitution was created to keep the government in check while allowing for justice to those who break the law, but because of things that are happening that's changing. I believe we (some of us) as citizens should definitely be reading the constitution and stuff to improve our understanding of what our rights actually are.

To have rights and agency there must be laws preventing those who would prevent others agency or take away their rights. Those laws must be protected by due process and knowledgeable citizens. 

Hopefully that wasn't too confusing. It's probably too close to night to be talking about government for me. 

Edited April 29, 2023 by Lord Gregorio

[Chaos he/him]

We are closing this topic, because we feel this can only lead to conflict. Sorry friends.