Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

filtherton · 06-23-2007, 11:30 AM

There seems to be a lot of inconsistency round these parts concerning what constitutes a right.

You have the ones in the constitution.

You have the ones that are apparently god given.

You have the ones that only exist in the sense that they haven't yet been prohibited by the law.

I'm just curious as to how folks go about defining for themselves what is and is not a right. I don't really care about specific rights, and i am preemptively labelling a douchebag anyone who make this thread about specific issues i.e. gun control or abortion.

I think that a right is nothing more than arbitrary priority placed on certain behaviors or activities. I don't think that there necessarily is a god, and this little tidbit isn't as important as the fact that i don't think a god would prescribe us specific rights - i don't believe in innate rights. The notion of certain rights being innate, to me, seems like more a way to lend an air of legitimacy to convictions which are essentially subjective. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Pssh, there's no way those rights are natural, or innate, or god given. They only exist in the constitution as a way of generalizing the founders' idea of how to go about creating a government as they saw fit.

How do you define a right? Do you think certain rights are owed? Why? Is it question of innate rights or a question of how to set the ground rules for a system of government? If you agree with me that a person's definition of rights are purely projections of personal philosophy, is there any way you can justify attempting to force others to conform to your notions of behavioral entitlement? In other words, why is claiming something as a right a valid basis for a perspective?

06-23-2007, 11:30 AM	#1 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	What the fuck is a right? There seems to be a lot of inconsistency round these parts concerning what constitutes a right. You have the ones in the constitution. You have the ones that are apparently god given. You have the ones that only exist in the sense that they haven't yet been prohibited by the law. I'm just curious as to how folks go about defining for themselves what is and is not a right. I don't really care about specific rights, and i am preemptively labelling a douchebag anyone who make this thread about specific issues i.e. gun control or abortion. I think that a right is nothing more than arbitrary priority placed on certain behaviors or activities. I don't think that there necessarily is a god, and this little tidbit isn't as important as the fact that i don't think a god would prescribe us specific rights - i don't believe in innate rights. The notion of certain rights being innate, to me, seems like more a way to lend an air of legitimacy to convictions which are essentially subjective. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Pssh, there's no way those rights are natural, or innate, or god given. They only exist in the constitution as a way of generalizing the founders' idea of how to go about creating a government as they saw fit. How do you define a right? Do you think certain rights are owed? Why? Is it question of innate rights or a question of how to set the ground rules for a system of government? If you agree with me that a person's definition of rights are purely projections of personal philosophy, is there any way you can justify attempting to force others to conform to your notions of behavioral entitlement? In other words, why is claiming something as a right a valid basis for a perspective?