Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Martian · 06-22-2009, 10:42 AM

I have already enumerated the logic that I cannot follow. Allow me to try again.

My understanding of your premise goes like this:

A) 'Rights' are a social construct.
B) Because they are a social construct, they are not real.
C) Because they are not real, anything built upon them (ie capitalism, although democracy could just as easily fall into there) must also be false.

Your movement from B to C is logical, but B does not follow A. The artificial nature of a right does not make it illusory. Capitalism is real and substantial and powerful for as long as people continue to believe in it and make it so. Socialism is the same.

Calling a right 'god given' turns this into a theological discussion. Not where I think you wanted to go, although I could be mistaken. Calling a right 'moral' is a judgment of it's value within the context of a moral structure. If we accept the idea of absolute morality, we may be able to make headway there, but again I'm not sure if that's the direction you intended to go in.

Being 'made up' has nothing to do with the importance of something. Art, law, religion. All of these things are 'made up' to a greater or lesser degree depending on one's views and beliefs, and all of them are powerful and important.

cybermike: I don't know if that was directed at my post, but will address it as if it was.

Nowhere did I say that rights are not real. What I said (in quite a few words, granted) is that they are not natural. In this context I use the word 'natural' only to imply that these rights do not exist independently in nature and nothing more or less. It speaks not at all to the substantiality of them, nor their significance or propriety.

To me, this is self evident. A right is something that exists within a social construct. It does not exist unless or until somebody dreams it up. The much-touted right to freedom of expression is an excellent example; I consider it very important and it's something I hold dear, yet I know that it is an artificial thing. It is powerful and important and good and real. It is all of these things, but it is not natural and it is not universal.

dksuddeth: Calling something irrevocable is impossible as long as situations exist where that thing is being revoked. People around the world are being alienated from their right to free speech, which in and of itself suggests that said right is not inalienable. QED.

06-22-2009, 10:42 AM	#8 (permalink)
Martian Young Crumudgeon Location: Canada	I have already enumerated the logic that I cannot follow. Allow me to try again. My understanding of your premise goes like this: A) 'Rights' are a social construct. B) Because they are a social construct, they are not real. C) Because they are not real, anything built upon them (ie capitalism, although democracy could just as easily fall into there) must also be false. Your movement from B to C is logical, but B does not follow A. The artificial nature of a right does not make it illusory. Capitalism is real and substantial and powerful for as long as people continue to believe in it and make it so. Socialism is the same. Calling a right 'god given' turns this into a theological discussion. Not where I think you wanted to go, although I could be mistaken. Calling a right 'moral' is a judgment of it's value within the context of a moral structure. If we accept the idea of absolute morality, we may be able to make headway there, but again I'm not sure if that's the direction you intended to go in. Being 'made up' has nothing to do with the importance of something. Art, law, religion. All of these things are 'made up' to a greater or lesser degree depending on one's views and beliefs, and all of them are powerful and important. cybermike: I don't know if that was directed at my post, but will address it as if it was. Nowhere did I say that rights are not real. What I said (in quite a few words, granted) is that they are not natural. In this context I use the word 'natural' only to imply that these rights do not exist independently in nature and nothing more or less. It speaks not at all to the substantiality of them, nor their significance or propriety. To me, this is self evident. A right is something that exists within a social construct. It does not exist unless or until somebody dreams it up. The much-touted right to freedom of expression is an excellent example; I consider it very important and it's something I hold dear, yet I know that it is an artificial thing. It is powerful and important and good and real. It is all of these things, but it is not natural and it is not universal. dksuddeth: Calling something irrevocable is impossible as long as situations exist where that thing is being revoked. People around the world are being alienated from their right to free speech, which in and of itself suggests that said right is not inalienable. QED. __________________ I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said - Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame