The thread on imaginary religion got me to thinking.

Are the so-called "inalienable human rights" imaginary?

Are the four freedoms Roosevelt spoke of something real,
or just a construct of human imagination?

Did we humans get off on a wrong track, way back in our
ancient history, when we began viewing abstractions as
being tangible realities?

Did Plato lead us astray with his teaching of Ideals?

UD

it's possible!

Other than humans agreeing to respect the rights of others, there is no enforcement measures in nature guaranteeing rights will not be taken away.

So yes, I would say rights are "imaginary". I can think of no right that is truly inalienable. Even "thought" can be taken away by killing someone.

We agree on this subject.

Well and simply put. No god. No rights.

I prefer the term natural rights, as opposed to God Given, and you are forgetting one thing. They are enforceable, in as much as most people will fight in order to retain them. So long as society as a whole is willing to stand up for a right, then it can not be taken away.

If a person has enough power, they make the rules. That is the only truly "enforceable" right.

Human rights are as legitimate as toaster rights. They are rules we make up for ourselves. Try jumping off a cliff and see how accommodating the law of gravity is to your so-called human rights. Jump into a lion's cage and see what happens. (I'm really not advocating jumping off cliffs or into lions' cages.) "Inalienable" just means were not supposed to intrude on each other's bubbles, but it is just a social rule. I'm not saying that we shouldn't be nice to each other, but there is no ultimate rule of the universe that says you can't. Human rights are just imaginary rules and social limitations that we make for ourselves to try to make ourselves feel better and make life easier on everybody.

I do believe that King George III would have agreed --
or at least would have said "Here! Here!" -- until some
wag hauled out the Magna Carta and began reading it.

Seems that even the divine right of kings has some controversy.

I'd not argue my right of leeway across the domain of a
Black Hole, on the other hand. Some rights appear to be
bound up with the laws of physics.

UD

MJ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> n/t

I'm no student of early English history, but the subject
does interest me. Perhaps somebody here can provide an
opinion as to why so much discussion of "rights" came
out of that environment.

UD

That's right. Even the divine right of kings is imaginary, meant to make life easier for themselves. Laws for or against abortion, slavery, smoking, drinking, prostitution, jaywalking, littering, and wearing shoes are all based on imaginary authority to tell other people what they can or can't do, and are based on some assumed right to something or another. But all ultimate authority is based on the laws of physics. That's all. Everything more than that is imaginary. The meteorite that blew out windows in Russia didn't care about property rights or blasting broken glass into unsuspecting peoples' faces. The tsunami in Japan was just as respectful as the hurricane that hit Galveston in 1900. We like to think we're special, and we are, but not so special that the universal laws defer to our awesomeness.

Have you heard of Object Oriented Ontology? Thought provoking stuff, a nice antidote to anthropocentrism and worth considering, when it comes to 'rights' and who has them, whatever they might or might not be.

Check out this blog

http://larvalsubjects.wordpress.com/

and this lively little book

http://www.amazon.com/Alien-Phenomenology-What-Thing-Posthumanities/dp/0816678987/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1362864435&sr=8-1&keywords=alien+ontology

There are no "inalienable rights." Name a right and I'll name a time it was taken, sold, or otherwise alienated. There was a tradition that believed in "natural law" or "natural rights," but those were derived from Christianity and based on an implicit divine approval. Now natural law is even falling out of fashion with American conservatives.

The truth is that laws and rights are only the compromises reached by people and groups about what is or what should be. That's why gay rights will soon become standard: society has changed, and the new accepted norms deem that gays be treated as equal.

Why did so much of the rights dialogue emerge from England? Because of political history. The monarchy was not strong enough to rule the country without the help of the nobles, so the nobles banded together to demand certain privileges in exchange for their support. The kings viewed these as treasonous, but if you live long enough with treason it becomes law. The Magna Carta was a delineation of the compromises that would eventually become established. Later conflicts between commoners and the aristocracy led to the emergence of "rights" for the former. That is why a House of Commons evolved beside the House of Lords. In the 19th century the two parties were struggling for dominance and in the "corn laws" debates the parties gradually extended the franchise to new groups to gain more votes. So the "rights" of commoners expanded and parliament eventually came to resemble what it is today.

The UK does not today have a written constitution. It's rules are established by history and convention. The truth is that the United States is the same way. The founders wrote a constitution, but that thing has been reinterpreted to the point where parts of it are meaningless. The best example is the "interstate commerce" clause, which says that the federal government cannot regulate commerce within a state unless it is substantially interstate as well. Today the federal government can regulate virtually any business it wants because the clause has been gutted. Another example would be the "right to privacy" which has no foundation in the constitution but, for better or worse, has been inserted in the document through supreme court decisions. As in England, laws and rights are defined by compromises between political power centers that evolve over time.

Any law or right that does not match social realities does not in fact exist. The UN charter, for instance, guarantees all people the right to food and the right to paid vacations. Are those "rights" real? Absolutely not. Why? Because the written rights do not reflect a balance between competing power centers. It follows that yesterday's rights are not today's, and today's will not entirely be tomorrow's.

If life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness were really inalienable, there would have been no reason to declare them in the Declaration of Independence.

There are no such things as rights.

What you have are privileges given and taken away by the government.

If you think you have rights then google "japanese-americans 1942".

I always enjoy reading your thoughtful posts, Uncle Dale.

We may need to define some terms when we talk about "inalienable human rights." I suggest that when we say "inalienable" we don't mean things that CANNOT be alienated (because it would be pretty meaningless to say that everyone on earth has an inalienable right to be, for example, affected by gravity) but rather it means things that CAN BE BUT SHOULD NOT BE alienated. Therefore "inalienable rights" must - if they really exist and aren't just imaginary - be some sort of prerogatives that CAN BE BUT SHOULD NOT BE violated. And if these inalienable rights are HUMAN rights, we must possess them simply because we are human.

Here's where a philosophical jump is necessary. If there are any rights that we possess simply because we are human, then we must presuppose that humans are ESSENTIALLY AND QUALITATIVELY different from other things, including animals. For example, if under some circumstances humans have a right to life and another form of life doesn't - for example, if you take medicine to kill some disease causing microbes because you would rather be healthy and have the microbes die rather than have the microbes be healthy and die yourself - then we must suppose that humans have rights that microbes don't have.

Most theists have an easier time with this point than atheists, since theists take as an axiom that humans are special because of their relationship to God. Atheists often argue either that human rights are imaginary because humans are really nothing more than highly evolved animals; or that human rights are social constructs, which is really just another way of saying that they originate from imagination, possibly under the influence of evolution; or that human rights are real but that they are based in intuition.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/09/2013 05:50PM by oddcouplet.

My idea is that you and I have our respective rights,
so long as we agree to that Social Compact. Our mutually
agreed upon rights might not be recognized or upheld
by outsiders. We ourselves might become crazed, senile
or so self-absorbed that we ended up abrogating those
rights at some point.

But in the interim, I'd say that this abstraction becomes
a reality for us, and for whomever else might wish to
join in that agreement. Our implementing the precept
makes it something more than our imagination.

So, let's say that we establish a church, based upon the
scientific method and reason -- but we also decide to
include our particular bill of rights into the profession
and practice of that religion.

Have we thus established an imaginary belief system
(assuming we do not force or evangelize it upon others)?

Enquiring minds want to know.

UD

The idea of social contract is very compelling, but even with that philosophy the rights are to easily taken. If push comes to shove I think that I prefer living in a social contract because the benefits are just to great.

I recommend reading Thomas Paine's "The Rights of Man". Though some assign Paine to the atheist side, I find his analysis at least equally on the concept of divine rights to which we are endowed by our creator. It is the very concept of rights which helps distinguish man from other species.

He was a deist, but reviled because he clearly stated he was no Christian.

Paine was also a great writer. Without him we might still be part of the UK.

The "rights" we cherish are neither divine or naturalistic. They are an agreement we made among ourselves as we became enlightened by cultural progress. Defining them as inalienable is simply a way of expressing the great importance we place upon them. They are robust as long as we continue to exist in a culturally enlightened state, but could vanish easily if we don't continue to consensually hold them important.

Hi Dale,

A human right (or responsibility) is real in approximately the same sense that the U.S. Senate is real. One century from today, all of the current senators will have died, but the institution (a template for organizing groups of people and their behavior) of the U.S. Senate will still exist--but only if people agree to keep it going.

These concepts are real insofar as they exist in the minds of the members of society. That is, they're socially constructed. But their reality is different in kind from "brute" facts, such as mountains and trees. If we were invaded by the Chinese and enslaved, what we call human rights could easily be eradicated.

A "right" is like a software object. It depends upon the hardware (sentient human brains) for its existence. Rights can be seen as social conventions that are encoded in laws and enforced through coercion by the state (specifically, the institutions of the police and military).

So, to put it loosely: Are rights *really* real? No, not really.

They are indeed imaginary, made up stuff. But so is religion, and you know how powerful that can be.

Steve

Yeah, I tend to agree. I've also pondered the word unalienable;
and it seems to me that one interpretation of that precept is
that when we alienate ourselves from guaranteeing those rights,
(imaginary as they may be) we become inhuman, or less human.

Not everybody will agree with me on that notion, I'm sure --
but it more or less makes sense to me.

Then there are other abstractions -- loyalty, honor, love...
Should we call them imaginary, as well? -- or can some sort
of logic be retained, as in the case of Plato explaining
what his Ideals meant and how he derived them?

It seems to me that there would be something very wrong,
in the scenario of some heartless invader removing all of
this society's ideals and replacing them with concepts
totally alien -- that, say, skinning folks alive was "love"
and nursing newborn babes was "hate."

UD

I've said before that I believe Universals exist apart from our minds knowing them. Therefore I believe it possible that Natural Rights exist even if there wasn't a human left on earth to enjoy them.


For those who don't believe human rights exist apart from humans believing/agreeing in them, those of you who are nominalists, I ask, what about Math? Does math exist apart from our minds knowing it?

1. Most would agree that Math exists.

2. Most would agree that Math is abstract.

3. But who believes that Mathematical objects exist independently of human cognition?

If 3 isn't also true then I don't know how Science, especially physics, can say anything at all.

If 3 is true then I don't see why other existing abstract objects cannot also exist independent of human cognition.

(In the past I've been scolded quite thoroughly on RfM for finding Anselm's Ontological Argument at least valid if not sound.)

Human

Does math really exist outside the mind? The physical realities exist which are repeatable and describable via the language of mathematics, but it is a human language, a logical construct that helps us describe the world. I think it is somewhat similar to "reasons" in nature. All sorts of elaborate things happen, but no mind contains or comprehends them at all until people observe and study them. A bee comprehends no reason to make honey, even though it is the beneficiary. The reason is not represented anywhere until a person sees that reason.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/09/2013 10:44PM by rationalguy.

rationalguy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Does math really exist outside the mind?
...

I've wondered about that. If an advanced robot senses
a temperature variation at some spot far away from our
earth, are the numbers "real?"

Do they become real when they are relayed back to a
human audience for inspection and interpretation?

Would they become real, if intercepted by non-Terran
sentient beings -- the proverbial flying saucer aliens?

UD

I'm a specialist in industrial measurement and control. It's true that a variable can be represented any way desired. 50 degrees centigrade can be converted to ten milliamperes of current, sent over a wire, changed to a radio wave of a particular modulation pattern, changed to digital data and then finally presented as digits on a video screen. Until someone sees those digits, the value isn't represented in the mind of a conscious being anywhere. It is meaningless.

rationalguy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm a specialist in industrial measurement and
> control. It's true that a variable can be
> represented any way desired. 50 degrees
> centigrade can be converted to ten milliamperes of
> current, sent over a wire, changed to a radio wave
> of a particular modulation pattern, changed to
> digital data and then finally presented as digits
> on a video screen. Until someone sees those
> digits, the value isn't represented in the mind of
> a conscious being anywhere. It is meaningless.


Let me explore that idea just a little.

Say we had a scientist in a deep sea probe -- who was
sleeping during a lull in his duties. While he was asleep
a robot in the vehicle with him analyzed a series of
changes in the exterior hull pressure, at various spots,
and (according to its programming) the robot concluded
that there was a serious problem developing, and alerted
the sleeping aquanaut.

I can easily envision that sort of a scenario -- something
very similar is now going on south of the island where I
live.

My question is -- To what degree would the robot have to
exhibit consciousness (independent rationality) -- so that
we could say the numerical readings were "real?" If the
human explorer died while in the vessel and the robot
made the determination that the mission had to be aborted,
would the problematic pressure readings only become "real"
once human observers on the surface understood the problem?

Or -- could the quasi-rational mechanical device be
considered an extension of human perception and reasoning,
and in that consideration we would recognize its capacity
to "realize" problems (make numerical data real) and thus
make mission decisions?

A strange question perhaps -- sorry about that.

UD

There is one universal rule. All living things die. Tyrants can use force to remove rights, but all it takes is a single bullet, to remove a tyrant, and those who are in control, are always outnumbered.

Civil, human, god-given, or natural rights, however you want to term them, come from a societies willingness and ability to fight for them, rather or not such a fight is actually necessary at any particular time.

Speaking as a gay man that does not have the same rights as others, it does not take a tyrant to take away someone's rights. In a democracy, there is such a thing as the tyrant of the majority. No "single bullet" would remove such tyranny. Sorry your "single bullet" idea fails on many levels.