Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Which has priority: rights or democracy? watch

  • View Poll Results: Rights or democracy
    Rights
    85.96%
    Democracy
    14.04%

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Take this in whatever direction you want. Thoughts?
    • Section Leader
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    Democracy is a product of rights.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    It cannot be both?
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Rights, undoubtedly. Should 2 people in a group of 3 be able to do whatever they please to the third?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Sensible rights. Democracy isn't a brilliant system to govern an entire country. It provides the least objectionable system rather than the best.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Isn't this a false dichotomy?

    I'm not sure I fully believe in Democracy but I also don't believe in rights. Rights are, unequivocally, a product of human self-qualifying evaluation. We create, through some psuedo-intellectual process of jurisprudence a system of declarations supposing 'rights'; that is, a set of statements outlining our basic entitlements as human beings.

    We have no rights, objectively speaking; if you're alone in the desert, what does you 'right to shelter' present you with? Rights are absolutely a product of society; they're essentially a baseline manifesto for any political party wanting to be democratically embraced. But even within society we don't necessarily uphold rights; otherwise homelessness would simply not exist, nor starvation, nor prison. Society can take away rights as quickly as it gives them - rights are an illusion (not conspiratorially), they are a social paradigm of entitlement.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tengo)
    Isn't this a false dichotomy?

    I'm not sure I fully believe in Democracy but I also don't believe in rights. Rights are, unequivocally, a product of human self-qualifying evaluation. We create, through some psuedo-intellectual process of jurisprudence a system of declarations supposing 'rights'; that is, a set of statements outlining our basic entitlements as human beings.

    We have no rights, objectively speaking; if your alone in the desert, what does you 'right to shelter' present you with? Rights are absolutely a product of society; they're essentially a baseline manifesto for any political party wanting to be democratically embraced. But even within society we don't necesarilly uphold rights; otherwise homelessness would simply not exist, nor starvation, nor prison. Society can take away rights as quickly as it gives them - rights are an illusion (not conspiratorially), they are a social paradigm of entitlement.
    Lots of clever sounding phrases which contributed so little...


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LexiswasmyNexis)
    Lots of clever sounding phrases which contributed so little...
    How can you whine about contribution when your own contribution is contributing to a non-contributory?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tengo)
    How can you whine about contribution when your own contribution is contributing to a non-contributory?
    I never held out that I was making a contribution. You used about 400 words where about 25 would have sufficed.

    "Rights are man made constructs. They hold only as much value as the obliged party chooses. Therefore, I do not believe in them."


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Which, by the way, strikes me as logically flawed. You live in a society which recognises certain rights and obligations according to the Hohfeldian model.

    To deny their existence seems a bit silly. The English language is a product of society, but only some speak it or teach it. Does that make it non-existent?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LexiswasmyNexis)
    I never held out that I was making a contribution. You used about 400 words where about 25 would have sufficed.

    "Rights are man made constructs. They hold only as much value as the obliged party chooses. Therefore, I do not believe in them."
    Thank you for your advice regarding my lexicon. I'll be sure to take it on the chin and post everything in three sentences or less as that is apparently the correct manner.

    (Original post by LexiswasmyNexis)
    Which, by the way, strikes me as logically flawed. You live in a society which recognises certain rights and obligations according to the Hohfeldian model.

    To deny their existence seems a bit silly. The English language is a product of society, but only some speak it or teach it. Does that make it non-existent?
    Language is entirely different. They 'exist' in a quasi-immaterial sense in that they're written down and cited and used in domestic and international law etc. But they're not rights if they can be taken away - the government can remove an individuals rights almost entirely on a whim; just look at the japanese-american internment.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tengo)
    Thank you for your advice regarding my lexicon. I'll be sure to take it on the chin and post everything in three sentences or less as that is apparently the correct manner.



    Language is entirely different. They 'exist' in a quasi-immaterial sense in that they're written down and cited and used in domestic and international law etc. But they're not rights if they can be taken away - the government can remove an individuals rights almost entirely on a whim; just look at the japanese-american internment.
    Sorry- I don't want to make you feel like you can't express yourself. But if you re-read your post you'll see you essentially over complicate and repeat yourself for no purpose.

    I suppose yours and my conception of 'rights' is different. I agree that there are no 'universal rights' which act as some kind of normative or moral guidance. Maybe we think they should be. Maybe we do not.

    However, that does not stop me from appreciating that 'rights' still exist as tools for moral direction. They may not be as we would like them, but within certain bound legal frameworks, rights do exist.

    Moreover, the fact that we often assert that there 'should' be rights of a more universal sense may give validation to their existence as a concept. They can be seen as powerful tools which drive human development* just by their existence on the agenda.


    *of course, for the sake of impartiality, they could easily be seen as weapons of political or cultural imperialism.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LexiswasmyNexis)
    Sorry- I don't want to make you feel like you can't express yourself. But if you re-read your post you'll see you essentially over complicate and repeat yourself for no purpose.

    I suppose yours and my conception of 'rights' is different. I agree that there are no 'universal rights' which act as some kind of normative or moral guidance. Maybe we think they should be. Maybe we do not.

    However, that does not stop me from appreciating that 'rights' still exist as tools for moral direction. They may not be as we would like them, but within certain bound legal frameworks, rights do exist.

    Moreover, the fact that we often assert that there 'should' be rights of a more universal sense may give validation to their existence as a concept. They can be seen as powerful tools which drive human development* just by their existence on the agenda.


    *of course, for the sake of impartiality, they could easily be seen as weapons of political or cultural imperialism.
    I appreciate you argument; it's essentially the same argument that enables normative ethics to exist despite some Nietzsche's pretty absolute decomposition of morality. I suppose that I could be called a moral-nihilist for my position.

    I think I'd be best in quoting Sartre (if you'll forgive the pretense) in: Man is the source of all Good and Evil and judges himself by the standards of Good and Evil that he creates.

    Do we feel a need for rights? Aren't rights essentially a reductionist view of what is legally the minimum acceptable standard of living for an individual? The bill of rights varies from country to country, and although we have International Human Rights I think globally they're not particularly well upheld. Rights, essentially, are the result of herd morality having a crack altruism and landing at the lowest common denominator. We can argue that these rights must be upheld in every plausible circumstance, but the rights will always be arbitrary and flawed and act as an attempt at an objective moral standard: one that I do not think can, or should, conceivably exist.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tengo)


    I appreciate you argument; it's essentially the same argument that enables normative ethics to exist despite some Nietzsche's pretty absolute decomposition of morality. I suppose that I could be called a moral-nihilist for my position.

    I think I'd be best in quoting Sartre (if you'll forgive the pretense) in: Man is the source of all Good and Evil and judges himself by the standards of Good and Evil that he creates.

    Do we feel a need for rights? Aren't rights essentially a reductionist view of what is legally the minimum acceptable standard of living for an individual? The bill of rights varies from country to country, and although we have International Human Rights I think globally they're not particularly well upheld. Rights, essentially, are the result of herd morality having a crack altruism and landing at the lowest common denominator. We can argue that these rights must be upheld in every plausible circumstance, but the rights will always be arbitrary and flawed and act as an attempt at an objective moral standard: one that I do not think can, or should, conceivably exist.
    Absolutely. These are all questions and suppositions I wrestle with every time I think about this.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by miser)
    Democracy is a product of rights.
    "The best argument against democracy is a illusory five-minute conversation with the average voter. (c) Winston Churchill
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by miser)
    Democracy is a product of rights.
    The right to vote?

    (Original post by Martyn*)
    It cannot be both?
    No. Or, at least, I can conceive of when democracy and natural rights may be in conflict.

    The question can be posed ontologically or epistemically. I.e. natural rights may ontogically exist prior to democracy, but epistemologically rights are only known when democracy is given priority. I've heard the debate argued along those lines before. But I found it hard to see how one isn't, in some way, argued to have a priority.

    You should probably expand if you want to make a point.

    (Original post by tengo)
    Isn't this a false dichotomy?

    I'm not sure I fully believe in Democracy but I also don't believe in rights. Rights are, unequivocally, a product of human self-qualifying evaluation. We create, through some psuedo-intellectual process of jurisprudence a system of declarations supposing 'rights'; that is, a set of statements outlining our basic entitlements as human beings.

    We have no rights, objectively speaking; if your alone in the desert, what does you 'right to shelter' present you with? Rights are absolutely a product of society; they're essentially a baseline manifesto for any political party wanting to be democratically embraced. But even within society we don't necesarilly uphold rights; otherwise homelessness would simply not exist, nor starvation, nor prison. Society can take away rights as quickly as it gives them - rights are an illusion (not conspiratorially), they are a social paradigm of entitlement.
    None of this means that it's a false dichotomy - that's the wrong word. The question can be considered normatively - i.e. what ought to be given priority? I don't want to get into metaethics, but that they are social constructions do not mean that rights don't "exist", not even in the objective sense. That leads onto a longer philosophical debate about, say, the correspondence theory of truth, cognitive irrealism, the parallels between mathematical and normative statements, and so forth. But certainly, I see the general direction that you're aiming for.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by miser)
    Democracy is a product of rights.
    Democracy is illusory 5-minute conversation with the ordinary voter (c) Winston Churchill
    • Section Leader
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    (Original post by Melancholy)
    The right to vote?
    The right to self-government, if such a right exists.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by miser)
    The right to self-government, if such a right exists.
    So my family's house may be able to declare independence as a country and legalise (by vote) the murder of the eldest son? Or I can declare myself to be independent and do whatever I want without obedience to an external law?

    I'm not sure what self-government really is (autonomy?), but I don't think such a right justifies democracy (but if it does, it also justifies creating your own democracies and inflicting harm through majoritarianism).
    • Section Leader
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    (Original post by Melancholy)
    So my family's house may be able to declare independence as a country and legalise (by vote) the murder of the eldest son? Or I can declare myself to be independent and do whatever I want without obedience to an external law?

    I'm not sure what self-government really is (autonomy?), but I don't think such a right justifies democracy (but if it does, it also justifies creating your own democracies and inflicting harm through majoritarianism).
    Self-government is the ability of nation to govern itself (as opposed to being oppressed in a dictatorship).
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.