What are rights?

[drewtheyellow]

The title explains it all. The question pretty much is where rights start and where they end. The utilitarian/consequentialist does not see rights as necessarily existing, although the notions behind rights can sometimes be desirable to him, the question is the practicality of such things and he sees nothing wrong with intervening with the free actions of individuals to pursue the ideal goal. Then there are individuals that only see negative rights as existing, the view is that individuals only have a right over themselves and there actions, this can include free speech, guns or even drug use and suicide. Finally, there are individuals that view positive rights as existing, ultimately these individuals see society as having a duty to individuals to act in a manner to help them, such as a right to healthcare, welfare, employment, housing, social security, etc, but often tend to also see individuals as having some negative rights.

The big reason why I ask this question is because right is a word that is thrown around by individuals seeking various ends so pretty much I am curious about the views of individuals here. I suppose that it is best to go with the option that one agrees with the most as nobody is a perfect embodiment of any of the 3.

[ozymandias]

I need to get some serious sleep before I even try to answer this question!

[richard]

freedom, equality, a level playing feild, shelter, food, healthcare. are human rights. in my opinion

internet, jobs, money, prostitutes and movies are something else

[drewtheyellow]

freedom, equality, a level playing feild, shelter, food, healthcare. are human rights. in my opinion

internet, jobs, money, prostitutes and movies are something else

Well, quite a few of those are positive rights, so I suppose you picked positive rights?

[richard]

yes

[Scrapheap]

freedom, equality, a level playing feild, shelter, food, healthcare. are human rights. in my opinion

internet, jobs, money, prostitutes and movies are something else

Actualy, I'd put money somewhere in between. Money is afterall power and to much power and money in the hands of too few is always bad.

[drewtheyellow]

Actualy, I'd put money somewhere in between. Money is afterall power and to much power and money in the hands of too few is always bad.

A right to receive money is positive, a right to keep money one earned is negative, and some societal oversight on the money of others is utilitarian, but is also adopted by believers in positive rights.

[Scrapheap]

Why is the right to keep money a negative??

[drewtheyellow]

Why is the right to keep money a negative??

The right to one's own property is generally considered a negative right and money is a form of property. I could go deeper into this justification if I just looked up stuff on Locke and on Austrian thought.

[QuirkyCarla]

i voted positive rights because it sounded the most like me

[Scrapheap]

Ahhhhhh keeping it to oneself deprives it from others.........I get it!!

[drewtheyellow]

Ahhhhhh keeping it to oneself deprives it from others.........I get it!!

Not so much deprivation from others as the right to keep it for oneself and control one's destiny. Negative in this instance does not necessarily mean bad, however, the notion of negative rights do get in the way of the beliefs of positive rights people and utilitarians and can be bad from their point of view in a manner described by yourself.

[Scrapheap]

Ok, I did'nt read your whole intro there. I see said the blind man!!

Personally, being a pragmatic Libertarian, I'd have to say I'm somewhere between Utilitarian and Negative.

[drewtheyellow]

Ok, I did'nt read your whole intro there. I see said the blind man!!

Personally, being a pragmatic Libertarian, I'd have to say I'm somewhere between Utilitarian and Negative.

Yeah, well, that makes sense. I probably fall in the same general range.

[Litigious]

Positive rights, which mightn't surprise many. The whole idea that there should be negative rights, that is privileges, or utalitarian, that is "for the common good", I don't give a crap about. As I don't believe in God, I think laws were just made up by the rich and powerful to suppress the poor and powerless. There isn't anything objectively forbidden, there are only human made laws.

I have my own morality. Anything that won't harm any other is a right in my eyes. That means that no one has the "right" to force me to use a seatbelt in my car or a helmet if I'd drive a motorcycle. No one has the right to stop me from making explosives and blowing them up on my own ground, as long as I don't harm other people and their property. I have the right to drink or dope myself to death. It's none other's business. And I wouldn't search medical help for it if I were dying from alcoholism or drug abuse, so I wouldn't cost "society" any money.

Crimes against authorities are usually OK, if that doesn't mean that I indirectly cause real damage to other people. At least economical crimes are OK. I wouldn't go as far as to say that it's OK to hurt or kill cops, as they voluntarily have chosen to be the tools of the oppressors, but sometimes they have.