Susan's Place Transgender Resources

I am atheist but nontheless...

How can an atheist argue that a person has the "right" to something?
If there is no ultimate being or thing to define what is right and wrong, then how can someone say they have, for example, the right to free speech?

That right is not given by god, but by the Constitution, and by no means is universal.

Quote from: tekla on November 26, 2009, 11:29:06 PM
That right is not given by god, but by the Constitution, and by no means is universal.

But it was believers in God that put that right in the constitution thinking it was God given.

The religious views of the Founders were all over the place.  They set up free speech not as a religious deal, but as a protection from the state.

People in general tend to agree that they themselves, and perhaps others, should be treated according to certain standards. Unless someone's been raised to believe they're deserving of violence (unfortunately all too common in some places/groups), they would expect to be able to walk down the street without being hit in the face, for example.

Human rights legislation operates on the same principle. People agree that "we should treat people this way, so let's make a law that says it's a right". Then, hopefully, if this right is violated by someone, they will be punished according to the guidelines. No god/supreme being is really required.

I'm actually inclined to believe that the idea of God being the only 'true' moral force, and therefore having the greatest authority to punish you (and only when you die) is kind of an authorization to deny other humans' rights. God will take care of it all in the end. Apparently, if you're really evil, He may even take you out with a lightning bolt, or some such. What, then, is the point of being punished by earthly authority? One can use the obvious fact that you're still here as an implied approval of your actions; by God, no less.

A "right" in this context is an "entitlement", not a differentiation between right and wrong.

Besides, the notion that one needs a god to define right and wrong is a flawed argument (http://www.jimmo.org/mind/?p=315).

Rights are man made cultural deals. Right and wrong are also man made rules for people to live in peace. They get these ideas by debating justice. What is just is always debatable.

Quote from: finewine on November 27, 2009, 05:34:14 AM
Besides, the notion that one needs a god to define right and wrong is a flawed argument (http://www.jimmo.org/mind/?p=315).

I should not have used the word define. I would agree that anyone can define something as they choose. it would have been more appropriate to say that there can be no objective "rights and wrongs" without a God to make them that way, otherwise what is right and wrong is merely subjective.

If there is only subjective right and wrong then it is, for example, up to me to choose what is right and wrong to me. Thus if i should descide I wanted to kill you i might as well diside that this is the Right thing to do. Perhaps I might think that it is not the right thing to do because I would not benefit from it, but rather the wrong thing because I would come to harm. But then with no objective right and wrong, right and wrong becomes mostly subject to definition by condition or situation. It may have been wrong to kill you then, but I could latter find my self in the situation where I can kill you and no one will know and nothing bad will come of it, and while you have done nothing to me, killing you will benefit me by having your winning lottery ticket. Thus seeing that all that will come of it is the good to me of a million or so dollars the action was good.


....Dont worry i won't really kill you....   >:-)

Lionesses don't give a hoot about wildebeast rights, no matter how complex a  system wildebeasts might devise. They might herd up to protect each other from lionesses, but it's all just a safety construct and evolutionary survival mechanism that falls apart when the cat grabs the wildebeast next to you and everybody runs like hell. God has nothing to do with it. If it's even real it's prolly watching us with a glassed over expression if at all.

QuoteI would agree that anyone can define something as they choose. it would have been more appropriate to say that there can be no objective "rights and wrongs" without a God to make them that way, otherwise what is right and wrong is merely subjective.

No, subjective implies only to an individual. If more than one person is affected than it becomes a social matter which requires debate. Values, facts, evidence, natural law etc. all apply.

Rights are a man-made thing, not given by God.  Reasoning and humanity show that certain rights are for all.



Janet

Without authorities and specialists everyone would be a hundred ways wiser.
Without benevolence and righteousness people would rediscover caring, the familial bond.
Without power-schemes and profiteering there'd be no thugs and thieves.

These three ways to run things grasp at externals, don't work.
Be simple, true to yourself; let go selfishness and greed.    
Tao Te Ching - 19th verse.

The Layman's Tao translation:

Give up holiness, and the people will benefit a hundred times.
Give up benevolence and relinquish righteousness, and the people will return to natural love.
Renounce profit-seeking, and thieves will disappear.

But these three things are as decorations, and inadequate by themselves.
Let people rely upon this:

Recognize simplicity and embrace plainness.
Let the ego recede and desires diminish.

I really wonder if we didn't have a system of justice and morality, would we need human rights?  Would people really do the right thing?

Julie

If a true sense of community replaced the righteous indignation, I think people would be more app to see rights as equal for all.  And just not a religious sense of community, but a true sense.  As caring for your neighbor.



Janet

Quote from: lisagurl on November 27, 2009, 02:31:21 PM
No, subjective implies only to an individual. If more than one person is affected than it becomes a social matter which requires debate. Values, facts, evidence, natural law etc. all apply.

It may be a social matter as more than one person is involved, but that does not mean it is not subjective. It would just follow that our subjective views, definitions, or whatever, would require consideration of others, not for the sake of the others but for the sake of the self.

Quotenot for the sake of the others but for the sake of the self

If you read philosophy you will see like John Rawls said you need to forget everything about yourself when it comes to ethics and morals. The decision has to only look at what is fair as if you did not have any knowledge of your own situation. That way you will not prejudice to your favor.

Quote from: lisagurl on November 27, 2009, 04:34:16 PM
If you read philosophy you will see like John Rawls said you need to forget everything about yourself when it comes to ethics and morals. The decision has to only look at what is fair as if you did not have any knowledge of your own situation. That way you will not prejudice to your favor.

That would be asuming that being prejudice to your own favor is a bad thing.

QuoteThat would be asuming that being prejudice to your own favor is a bad thing.

Not exactly, what is fair is not good or bad, it is just.

Quote from: lisagurl on November 28, 2009, 10:02:18 AM
Not exactly, what is fair is not good or bad, it is just.

Well I could say that being fair reduces my own benefit and thus is bad too me. Regardless, your assuming it is better to do the "just" thing. Plus you are circumlocuting; to say "it is just" as an arguement is quite close to saying "it is right", both rights and justsice being the existence in question within this arguement.

---

Post Merge: November 28, 2009, 11:43:56 AM

---

Nonetheless, in our current social system being fair is generaly the most self-beneficial method of behavior. However, that neither makes it the right or just thing to do.

The thing is that it shouldn't make any difference whether rights or good/evil/justice are defined by some objective party or not. No one is going to intentionally help humanity, except possibly themselves. If something evolutionarily superior to humanity comes about, we will likely cease to exist and nature as a whole will not care. The only rule nature plays by is the one that says: 'the most workable thing in an environment gets to keep going in it'.
Therefore, rights are a human-built system whereby humans (otherwise SOL) are told to look out for each other, assuming it's not an inordinate amount of trouble to do so. It tends to be pretty balanced between benefit to society and benefit to the individual (unless misused/ignored); good things tend to come back to you, as you noted. It's not just about giving up freedom for society's benefit; do I really need the freedom to kill someone/etc? It protects me personally as well by taking away that freedom from nearly everyone else (only the military are 'allowed' to kill, but only other soldiers and that's because they all but say 'I don't mind if the other side kills me'. They're basically giving permission by being in the organization).

QuoteNo one is going to intentionally help humanity, except possibly themselves

Perhaps character is out of fashion in the 21 century but life is more than ourselves. Many people live for humanity rather then themselves.  Marketing has promoted greed and selfishness. Religion also has promoted hate. Laws do not stop people from killing and they do not punish everyone who kills legal or not.

Quote from: lisagurl on November 28, 2009, 02:11:25 PM
Perhaps character is out of fashion in the 21 century but life is more than ourselves.

Indeed character in only fashion.

Quote from: lisagurl on November 28, 2009, 02:11:25 PMMany people live for humanity rather then themselves.

At least they think they do.

Quote from: Robin. on November 26, 2009, 11:27:20 PM
I am atheist but nontheless...

How can an atheist argue that a person has the "right" to something?
If there is no ultimate being or thing to define what is right and wrong, then how can someone say they have, for example, the right to free speech?

.
You're correct, it is all subjective.  Definitions...perspective...values...etc... 
The "Right" thing to do is something that you define for yourself, or is a perspective (religious, philosophical, social, etc...) that you decide to buy into.  Either way, it is a subjective exercise of definitions, beliefs and values.
.
In the end, it all comes down to what you believe. 
Sure...you're an athiest.  You don't believe in god...but that doesn't mean that you don't have any beliefs at all.  It is upon those beliefs that your view of 'rights' is built.
.
One mistake we should be careful not to make though, is the mistake of thinking that with religious belief...that with the belief in a higher power...that what we have a "right" to has always been constant. 
.
Let's take your example of "freedom of speech."
.
The christian religion has been around for hundreds of years.
Freedom of speech has not.
.
Emperors, Kings/Queens, Lords/Ladies often believed that they were of "higher birth," and that they deserved more.  Sedition was an easy crime to be charged with for any serf, slave, or commoner.  Religion has often been quite flexible where the rights of others are concerned. Those of greater social/political status have often used the fluidity and interpretive nature of holy books to justify their positions...and their ability to deny others what we often today consider to be "rights."
.
Despite efforts made in the Magna Carta in the 13th Century, free speech was little more than an illusion, if even that much.  (One need only be reminded of Galileo and his Inquisition in 1633, among countless other examples over those centuries).
.
It wasn't until the late 17th Century (most not until the late 18th) that "freedom of speech" as we know it today even began to take any sort of form at all.  In some religious countries, even that much doesn't exist yet.
.
Religions have been around for thousands of years in one form or another, but the history of human rights has been quite independent of it...influenced more by social-political-philosophical thought, than by any religious book.
.
While many often try to frame their actions in a positive way in regards to their preferred religious book, history has shown time and again that what is considered to be a human "right" rarely has anything to do with religion/god at all.
.
So...back to the original question...how can you argue that a person has a "right" to something?
As with any other point you might try to make...based on the merits and supporting arguments you have for your set of beliefs.  You can argue the merits and limits of equality, of equity, of responsibility, of freedom...and in the end you may simply have to agree to disagree based upon differing beliefs and values.  That doesn't mean the argument isn't worth making...it just means that there is no universally "right" answer...and there never has been  ;)

Quote from: Kay on November 28, 2009, 07:26:45 PM


In the end, it all comes down to what you believe. 
Sure...you're an athiest.  You don't believe in god...but that doesn't mean that you don't have any beliefs at all.  It is upon those beliefs that your view of 'rights' is built.

I dislike this common arguement: "Athiesim is still a belief."
For some it may be, perhaps I am different.

It is perfectly possible to be entirely unbelieving.
One can act on something because it is most likely, still without believing that it is what actually is.

I tend to think that it is most likely that everything is relative, and thus it is similarly most likely that there is no truth. Thus I live life not choosing to believe anything.
Not even that I am truely atheist, or correct to think in this way.

---

Post Merge: November 28, 2009, 09:42:06 PM

---

The definition of belief is ify though.

Some use "believe" to mean they believe something 100%.
Then you can also use "believe" to mean you think something is possible, that is how I would use it.

So in a way you can say there are things I believe.
But you cannot say that what I believe (as in being possible) is a belief(as in something I think is true).

But perhaps you can say that what things I believe (as in being possible) make up a belief(as in a set of things I think are possible).

But these are two very different concepts.

I dislike this common arguement: "Athiesim is still a belief."
.
While that's an interesting side-topic we could discuss, that isn't at all what I said.
I could have very well said.  "Sure...you're an athiest.  You don't believe in god...but that doesn't mean that you don't like apple pie."  "Athiesm" and the subject of "Belief," while they may intersect at some points, are two separate subjects.  (Some people, like my father, would disagree.  He would say that (provided you're American) Athiest = Non-christian = non-American = no apple pie for you ;)  ) 
.
I do understand your point though, regarding the definition of "belief" .  It is something that I've found quite frustrating as well.  Such semantics are a prickly minefield in any philosophical discussion.
.
In regards to that, I used to have a roommate who was very religious.  When I asked, "how do you know there is a god?"  They said "I know it, because I believe it."  (They didn't appreciate my comparison to children and Santa Claus, however, nor did they have a rebuttal to the comparison.)
.
There are those who use "believe" to mean the same as "know 100%."  These same people are those to whom the obvious distinction between "likely" and "certain" are lost.  There are both theists and athiests that fall prey to this lack of distinction.  "I believe/know science/archaeology as the 100% final word about existence" is as polarized as "I believe/know god's book as the 100% final word about existence."   Both are founded upon unwavering blind devotion to an absolute belief.
.
Those are extreme ends, however.  Many theists and athiests retain a healthy amount of skepticism in varying degrees.  Some, like yourself, more than others.      
.
As Webster would put it, an athiest is "one who believes that there is no deity."  In its simplest form, it says something about what you *don't*  believe...but it says nothing about what you *do* believe.  Anyone identifying as an athiest is essentially stating that they think the entire idea of a deity is bollocks/nonsense.   (However, many athiests do tend to turn to science as the core of their belief structure, lacking anything else) If you still retain an openness to the possibility of a deity (however remote), then "athiest" doesn't really fit you.
.
"It is perfectly possible to be entirely unbelieving."
.
If you mean "It is perfectly possible to think that nothing can be known with 100% certainty", then I'll have to agree.  I'm an agnostic...such skepticism is my bread and butter. ;)
.
However, if you're trying to tell me that you exist absent of any belief whatsoever, I'll have to strenuously disagree.
.
To quite a few athiests, "belief" is a bad word.  You can curse up a storm of obscenities without raising an eyebrow, but to say that you "believe" something is considered absolute heresy.  To them, athiesm is about "knowing" not about "believing."
.
Life, however, isn't so easy...rarely (if ever) will you encounter a subject filled with such absolute certainties. 
.
Philosophically, everything is built upon belief.
I believe in my existence. (But in what way/ways?)
I believe in my senses. (But to what point?)(Limitations? Deficiencies?  Impairments?)
I believe that when others corroborate my observations, those observations become fact.
(Though historically incorrect assumptions have often plagued such 'facts')
.
Belief is an interesting topic.  You do have beliefs, whether you acknowledge them or not.
Beliefs are the concepts you have enough faith in to act upon.  The concepts you base your life around.
.
Anyone's core philosophy is all about belief.  "Knowledge" is anything you have 100% faith in (The sun will rise again tomorrow) even if you can't prove it until it actually happens again.  Society is all about establishing a mutually agreed upon baseline of beliefs to extrapolate further more complex conclusions on.  If any core philosophical belief is found to be false (ie. "the world is flat"), the whole house of cards can come tumbling down and must be rebuilt.  All knowledge is built upon such beliefs, no matter how small and insignificant those beliefs might seem.
.
Before I get carried away on a far-too-lengthy philosophical post, let me just make one simple example.
.
When I take an action...of..."I'm going on a picnic tomorrow."
I know that the weather channel says that there is a 30% chance of showers.
I don't know whether it will rain or not.  I can choose to believe that it will...or that it won't. 
If I believe my chances of sunny weather are good...I will choose to go.
If I believe my chances of rain are too great...I will choose not to go.
.
This can be applied to many things...
When I voted for Obama, I did so believing that he would change things for the better. (And while I question that belief every day...I still hope that he will)
When I took the old road to work, I did so believing that traffic would be less. (some days I'm right..some days I'm wrong)
Etc... 
.
To go through life, believing absolutely nothing...you would probably go crazy, and be able to accomplish nothing. If you don't believe in your own existence, in your senses, in constructed concepts and philosophies, in others, in etc..., questioning everything to the point that nothing means anything anymore...to the point that no actions can be taken because you don't believe one thing over another....it's a difficult way to live...and not very productive.  (yes, I've been there.  Not a fun place to be.)  That doesn't mean things shouldn't be questioned. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't remain flexible and open to other ideas and perspectives.  It just means that "belief" is not so inflexible a subject that it cannot be altered when required to.
.
You can try to avoid the word "belief" by using "thought" or another word in its place...but that's nothing more than a trick of semantics to try and avoid the dreaded "B-word".  "Belief" is a word...a construct...that has been so abused and misused within the religious community that it isn't difficult to see why many who leave those communities choose to shun it.  Yet...while understandable...belief itself is an unavoidable part of existence.
.
And...getting back to the main topic...these beliefs will form the basis for your arguments about what "rights" someone has.  Do you believe that everyone has a right to X?  Well...if everyone...then are they all...born as equals? Why?  How?  "Because in my experience..."  "Because I value..."  "Because I believe..." etc...

QuoteI tend to think that it is most likely that everything is relative, and thus it is similarly most likely that there is no truth.

But truth is not absolute.

Quote1.Conformity to fact or actuality.
2.A statement proven to be or accepted as true.
3.Sincerity; integrity.
4.Fidelity to an original or standard.
5.
a.Reality; actuality.
b.often Truth That which is considered to be the supreme reality and to have the ultimate meaning and value of existence.

We still have the unknown which can change truth. If we can not agree on a standard than language is useless. Truth is a statement of collective agreement about what is experienced.

Quote from: Kay on November 29, 2009, 08:33:37 PM
If you still retain an openness to the possibility of a deity (however remote), then "athiest" doesn't really fit you.

I paused when I wrote that I was atheist, but figured it would be more easy to say that then explain my actual method of thinking.

Quote from: Kay on November 29, 2009, 08:33:37 PM

.
"It is perfectly possible to be entirely unbelieving."
.
If you mean "It is perfectly possible to think that nothing can be known with 100% certainty", then I'll have to agree.  I'm an agnostic...such skepticism is my bread and butter. ;)
.
However, if you're trying to tell me that you exist absent of any belief whatsoever, I'll have to strenuously disagree.

Its possible that I am absent of any 100% belief, most likely in my opinion.

Quote from: Kay on November 29, 2009, 08:33:37 PM
Belief is an interesting topic.  You do have beliefs, whether you acknowledge them or not.
Beliefs are the concepts you have enough faith in to act upon.  The concepts you base your life around.

If you use belief here as in (not 100% belief) then that is what I have been saying.

Quote from: Kay on November 29, 2009, 08:33:37 PM
Anyone's core philosophy is all about belief.  "Knowledge" is anything you have 100% faith in (The sun will rise again tomorrow) even if you can't prove it until it actually happens again. 

"Knowledge" is symanticly similar to "Belief". You cannot say that Knowledge is anything you have 100% faith in. I have knowledge of mathimatics and yet I am not convinsed that 2 is always 2. Though it would seem most likely that such is the case.

Quote from: Kay on November 29, 2009, 08:33:37 PM

To go through life, believing absolutely nothing...you would probably go crazy, and be able to accomplish nothing. If you don't believe in your own existence, in your senses, in constructed concepts and philosophies, in others, in etc..., questioning everything to the point that nothing means anything anymore...to the point that no actions can be taken because you don't believe one thing over another....it's a difficult way to live...and not very productive.  (yes, I've been there.  Not a fun place to be.) 

I have been there as well. Thus I do choose to belive in things enough such as to act. I just don't believe them in the sence that I know. If you know what I mean.

Quote from: Kay on November 29, 2009, 08:33:37 PMAnd...getting back to the main topic...these beliefs will form the basis for your arguments about what "rights" someone has.  Do you believe that everyone has a right to X?  Well...if everyone...then are they all...born as equals? Why?  How?  "Because in my experience..."  "Because I value..."  "Because I believe..." etc...

Personaly I think we do not have the right to have rights, but that many rights that we have and even don't should be our rights because they serve to benefit socitey as well as the individual.

Its possible that I am absent of any 100% belief, most likely in my opinion.
If you use belief here as in (not 100% belief) then that is what I have been saying.

I think I understand what you mean now.  It would probably be easier (for both you and other readers) if you used two different terms to describe the two states.  Using "belief" for both can get a bit confusing.  Whether it be belief vs. knowledge (or "knowledge" to denote irony/sarcasm), skeptical-belief vs. certain-belief or whatever.

"Knowledge" is symanticly similar to "Belief". You cannot say that Knowledge is anything you have 100% faith in. I have knowledge of mathimatics and yet I am not convinsed that 2 is always 2. Though it would seem most likely that such is the case.
.
Heh...ok...you got me on that one. 
How about this:  it's something you have near 100% faith/confidence in.  ;)
(Yeah...I understand the whole..'never having 100% confidence in anything' perspective) 
.
Personaly I think we do not have the right to have rights, but that many rights that we have and even don't should be our rights because they serve to benefit socitey as well as the individual.
.
So if I'm reading this correctly:
You don't believe that individuals deserve rights for their own sake, or for any innate or moral reason.
You do, however, believe in rights for the individual, so long as they serve to benefit society as a whole.  Essentially, society being paramount, and the individual being less important. (please correct me if I'm wrong)
.
.
To me, the balance of Individual vs. Society is a tricky one. 
.
Many things have been done over the centuries for the "greater good(society)" that were horrible travesties of justice.  Which is why I personally think that the Individual needs certain rights to protect themselves *from* the whims of society.  In the US, that concept was quite a concern for many of the founding fathers.  We were actually founded as a Constitional Republic...not a Democracy (Example:  The electoral college), because of fears of "mob rule."
.
"Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." - James Madison
.
How we grant rights probably has first and foremost to do with what sort of government is in place...and more importantly with how much we trust that form of government.  Personally, I'm not the trusting type.  I'd rather have those individual rights written out in black-and-white.  I suppose, the more I think about it, most rights that are granted...if they help society as a whole at all...they do it by keeping society in line, so that society doesn't trod too heavily on the individual.

Quote from: Kay on December 01, 2009, 11:37:25 PM
skeptical-belief vs. certain-belief

I like those words, simple, yet peffective...

Quote from: Kay on December 01, 2009, 11:37:25 PM
How about this:  it's something you have near 100% faith/confidence in.  ;)

You could say that. It verys from thing to thing though. It is interesting to find something that is 50-50. Which leads one to have to do what I would like to think is a true-choice. Because the choice must then be made without reason... if there is just as much reason to do it as not, or to skepticaly-believe it or not you have to flip the mental coin. With reason though a choice is being influenced by knowledge, knowledge comes from the enviornment, so perhaps then not really a "choice" in as much of the "freewill" sence. but then maybe even if a reasonless choice(coin-flipped choice) the choice was still made to flip the coin, which likely had reason to it... maybe less...

And I wonder if perhaps all things are really 50-50. there is just as much reason to do as not to do, to skepticaly-believe as not to, at least when you consider the effect over time...a good action tends to have buterflies(effects) that stem bad, and the bad to stem good.

If so perhaps it is possible to choose without reason...

Quote from: Kay on December 01, 2009, 11:37:25 PM

Personaly I think we do not have the right to have rights, but that many rights that we have and even don't should be our rights because they serve to benefit socitey as well as the individual.
.
So if I'm reading this correctly:
You don't believe that individuals deserve rights for their own sake, or for any innate or moral reason.
You do, however, believe in rights for the individual, so long as they serve to benefit society as a whole.  Essentially, society being paramount, and the individual being less important. (please correct me if I'm wrong)

No. :) They must "benefit socitey as well as the individual" the individual being paramount. (to its self at least) It must only benefit socitey because society is neccassary to the survival of the individual, in ways of both physical health, and especially mental health. For another existance this might not be the case: an immortal, for example, who by no means could die would have little need to do anything but float in space and be consumed by their own thoughts should that be enjoyable. If however they enjoyed the company of others then for self-beneficial reasons that immortal would seek the company of others and do what it must to inssure that company was as how it wanted, be that controled or free.

Quote from: Kay on December 01, 2009, 11:37:25 PM

.
.
To me, the balance of Individual vs. Society is a tricky one. 
.
Many things have been done over the centuries for the "greater good(society)" that were horrible travesties of justice.  Which is why I personally think that the Individual needs certain rights to protect themselves *from* the whims of society.  In the US, that concept was quite a concern for many of the founding fathers.  We were actually founded as a Constitional Republic...not a Democracy (Example:  The electoral college), because of fears of "mob rule."
.
"Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." - James Madison
.
How we grant rights probably has first and foremost to do with what sort of government is in place...and more importantly with how much we trust that form of government.  Personally, I'm not the trusting type.  I'd rather have those individual rights written out in black-and-white.  I suppose, the more I think about it, most rights that are granted...if they help society as a whole at all...they do it by keeping society in line, so that society doesn't trod too heavily on the individual.

I think we agree here.

Quote from: Kay on December 01, 2009, 11:37:25 PM
Before I get carried away on a far-too-lengthy philosophical post, let me just make one simple example.

I enjoy digression.  ;D Why simply end with one topic when we may have found a route to another. Digress away. I like getting carried away.  ;) :D



-------------
Oh and I'm sorry if my writing in this post is a little stream-of-conscious-ish. i'm having to study for a final exam for my  >:( thermodynamics  >:(  class...so i'm a bit rushed...

When I think of rights/laws/values one thing comes to mind. If humans were territorial creatures and only sought out mates for the sake of breeding purposes and nothing more. These concepts would be completely irrelavent. If man has no interaction with any other man why would one have to care about stealing, cheating, lying, stealing or for the sake of arguement the rights to be able to do one thing over another. I agree with those that had posts that explain the subjectiveness of rights.
I mean think about it, if rights were so universal, practical and ideal why isn't that every governing body in the world all come to the same conclusions about what is allowed and what is not. Take the United States for example, where some states say it is a right for marriage for those of the same sex other states are completely against the idea. All based on the majority opinion of the voters in both cases. Once again if it was an absolute right there wouldn't be any kind of debate.