|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2005 5:42 pm
It was my understanding that this phrase was meant to apply to equality under the law and the government and nothing outside of that. To apply it outside of that, aside from espousing an idealistic vision, isn't accurate. The phrase thus doesn't mean that we're born equal, it means that the governemnt and the law is going to treat us as if that were true. It doesn't matter if you are male, female, white, black, asian, latino, young, old, middle aged, etc... the government gives you the same rights.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 1:29 pm
Maze1125 SeraphArcher Maze1125 wrote: No-one has rights. We only have privileges. I'm sorry I'm gonna have to disagree here. There are inherent human dignities that exist because you are human. Also priviledges can be taken away, there are inherent aspects of being human that it confers that are impossable to steal. Yes priviledges can be taken away. So can every one of your so called rights. Someone could tie you up, rape you, tourture you and steal everything you own, finally leaving you to die in the gutter. In doing that they have taken away every single one of your 'rights'. Right not to be harmed. Right to own things. Right to defend yourself. Right to live. We are just big bags of mostly water. Bags of mostly water only have the rights that are given to them by other bags of water, in our case, the goverment. But because they are given to us they can be taken way too. Therefore they aren't rights only privileges. Firstly, your rights are always there. Ideally they can never be taken away. Violated perhaps, but not taken away. Rights could be perhaps be defined as certain things that each and every human being should be allowed, regardless. Secondly, your statements concerning what human beings are only emphasizes your lack of understanding. If we are simply sacks of skin filled with organic tissues, then what makes us different from a corpse? Human beings are so much more than a collection of organs and tissues. As I understand, Philosophy is about understanding - understanding of ourselves as people, as well as the world around us. -Alezunde
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 9:52 am
I just found this thread at the bottom of the list, and I feel it has yet to reach it's full potential. The Jeffersonian idea of political equality is essentially that all people start from the same thing, and deserve the same treatment. Thus, government based on "all men are created equal" attempts to treat all people the same, in courts, in respect to rights given, etc. Ideally, two people who commit the same crime are given the same punishment, etc. Of course, who qualifies as "man" has varied throughout history. It currently means that you're a citizen over the age of 21(with some exceptions, such as the still male-oriented draft). The law treats all equally. The problem with this idea is inherent in the statement. Quote: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. With the bolded statements included, I cannot accept this idea, atheistic as I am. If you remove them, a new quandary arises. Endowed by whom? Equal for what reason? The entire basis of egalitarianism is that we were created the same by the same being that thinks of us all on the same level. If you remove a Creator, then you remove any rights endowed by that creator. It's not right to attempt to prove this idea in terms of atheism, as so much of the Enlightenment thinking is based on a Creator. Personally, I reject the Enlightenment thinking altogether. All men were not created, and they are certainly not equal. There are no such things as "unalienable rights." Instead, there are alienable rights that are granted by Governments. But in the end, "rights" are just a function of power. Those who have the "right" to do a certain thing simply have the power to do it. Without God, the world falls into an amoral system where right is equal to capacity for action. If I can do something, I have the right to do it. And whatever happens as a result is for me to accept.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 9:55 am
Quote: Personally, I reject the Enlightenment thinking altogether. All men were not created, and they are certainly not equal. There are no such things as "unalienable rights." Instead, there are alienable rights that are granted by Governments. But in the end, "rights" are just a function of power. Those who have the "right" to do a certain thing simply have the power to do it. Without God, the world falls into an amoral system where right is equal to capacity for action. If I can do something, I have the right to do it. And whatever happens as a result is for me to accept. AHA! And therein lies the crux of this rights vs. privilege debate. Rights are based on moral ideas. Maze spoke about the right to life, property, defense (although there is a whole seperate debate about whether this denies the attacker's right to life). In any of these, you can see that their basis is in human welfare, based on our moral code, which according to the constitution, was given to us by "the creator". Privileges are not in our moral code. Etemologically, privilege means "private law," indicating that they are formed by something outside of "the creator." A government can suspend the privilege to a just and speedy trial, only because they were the ones who originally put it into practice. They cannot suspend the right to life, because it is inherent: THEY DIDN'T MAKE LIFE, so morally speaking, they can't destroy it. So from a moral and ethical point of view, equality is possible if all humans lived in places where they were able to achieve their basic rights, without the obstruction of governments who have no "right" to infringe on our "rights." In short: In the affirmative world, with flowers and rights for everyone, YES. In the negative world, or real world, humans intrude on other humans too much for equality in any sense to be possible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
