posted
The necessity of this thread stems from many posts I have read here and elsewhere, the latest of which have been in "Police Brutality" thread.
There is nothing origional in here, it is merely a statement based on over one hundred years of Liberal/Humanist thought:
In the development of human societies, governments have been formed for the purpose of protecting the individual and ensuring his rights.
1. All human beings are entitled to life. This is the most basic of all rights and the most inviolable. No government or other body is given the right to take life or deny the necessities except when a grave and immediate danger to others lives is present.
2. All human beings have an absolute and inviolable right to freedom of thought. All humans have a right to freedom of speech, religious practice, political views and association except when this is in clear violation of 1.
3. All human beings are born with a right to liberty of person and property, no person may be born enslaved or treated as legally inferior given his birth. Liberty of person and property are not absolute rights and may be voided by conduct.
4. All human beings have the absolute right to education.
5. All human beings are entitled to judged as individuals and at no time discriminated against based on age, sex, religion, sexual orientation, ethnic origin or any other irrelevant factor.
6. All humans have the right to informed participation in their own governance.
7. All humans have a right to free movement, except when voided by personal conduct.
8. All humans have the right to a familial life of their own choice, except when violating the rights of other family members.
Governments which act in violation of these rights loose their legitimacy, and it is the duty of their citizens to ensure that their government is legitimate or replace it with one that is. It is the duty of the highest levels of government to ensure that the lower levels act in accordance with this.
These rights are the basic rights enjoyed by human beings, not the only rights enjoyed.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men."
A government which fails to protect the rights of its citizens from violations by non-government authorities has abandoned its purpose and is no longer just.
It kind of pisses me off, given that most of your lofty principles and proud refusal to deal with details was directed at me, that you are implying that I somehow don't believe in basic freedoms.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: 4. All human beings have the absolute right to education.
You can't have a right to education. Education requires that someone else teach you. You can't have a right that forces other people to do something for you. Presuming a "right" to education violates the previous rights to liberty and the right not to be enslaved.
You have the right to seek an education. You do not have the right to an education.
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: 5. All human beings are entitled to judged as individuals and at no time discriminated against based on age, sex, religion, sexual orientation, ethnic origin or any other irrelevant factor.
And all human beings have the right to choose their associations freely, including the right to engage in commerce with those they want and to refrain from engaging in commerce from those they want. Only the government can reasonable be forced not to discriminate, because the government must be the government of everyone.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What Lisa said. How can you have an "absolute" right to something which only other paid professionals can provide for you? Who's going to pay the teachers?
Most of the other points on your list of rights are there to protect people against a violation of freedoms which we see as being self-evidently theirs. You step into a grey area when you start claiming that it's a human right to receive certain gifts. How about gainful employment? A roof over their head?
quote: What Lisa said. How can you have an "absolute" right to something which only other paid professionals can provide for you? Who's going to pay the teachers?
Where on earth do you get this from?
The reference goes back to the laws during american slavery where it was illegal for black people to know how to read. It was also illegal to teach a black person to read, regardless who the teacher was.
In Ireland it was illegal for parents to teach their children to speak Irish.
Then of course there are countless examples of banned books.
Since when is education something that can only be gained from "paid professionals?"
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, only handicapped children have this right? That still doesn't jive with what Pelegius said.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Glenn, my apologies. Teachers don't always have to be paid professionals. That said, it is no one's responsibility to teach unless they decide it's what they want to do. So there is a distinction between having an "absolute" right to education, and a right to pursue an education.
Not being able to learn because of your race, or speak your native language because an imperial power forbids it are terrible injustices. But nobody is bound by your rights to go out of their way to teach you.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The united states essentially gives the "right to an education." It's all the rage in countries that consider themselves modern, if not just for the incredibly positive socioeconomic results of the practice. It's even in the universal declaration of human rights, if you're into that sorta thing.
In practice, there are scores of things that the modern state offers as a 'right' which involve other people doing stuff for you. Police, military, schools and their ilk are the most common examples of things which modern society has largely stopped debating as anything other than necessities which will be provided by and for the public.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is a distinction between inalienable human rights and the institutions we put in place to protect them.
The police and the military provide protection (services) in exchange for taxes (payment). You have a right to life, but you pay someone to protect that right. The protection is not your right.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
And here we're talking about the right to an education. Does it exist in America? Yes. Our system upholds it as a right through practice and the vast majority of us agree with the principle and the application of that right.
Whether or not one agrees with it based on their own moral axioms, the right exists. Every kid in America is guaranteed an education on the taxpayer dime. Neither counties nor states can elect to not provide it in any location, barring extremely low population density. For any citizen raising a kid here, there's a school you can send them to. It may be a semantic issue between us, but for all applicable intents and purposes, I'm using the word 'right' correctly -- parents in America have a just claim on the state for the provision of education. It's provided for by law, and the law is provided for by overwhelmingly supportive social mores in our own particular system of republic.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Could you cite the source of this 'right' "
I believe the Land Ordinance of 1785 is the first federal law to outline fundraising for public school. Indeed, since 1918 (when Mississippi joined the rest of the country) children have been required to attend some sort of school.
And, also what Samprimary said.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I remind myself now that this thread is here to state the liberal position as it stands today. Quibbles over the word 'right' aside, you are correct. And it goes for any country with a healthy public education system.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:So, only handicapped children have this right? That still doesn't jive with what Pelegius said.
P.L. 94-142 extended the right to a free public education to include handicapped children. Prior to that it was assumed that certain children couldn't be educated, and therefore didn't have the right. As per P.L. 94-142 ALL children have a right to a free public education in the least restrictive environment.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
From a philosophical perspective, it's awfully silly to try to base basic human rights in contingent facts of history. So what if the United States does or does not require all children to have an education? So what if the U.S declares it a "right"? That contingent fact that most Western nations have granted this right has absolutely no bearing on whether human beings do, in fact, have a moral right to an education. If most Western nations had granted the right of white people to own other races (as the U.S. did), does that make it a fundamental (white) human right?
I agree with Lisa here; if you make it a right that all people can have an education, you are effectively forcing *someone* to give them an education. That restricts their liberty. So now you have to explain which one can trump the other, and give a good grounding for why that is.
Most people won't argue 1-3, at least in public. That gives them a good case as being self-evident. Some of the others can easily be attacked through Moore's "Open question" arguement. Basically, you can ask "why is (this proposition) true?", and it's a question that makes sense, so it is an "open question" as to whether (this proposition) is true, or not. Therefore, you'll have to do some arguing for why they are the way they are, because they aren't moral axioms.
Sidenote: I really hate the UN's universal declaration of human rights. While I think most, if not all, of the things it states are good things, I don't think everyone has a fundamental right to them. They are also contradictory, in that it quite possible to imagine a world where maintaining one right denies another right.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The educational posts can be filled voluntarily for pay easily in any modern nation, so the dilemma over 'forcing' someone to provide an education ends up in a very weak standpoint given the elective nature of filling the post.
Underlying this, however, is that there is still a 'forced' part: the public education is something that every productive citizen has to pay money into. That's where the hangup exists for the very extraordinarily few citizens who don't actually believe that the process is just. They feel stuck in the social contract since it's essentially been universalized in any workable modern nation and there's no real 'civilized' alternative.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
When Pelegius made a list of universal human rights, he decided to talk in terms of absolutes.
It is possible that the educational posts of a state can not be filled voluntarily. Can a right be both absolute and dependant upon circumstance?
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Exactly. Philosophers don't just make up crazy - yet possible - scenarios for amusement. If you name a general right or a moral duty, it needs to stand up against testing. This is why we often wave off contingent facts - that is, facts that are dependent on the circumstances of the world we happen to be in at this very instant. If you're naming a basic right, then it needs to be fulfilled in all possible situations, not just the situation we happen to be in. If it can't be fulfilled without restricting another right, then we have reason to doubt the whole system.
What if there was a world such that you couldn't find enough teachers to fulfill the demand for education? (Somehow, this doesn't seem like such a wild possibility to me.) Then you would be forced to choose between your rights of liberaty and education. Which one do you chose? Why? But if they're basic human rights, then you're denying a human right... How is that morally acceptable? What if you don't have enough teachers in certain country or area (just look at third-world nations) - does this mean we have to force a teacher to live there so that the children get their basic human right to education? But doesn't that conflict with this right to freedom of movement & the right to liberty?
Furthermore, Pel's rights are incredibly vague. What is an "education"?
In ancient Greece, if you could speak well, fight with honor, discuss philosophy, read, and do basic arthimatic, you were very well educated.
In colonial America, if you could read and write in English, Latin, and French, as well as discuss the "Great Books", and current politics and the advancements of science & technology, you were doing pretty well.
Today in the US, if you graduate from high school with a decent education, you can (at least) read and interpret literature, write a five paragraph essay, do pre-calc level math, type and use a computer, know something about at least three of the hard sciences (physics, biology, physiology, chemistry, geology), research in a library, and discuss world & U.S. history. Also, you probably have a smattering of some foreign language, have some knowledge of some "artsy" subject, and can swim.
So what is "an education"? How much of it is included in this "right"? Were people previously not recieving educations? Are people now not receiving educations? If Pel's statement is to have meaning, then this is a question that needs answering.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Euripides: When Pelegius made a list of universal human rights, he decided to talk in terms of absolutes.
It is possible that the educational posts of a state can not be filled voluntarily. Can a right be both absolute and dependant upon circumstance?
Why is every interpretation of this "right" thus far, taking it for granted that it does not mean: a right to not be barred from education. I think we were close to this idea with the point that at one time, certain classes of people were actually barred from learning basic skills and gaining an education, that it was illegal to teach a black American to read.
As far as I'm concerned, an absolute right to an education is like an absolute right to life: you don't expect the government to GIVE you life, it is there naturally, but you also don't want the government to be able to take that life away from you. Thus, Pel's absolute right to an education would extend, for instance, to people who are living life sentences in prison. Though it wouldn't mandate that all prisoners must be educated, it would require that the government allow prisoners to educate themselves, and it would force the government to provide a minimum of facilities and programs to make that possible. This, as far as I know, is pretty much how things are already, although I understand the "minimum" responsibility of the government to be the real point of contention .
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Why is every interpretation of this "right" thus far, taking it for granted that it does not mean: a right to not be barred from education. I think we were close to this idea with the point that at one time, certain classes of people were actually barred from learning basic skills and gaining an education, that it was illegal to teach a black American to read.
As far as I'm concerned, an absolute right to an education is like an absolute right to life: you don't expect the government to GIVE you life, it is there naturally, but you also don't want the government to be able to take that life away from you.
The problem is, from the statements Pel has made in this thread, it is clear that he does not mean "right to education" like you'd like to interpret it. And most people who talk about a "right to education" mean it the way Pel means it. That is, a right to education means that someone needs to provide you with an education, if you so desire it. Normally, this someone is thought to be the government.
The difference in reading, I think, comes from the fact that anyone claiming these rights already has a life (that is, is living), while they may or may not have an education. Granting someone their life simply means that you're not going to kill them. Granting someone an education means that someone needs to educate them.
If you want to read it as a negative right (no one will interfere with your right to get an education), then you really aren't granting much at all. Really, all you're saying is that no one has the right to restrict your liberty of person and freedom of movement in attending a school, if the school or teacher will accept your presence. If they don't want you there, however, you don't have any room to complain, since they're only disallowing you from the particular education they offer, not education as a whole. You don't have a right to demand that any particular person or institution teach you. However, should this happen at every school in the area you live, it seems to me that this "right" is really without any teeth.
In order to have any meat behind it, the right needs to address situations such as that in villages in a lot of 3rd-world nations - India, for example - where it's impossible for many children to get an education because their parents can't afford the loss of help on the farm, as well as the cost of books and supplies. No one is keeping them from getting an education - but they still can't get one. If the government doesn't actively intervene in these cases, then many, many children will never have the opportunity to get an education. People who talk about a "right to education" typically mean something needs to be actively done to address this problem.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:When Pelegius made a list of universal human rights, he decided to talk in terms of absolutes.
It is possible that the educational posts of a state can not be filled voluntarily. Can a right be both absolute and dependant upon circumstance?
Well, what happens when the minimum capacity for national defense cannot be obtained voluntarily? All the rights that a state can attempt to provide to -- this includes the more universally defensible ones like 'right to life' and 'right to free speech' -- are moot if the state cannot defend itself.
To further worm up the issue, all rights that people champion as 'absolute' are dependant upon circumstances and it seems to be common practice. I can't kill you. Well, unless you're trying to kill me or rob me in my home or something. I have the right to free speech. Well, except for libel and slander and yelling fire in a crowded movie theatre and threatening the President and all that. I have the right to free assembly. Sort of. I have the right to bear arms. But not all kinds of arms, and not if I'm a felon. I have the right to private property, but the police can kinda trespass or break and enter under some circumstances. Etc etc.
The moral dilemmas rendered are nearly universally about where the line should be drawn on what kind of circumstances allow the government to infringe on these universal rights, or maintain systems that permit them to work at the cost of other freedoms. Very, very few people assert that they should have no line at all. It's how we end up with drafts, mandatory military/civic service, .. mandatory jury duty, compulsory voting, etc.
Even if I couldn't universalize an 'absolute human right to education,' I'd still want it codified in law for any nation I was part of. I think it's not something you want to go without for the sake of a moral absolute. .. kind of like jury duty. I more or less stick to analyzing rights in practice and application, rather than proclaiming what is or is not a right, so it limits my usefulness in these moral discussions.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: If you want to read it as a negative right (no one will interfere with your right to get an education), then you really aren't granting much at all. Really, all you're saying is that no one has the right to restrict your liberty of person and freedom of movement in attending a school, if the school or teacher will accept your presence. If they don't want you there, however, you don't have any room to complain, since they're only disallowing you from the particular education they offer, not education as a whole. You don't have a right to demand that any particular person or institution teach you. However, should this happen at every school in the area you live, it seems to me that this "right" is really without any teeth.
Well, except that "we won't interfere" may entail the government actually being proactive, because not having a public education system endorsed by the government IS interfering with the delivery of education to all who desire it. Although it is a negative right, the government (as in the other basic freedoms) is still required to act in order to make sure that everyone has access to education, because America decided a long time ago (well, more or less a long time) that economic factors, race, or religion should not bar anyone from an education. If we had ONLY private education, then these factors might come into play, perfectly legally. Therefore the government, in order to ensure that your rights are being upheld, must be proactive. If they didn't do this, then the government would only exist on paper, and all our rights would be hypothetical- but, again for instance, you have the right not to be shot, but more than that, we have decided that you ALSO have a right to a government provided cop to make sure you aren't shot.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:So, only handicapped children have this right? That still doesn't jive with what Pelegius said.
P.L. 94-142 extended the right to a free public education to include handicapped children. Prior to that it was assumed that certain children couldn't be educated, and therefore didn't have the right. As per P.L. 94-142 ALL children have a right to a free public education in the least restrictive environment.
Do you really think that a state that abandoned public schooling altogether would be forced to provide schooling by the courts? I'd like to see some kind of backup for that.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: "Could you cite the source of this 'right' "
I believe the Land Ordinance of 1785 is the first federal law to outline fundraising for public school. Indeed, since 1918 (when Mississippi joined the rest of the country) children have been required to attend some sort of school.
And, also what Samprimary said.
It's a very loose definition of "right."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
If the government has to be proactive, then it's not a negative right but a positive one: Wikipedia on positive & negative rights. In which case we're right back to arguing about the right to education interferring with the right to liberty - since the government is going to have to supply this education through teachers, and there may be a possibility of not enough teachers to go around. If the government is required to make sure everyone has access to education, then there are many possible situations where other fundamental rights (as Pel has proposed them) will get trampled on.
One example: Suppose there is an area where the teachers only want to teach the non-handicapped children, since they require less work. If the government is required to make sure all children have equal access to education, then it either has to force these teachers to teach students that they don't want to teach (which conflicts with the basic rights to self-determination) or they have to somehow find other teachers to teach in the area. But what if no teacher wants to teach in the area, which is a very remote part of Alaska? Then the government again has a problem of conflicting rights of self-determination and education.
From your last sentence, I think you may be throwing around the term 'right' using different definitions of the word in different sentences. While we may have a right to a government-provided cop, given our current sociopolitical reality, this right is of a different sort from the rights that Pel was prescribing - ones that are self-evident and basic. It's very easy to throw around the term 'right' without considering exactly what you mean by that word.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"It is possible that the educational posts of a state can not be filled voluntarily."
A very real problem with a variety of solutions, none of them perfect. Usualy the first step is to increase class sizes. Usualy, areas with extreme teacher shortages can find enough volunteers to keep the schools from closing, at least in the devaloped world.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm fascinated by this discussion. I keep wanting to jump in, but then someone will post something that I hadn't thought of that sends me off in a new direction, and I'm just not sure where I stand. I'm also impressed that there is a minimum of acrimony here. Great job guys; this is Hatrack at its finest, and it feels like I haven't seen it in a while.
FWIW, teachers are routinely "forced" into teaching assignments they do not want. Of course, they have the option to resign rather than accept them. Orange County, Florida recently reassigned all of their National Board certified teachers to failing innner city schools. My wife is being forced to become certified to teach reading rather than language arts, which she emphatically does not want to do. I'm forced to teach one section of a remedial class to students, some of whom have arrest records, who come to class without backpacks, without any books at all, without paper, and without pencils. One could argue that this is unconscionable, or one could argue that no harm is done, because each teacher can exercise their right to leave their profession and sell car insurance or something. I'm not really drawing a conclusion from this, just throwing it out there.
Actually, I guess I've just about convinced myself that there has to be a limitation on the "right" to education. I believe we shouldn't force an education on people who do not intend to receive it. I think it should be freely available to those who want it, regardless of income or ability. So, does that translate into a right? I don't know. I will say that I have about a half dozen kids in my remedial class who want to learn, they just struggle with math, but the hoodlums there interfere with their education, because I spend far too much of my time in that class dealing with disciplinary issues.
quote:Do you really think that a state that abandoned public schooling altogether would be forced to provide schooling by the courts? I'd like to see some kind of backup for that.
Funny, I've always tended to think that "rights" are an artificial construct. You can break rights into categories of "Natural rights" vs. rights established by law, but even natural rights aren't absolute. We say that the right to life is the most basic right, but life is taken away all the time.
You asked for a citation of a law that grants all children the right to a free public education. I answered your question. That's all. It's on paper, what more do you need?
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't seen the citation that extends that to everyone.
If you're using right to mean "something the government provides but could stop providing without a change to the fundamental structure of government if it decided to do so" then you're accurate. It's just not a use of the word "right" in the context of "the Rights of the Human" that I've ever really seen before, nor do I find it a useful one in this context.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It sounds like what it comes down to is that "Rights" is a nebulous, and to a degree arbitrary, concept?
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do you believe we have a right not to be taxed?
I don't believe that idea that anybody loses their liberty to a right of education, but I do believe that many rights, most if taken to an extreme, demand some sort of infrastructure to make it possible to guarantee them. And setting up such an infrastructure requires money. So the right to education doesn't require forcing people to teach, but it does require paying enough that somebody somewhere will find it rewarding to do so. The right to life, it can be argued, may require making healthcare available to people regardless of their income level, and that again costs money. We pay for that in taxes. Some of the more libertarian among us believe that taxing us to pay for these things is immoral. I think that's where the crux of the issue is: how "proactive" does a government need to be to guarantee whatever rights we have, or our are rights merely freedoms from interference, and not a guarantee that we should receive anything.
Also, are our rights truly inalienable? I may be wrong, but when I was in high school I remember being taught that this meant that these rights could neither be taken away nor given away. Obviously (to me) this is false. The right to life can be lost, even if you oppose the death penalty, by the right to kill in self-defense. I guess I believe in a right to education, but I don't necessarily believe that education should be compulsory. I don't believe you should be forced to accept that right.
Any statement on rights is bound to be an opinion, so I don't know that asking anybody to cite where a right is given to us is productive at all. If there is no precedent for the right to free education, then fine, let this be a new statement of rights, and debate it on its own merits.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't believ in rights as inalienable at all. Humans have no inherent rights that are not arbitrary or assigned. I do believe we should operate as if our agreed-upon rights were inherent, but we should never feel entitled or lose sight of the fact that we have only the rights we are willing to defend and provide.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Indeed Chris, rights are subject to be redefined by the values of the culture that enforces them.
Posts: 686 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: Today in the US, if you graduate from high school with a decent education, you can (at least) read and interpret literature, write a five paragraph essay, do pre-calc level math, type and use a computer, know something about at least three of the hard sciences (physics, biology, physiology, chemistry, geology), research in a library, and discuss world & U.S. history. Also, you probably have a smattering of some foreign language, have some knowledge of some "artsy" subject, and can swim.
Since when is swimming on most schools' curricula? And while I would agree that most of your list applies in theory to all US high school graduates, my experience as both a high school teacher and in college admissions tells me it just isn't true of all graduates. The recent changes to the SAT were primarily because college English professors were complaining about the lack of writing skills of incoming freshmen.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm with Chris Bridges on this. I think there's no such thing as an inalienable right.
I think, however, that one of the things that "defends" our rights is acting as if they do exist, are real, and yes... inalienable.
Fighting (physically) for them is just one method of defense, and one that usually means things have already gone horribly wrong, imo.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm with Chris Bridges on this. I think there's no such thing as an inalienable right.
Even if I agree with this, I think there's a qualitative difference between most of the rights in the opening post and the right to an education.
The word "right" can be used for everything from my right to the interest I earned last month in my savings account to the right to due process prior to punishment. Although certainly most underage children have an assertable legal right for public education, there's a huge difference between this and the right to freedom of speech.
I'm still interested in what in the UCLA thread sparked this need to create this list. I'd also be interested in Pelegius addressing the idea of government protecting rights from infringement by private parties and the need for force in some instances to ensure such protection.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Since when is swimming on most schools' curricula? And while I would agree that most of your list applies in theory to all US high school graduates, my experience as both a high school teacher and in college admissions tells me it just isn't true of all graduates. The recent changes to the SAT were primarily because college English professors were complaining about the lack of writing skills of incoming freshmen. [/QB]
I was under the impression that most high schools require students to pass a swimming test in the U.S. The high schools in my district did, and most of the high schools of my friends (from all parts of the nation) did as well. You'll notice I say decent education in my post; there are plenty of students (perhaps even the majority) who don't graduate with a decent education. However, I do think that people who graduate with the education of the type I listed are "decently educated" - while people who fall below that rubric aren't.
I don't want to turn this into another education thread. The point of my bringing up the subject was just to illustrate that what we mean by "education" has changed over time, so if Pel wants to claim education as a right, he needs to make it clear what education is. A high school degree? Having a certain skill set? Whatever the majority wants to call an education? A college degree? At what point has a person received an education?
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:In the development of human societies, governments have been formed for the purpose of protecting the individual and ensuring his rights.
I'm not even sure this is true. It may be true that some governments have been formed for these reasons, but it is no less true that governments have been formed-- and continue to be exaulted-- for a great many other reasons.
quote:I was under the impression that most high schools require students to pass a swimming test in the U.S.
Not to my knowledge. Certainly not in my area.
quote: You'll notice I say decent education in my post; there are plenty of students (perhaps even the majority) who don't graduate with a decent education.
Fair enough.
quote: The point of my bringing up the subject was just to illustrate that what we mean by "education" has changed over time, so if Pel wants to claim education as a right, he needs to make it clear what education is.
posted
We had a swimming unit in gym, but certainly weren't required to pass a swimming test to graduate. Or even necessarily to pass gym, if you did okay on the other units. And the high school I went to no longer has a pool, so I imagine it's no longer even a unit in gym.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: It sounds like what it comes down to is that "Rights" is a nebulous, and to a degree arbitrary, concept?
Soitenly. And conspicuously subjective. Mores and social contract and all. Fortunately, in modern society, they've become a largely egalitarian and universalist.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You couldn't pass gym in my high school without passing portions of the swim test. But you could certainly graduate without it.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rights are certainly assigned, and different cultures have chosen to consider different things as rights. So to say that they are inalienable is, yes, a statement of the fact that we would like to hold on to them indefinitely - that we deserve to, simply by virtue of being a human being. To say that the right to life is not inalienable because people naturally die seems less than meaningful. To say that the right to life is not inalienable because we are free to kill in self-defence is more meaningful. Personally I think it just indicates that the right can't be applied perfectly. But we only make these exceptions when someone is about to trample on our rights. Which rights trump which others? I'm not sure. Personally I wouldn't shoot a man for robbing my house, or consider it acceptable to for another person to do so under the same circumstances.
But none of this indicates that all rights are arbitrary. Many have been contingent on circumstance and therefore were arbitrary, but others can be rationally determined from a basic preference of a productive happy life over death. If that preference is arbitrary, then yes, all rights are arbitrary.
So when we say that a right is absolute, I take it to mean that we consider it applicable universally to all humans, all the time.
Icarus, your example is particularly interesting. Despite our absolute rights, our institutions are never perfect and can only provide freedom in certain quantities. I guess the debate is always: where to draw the line?
Is the freedom to quit really a freedom at all?
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Euripides: Personally I wouldn't shoot a man for robbing my house, or consider it acceptable to for another person to do so under the same circumstances. [emphasis mine]
God, I would. If someone is in my house, I have no idea how far they will go. I have heard of cases where home invasion burglers have murdered their victims and even raped them. If someone breaks into my house while I am in it, he has already demonstrated that he is not inclined to obey the law or to respect what is mine. If he breaks in while I am home instead of waiting for me to be out at work or shopping, he has further demonstrated that he is not deterred by my presence. Such a person is extremely dangerous.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
As it was explained to me by a police officer (not necessarily an expert) you do not have the right to use deadly force unless there is perceived threat of danger. You can't use deadly force to protect property, for example, unless the robber is armed.
He also said that you can't use deadly force if it is clear that the criminal is finished committing the crime. That's punishment or retaliation, not prevention. His example: If you find a man raping your wife, you can kill him. But if you find a man zipping up his fly after raping your wife, you can't kill him, unless you "happen" to kill him in the act of trying to apprehend him.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
.
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
