| 08/18/2011 4:28 pm |
Forum Expert
Regist.: 02/20/2011
Topics: 132
Posts: 521
 OFFLINE | How that for a long-winded title! Over the last several years a large debate has raged over the role of the government in both the economy and our everyday life. While most bickering has been constrained along Republican-Democrat and Small Government Republican-Social Conservative Republican lines, I think a more open ended analysis of the balance of individual and social rights could yield more useful results. The purpose of this thread is to analyze the differences in views on the rights entitled to each individual, what happens when the rights of multiple parties conflict, and what role, if any, a government should play in resolving these conflicts. These questions are meant to examine only ethical implications, constitutionality or the views of the 'Founding Fathers' are irrelevant and should not be employed as premises for ones arguments. Please answer the below questions and feel free to pose any of your own.
1) What fundamental rights should an individual be entitled to? Why are they entitled to these rights?
2) Should everyone within a nation be given these rights, or just certain individuals? Why or why not?
3) Do these rights extend to individuals in other parts of the world (ie are these rights universal? If not, how are they determined)? Why or why not?
4) If you had to create a hierarchy of individual rights from most to least important, how would you order them (or are they all equally important)? Why this order?
5) If your rights comes into conflict with those of someone from your country, how should you reconcile them? Why?
Would this be different if they were from another part of the world?
6) Is it ever ethically permissible to curtail the rights of an individual for the benefit of society? If so, when and why?
7) If someone violates the rights of another individual (with both parties being from your country), do other individuals or society have the right to punish the offender? If so, how do you determine who has the right to act? How do you determine what scale of punishment is necessary? Does anyone have an ethical obligation to act? Why or why not?
8) If someone violates the rights of another individual (with both parties being from a different country), do other individuals or society have the right to punish the offender? If so, how do you determine who has the right to act? How do you determine what scale of punishment is necessary? Does anyone have an ethical obligation to act? Why or why not?
|
|
|
| 08/18/2011 5:00 pm |
Senior Forum Expert
Regist.: 11/20/2010
Topics: 63
Posts: 949
OFFLINE | Good topic!
1) What fundamental rights should an individual be entitled to? Why are they entitled to these rights?
Right to life.
Right to liberty.
Right to the pursuit of happiness. (As long as these do not infringe upon the rights of others. As long as no one else is harmed).
2) Should everyone within a nation be given these rights, or just certain individuals? Why or why not?
Only citizens. Our Bill of rights and constitution was written for the governing of US citizens.
3) Do these rights extend to individuals in other parts of the world (ie are these rights universal? If not, how are they determined)? Why or why not? I dont think so. The Bill of Rights is the collective name for the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the United States of America. Not Mexico. Not Iran or Europe. The United States. It begins:
We the People of the United States...
It should apply to citizens of our nation.
4) If you had to create a hierarchy of individual rights from most to least important, how would you order them (or are they all equally important)? Why this order? I dunno. I'd have to think on that awhile. They would concentrate on freedoms, especially of religion.
5) If your rights comes into conflict with those of someone from your country, how should you reconcile them? Why?
Would this be different if they were from another part of the world? Well thats why we have laws. And we should abide by the law of the land. And if we dont like a particular law, we are blessed with a system of govt whereby we can work to change or abolish a particular law.
Is it different if I came into conflict with a non citizen? Probably. Our laws should address this. I dont think I could get away with murder or theft or abuse of a non citizen. But otoh, our laws should not allow certain privileges to non citizens, such as taxpayers funding their education. 
6) Is it ever ethically permissible to curtail the rights of an individual for the benefit of society? If so, when and why? We already do. A non citizen cannot hold elected office in the USA. They are supposed to go home after a certain amount of time (though this isnt happening like it should).
7) If someone violates the rights of another individual (with both parties being from your country), do other individuals or society have the right to punish the offender? If so, how do you determine who has the right to act? How do you determine what scale of punishment is necessary? Does anyone have an ethical obligation to act? Why or why not?
Well the judicial system has the right (and the responsibility) to hand down punishment. I dont believe in vigilante groups or anarchists or mob rule.
8) If someone violates the rights of another individual (with both parties being from a different country), do other individuals or society have the right to punish the offender? If so, how do you determine who has the right to act? How do you determine what scale of punishment is necessary? Does anyone have an ethical obligation to act? Why or why not?
Again, our judicial system should punish wrong doers. The scale of punishment? Good question! I am loathe to sentence people to death, though there are some crimes for which I would agree with it. (Murder or sexual harm to children especially). Who determines who has the right?
The law.
Do we have an ethical obligation to act?
We have the ethical obligation to follow the law. If we disagree with a law, we have the ability and responsibility to work via legal means to change that law.
|
................
http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r49/DrHesper/Misc/TributeMartinGrelle.jpg
|
| 08/19/2011 9:17 pm |
Forum Fanatic
Regist.: 04/10/2011
Topics: 12
Posts: 284
OFFLINE |  Originally Posted by Bryant Platt:
1) What fundamental rights should an individual be entitled to? Why are they entitled to these rights?
The big three are the ones we always hear about: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
These are not entitled to us. IMO, nobody can entitle anybody with these rights. Every one of us is born with them and they cannot be taken away.
2) Should everyone within a nation be given these rights, or just certain individuals? Why or why not?
All people share these basic rights. Doesn't matter who you are or where you are from.
3) Do these rights extend to individuals in other parts of the world (ie are these rights universal? If not, how are they determined)? Why or why not?
See #2.
4) If you had to create a hierarchy of individual rights from most to least important, how would you order them (or are they all equally important)? Why this order?
If we are only talking about fundamental rights (the three above), then there is no "least" important. They are interchangeable and all equally important. There are other rights, that I put just below these. Things like the right to vote, the right to protect yourself (with deadly force if need be....basically 2nd amend), right to private ownership, right to freedom of faith, right to be able to provide for yourself and your dependents, etc. I guess I should have put these up there with the first question. These are also interchangeable among each other, but never interchangeable with the "big three" and always below the "big three" even if some of these make up one of those(make sense???). Many of these rights are not given at birth, but should be guaranteed by government. Only the citizens of of the nation that guarantees these rights are afforded them. Once given, they should not be taken away permanently. Example: a convicted felon cannot vote. Why??? He has paid his dues to society and should be given his rights upon his release otherwise we are saying he never did quite pay his due.
5) If your rights comes into conflict with those of someone from your country, how should you reconcile them? Why?
Would this be different if they were from another part of the world?
By nature, one citizens rights should never conflict with the rights of another. Since we are all born with the "big three", the pursuit of happiness cannot infringe upon someone's right to life or liberty.
6) Is it ever ethically permissible to curtail the rights of an individual for the benefit of society? If so, when and why?
Kinda touched on that earlier. Yeah, we should curtail one's rights while they are incarcerated (if not then you couldn't put him into jail because of the whole right of liberty thing). Once he has paid his dues, they should be able to enjoy all of his rights without infringement.
7) If someone violates the rights of another individual (with both parties being from your country), do other individuals or society have the right to punish the offender? If so, how do you determine who has the right to act? How do you determine what scale of punishment is necessary? Does anyone have an ethical obligation to act? Why or why not?
Yes. That is what a judicial system is for.
8) If someone violates the rights of another individual (with both parties being from a different country), do other individuals or society have the right to punish the offender? If so, how do you determine who has the right to act? How do you determine what scale of punishment is necessary? Does anyone have an ethical obligation to act? Why or why not?
Depends. If the individual is not guaranteed the same "smaller" rights as I, then not unless I violate one that he is guaranteed. If I violate any of his "big three", then yeah, act immediately.
|
|
|
| 08/19/2011 9:28 pm |
Forum Fanatic
Regist.: 04/10/2011
Topics: 12
Posts: 284
OFFLINE | Originally Posted by Dennis Young:
2) Should everyone within a nation be given these rights, or just certain individuals? Why or why not?
Only citizens. Our Bill of rights and constitution was written for the governing of US citizens.
I have to point out that you are saying that people from other countries do not have the right to life since it is only given to us by the Bill of Rights. What that means is that if somebody were over here visiting, then you could kill him and everything would be alright since he doesn't have the right to life. It evens means that abortion is cool since the fetus is technically not a citizen yet.
See the error of your view yet??? |
|
|
| 08/19/2011 9:33 pm |
Senior Forum Expert
Regist.: 11/20/2010
Topics: 63
Posts: 949
OFFLINE | *sigh* Man, you are wearing me out. |
................
http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r49/DrHesper/Misc/TributeMartinGrelle.jpg
|
| 08/19/2011 9:39 pm |
Forum Fanatic
Regist.: 04/10/2011
Topics: 12
Posts: 284
OFFLINE | Originally Posted by Dennis Young:
*sigh* Man, you are wearing me out.
Just want you to think a tad before you put your thoughts into words. |
|
|
| 08/19/2011 9:41 pm |
Senior Forum Expert
Regist.: 11/20/2010
Topics: 63
Posts: 949
OFFLINE | Mark...please...dont turn into that guy from Malta that used to troll us. Let it go. You win. |
................
http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r49/DrHesper/Misc/TributeMartinGrelle.jpg
|
| 08/19/2011 9:45 pm |
Forum Fanatic
Regist.: 04/10/2011
Topics: 12
Posts: 284
OFFLINE | Originally Posted by Dennis Young:
Mark...please...dont turn into that guy from Malta that used to troll us. Let it go. You win.
Comeone Dennis, I like you. This ain't personal. Never is really. I realize that I ain't gonna change you. The response that you gave struck me funny. So I commented on it. |
|
|
| 08/19/2011 11:10 pm |
Forum Expert
Regist.: 02/20/2011
Topics: 132
Posts: 521
OFFLINE | Originally Posted by Dennis Young:
Mark...please...dont turn into that guy from Malta that used to troll us. Let it go. You win.
What was wrong with the guy from Malta? Him, the Scots, and the Frenchie all offered good input. The only people I remember being trolls where the one tribal guy and the dude from the Bay Area (Marc? Something like that?) |
|
|
|
WC
> Religion and Philosophy
You, Me, and the Government - Ethical Analysis of the Balance of Rights
OFFLINE
