Do rights protect autonomy or obligations?

[Chris]

Are they posited rights or ethical extensions of natural rights?

They are posited, and they are not rights but entitlements. The real question is what entitles government to create these entitlements, what entitles government, the voices of a few elite planners to say what is ethical?

[Dr. Who]

They are posited, and they are not rights but entitlements. The real question is what entitles government to create these entitlements, what entitles government, the voices of a few elite planners to say what is ethical?

Well, one could as readily ask why the intellectual meanderings of a bunch of ancient philosophers must be the last word in what constitutes a natural right?

[Chris]

Well, one could as readily ask why the intellectual meanderings of a bunch of ancient philosophers must be the last word in what constitutes a natural right?

Why would you ask such an ad homish question. It doesn't matter who said it, it matters only what they said, what their arguments were, their reasoning, their evidence.

[Dr. Who]

Why would you ask such an ad homish question. It doesn't matter who said it, it matters only what they said, what their arguments were, their reasoning, their evidence.

As I didn't refer to you or your opinions in any fashion, it was not ad hom. It was a legitimate question. All thoughts with regard to the nature or meaning of human rights did not end two or more hundred years ago. You may not agree with these ethical extensions of the original precepts, but it does not mean that people will not continue to consider what natural rights are in the context of the current society. They will continue to do so 100 years from now and as long as mankind exists.

[Chris]

Ad hom is attacking any messenger rather than their message, not just the one you're speaking to.

No one claimed all thought on the matter ended anytime, straw man.

I disagreed with your entitlements for reasons given you have not addressed with other than ad hom and straw men. Try and address my argument.

[Dr. Who]

Ad hom is attacking any messenger rather than their message, not just the one you're speaking to.

No one claimed all thought on the matter ended anytime, straw man.

I disagreed with your entitlements for reasons given you have not addressed with other than ad hom and straw men. Try and address my argument.

Argumentum ad hominem is an argument made personally against an opponent instead of against their argument. It did not attack you or the ancient philosophers, I asked why they would be the last word on the subject. You are not prepared to address my question. So let me rephrase, if the context in which people live is radically different than the context that people lived even 200 years ago, why wouldn't the concept of natural rights or human rights be expanded to take that into consideration?

A primarily agrarian society is substantially different than a society where people live in an urban setting with no way to attend to their basic needs without employment or social assistance or begging on the streets. Furthermore none of the sages of the past that contemplated these issues were men of the people. The were the educated elite, for whom the idea of destitution was a foreign concept and not one that they lost any sleep over. They lived in rough and callous societies that did not particularly value human life unless that life was a member of the ruling classes. The natural rights as posited were primarily contemplated to create a moral code that would protect the rights of the wealthy from the conniving predations of each other, despotic sovereigns or the teaming hords of have nots, else the right to acquire property and wealth would not have figured so prominently in their considerations.

[fyrenza]

I'm WAY behind the curve on this,

but my gut instinct is to say : Both.

We have "right" to believe what we're told,
i.e. a verbal contract,

and every right to seek our own happiness, in doing ^that,^

so though we "work for ourselves," we also work for the betterment of our society.

That's Ayn Rand, btw.

[Chris]

Argumentum ad hominem is an argument made personally against an opponent instead of against their argument. It did not attack you or the ancient philosophers, I asked why they would be the last word on the subject. You are not prepared to address my question. So let me rephrase, if the context in which people live is radically different than the context that people lived even 200 years ago, why wouldn't the concept of natural rights or human rights be expanded to take that into consideration?

A primarily agrarian society is substantially different than a society where people live in an urban setting with no way to attend to their basic needs without employment or social assistance or begging on the streets. Furthermore none of the sages of the past that contemplated these issues were men of the people. The were the educated elite, for whom the idea of destitution was a foreign concept and not one that they lost any sleep over. They lived in rough and callous societies that did not particularly value human life unless that life was a member of the ruling classes. The natural rights as posited were primarily contemplated to create a moral code that would protect the rights of the wealthy from the conniving predations of each other, despotic sovereigns or the teaming hords of have nots, else the right to acquire property and wealth would not have figured so prominently in their considerations.

Argumentum ad hominem is an argument made personally against an opponent instead of against their argument. ...It did not attack you or the ancient philosophers

"Well, one could as readily ask why the intellectual meanderings of a bunch of ancient philosophers must be the last word in what constitutes a natural right?" was argumentum ad hominem against those ancient philosophers. It addresses the messengers and not their messages. Rational argument addresses messages. Emotional argument messengers.

I asked why they would be the last word on the subject.

I did not argue they did thus now you've moved from ad hom to straw man in your refusal to address the message.

why wouldn't the concept of natural rights or human rights be expanded to take that into consideration?

For the reasons I have more than abundantly given. Now, do you care to address and counter those reasons given?

The natural rights as posited were primarily contemplated to create a moral code that would protect the rights of the wealthy....

You've conflated natural law with natural rights. Natural rights are derived from natural law, which is a natural moral code based on who we are created to be. Natural rights are obligations, responsibilities to be what we are, political, social beings.

Positive law was created to protect natural rights. See the Declaration and Constitution. The Declaration, contrary to your contention of protection of only the wealthy, clearly states we're all equal before the law.

Unless you can show where such posited laws exist to protect only the wealthy your argument has no support.

[Chris]

I'm WAY behind the curve on this,

but my gut instinct is to say : Both.

We have "right" to believe what we're told,
i.e. a verbal contract,

and every right to seek our own happiness, in doing ^that,^

so though we "work for ourselves," we also work for the betterment of our society.

That's Ayn Rand, btw.

The question being debated here is whether we have a right to pursue happiness or a right to happiness. I argue we have a right, an obligation, a responsibility to pursue it. Dr Who agrees with that but extends it to government has an obligation to provide a certain level of happiness, iow, he's turned individual obligations to society on its head to society's obligation to the individual.