The Question of Rights

When it comes to the question of rights, it seemscase of abortion, one may argue that an unborn
that there are a variety of diversed opinions oninfant has no right to life, since it is not conscious
the matter. As you go from social issue to social-- but when it does become conscious, it gains
issue, encompassing the political and ethicalthat right to life. In the question of tax-funded
implications, one will find that there are differentwelfare and social programs, one may make a
dispositions, each holding to the idea that their ideacase for them in arguing that the common people
of rights is the correct one. For example, in theare responsible for producing all the wealth of
case of Pro-Life and Pro-Choice, on the issue ofsociety, and therefore are entitled to part of the
abortion. Pro-Life believes that the unborn fetusdividend. When supporting such broad and basic
has the right to life, whereas Pro-Choice believesfreedoms, such as that of religion or speech or
that the woman has the right to choose. In somelife, it seems that there needs to be no
cases of the Pro-Choice movement, there areargument, in that the greater part of the
those who believe in limited rights of women topopulation desires these freedoms, and even
abortion. They believe that a woman has the rightthose who don't support these rights, they have
to abortion only in cases of incest and rape, orsome desire of a limited freedom for them. We
that a woman has the right to abortion only up tocan reason, in some way or regard, to support
the late second trimester. When understandingone right over another, when they contradict
the ideology of Conservative and Liberal politicaleach other. Revisiting the scenario of the Nudist
parties, we find that the former more stronglyagain, one may argue that all animals are born
believe in the right to private property than thenude, and therefore, the Nudist shouldn't be
others. Conservatives are opposed to welfare andblamed for what his natural disposition is. But,
social programs, in that these are supported bywhat makes this scenario so perfect for our
taxation, which appropriates some of the wealthobservation, is that no matter what arguments
of everyone, and they oppose these programswe present, both side will suffer some pain unless
because it violates what they believe is the righttheir right is recognized. We can reason to the
to property. Liberals, on the other hand, arenon-Nudist all that we like that it is natural to be
supportive of such wealth appropriation, becausenude, or we can reason to the Nudist all that we
they believe that every person who labors islike that it is part of the non-Nudist's culture. We
entitled to some of the profits of the land. Incan expend all the words of human language, use
these examples, as many others, we find that itevery argument known to man, but no matter
is the question of rights that the parties arewhat we reason, they will still suffer unless their
arguing over. It is in this piece that I will delveright (and not the other right) to be is recognized.
deeper into this question.When looking at rights,This is the one fact that nothing can override,
there is an infinite plethora of them that we couldexcept possibly a deeper explanation to the
apply. We could argue that people have the rightjustification of rights.To anyone who have studied
to dress like the other sex, to make sexualthe depths of the field of ethics, they will know
advances towards anyone at any time, to pokethat there are other approaches to this subject.
others, to borrow without paying for somethingFor example, the Utilitarians argue that there are,
(steal), among many other things. Of course, thisin fact, no such things as right, but that an act is
short list of rights I provided was absurd andjudged as moral or immoral based on how much
ridiculous. It's mostly because when we think ofhappiness or misery it creates; though, I find
rights, we tend to think of the right to freedomcertain flaws in such a system. Particularly, I find
of speech, the right to freedom of religion, rightthat there are particular inductive reasoning
to elect our own government officials and expelfalacies in the philosophers of this system. For
them upon misconduct, among many other rights.example, it may very well be a good act to save
The right to political and labor association. Thesea child's life, but I cannot conceive of any
are all rights that we commonly think about whenreasoning that would render someone immoral for
we think of rights, or they are rights we appealnot doing so. Or, for example, if one man is killed,
to when arguing for or against a certain issue.and his organs save the lives of ten people, does
Someone may oppose the government supplyingthat mean the murder was just? According to a
tax fund to churches because it violates theUtilitarian, yes, but as I argued before, I do not
freedom of religion; another person may opposebelieve that there is any reason to believe that a
the government censoring books on sexualityperson is immoral to not sacrificing to the greater
because it violates the right to freedom ofgood. I believe in a system of rights.There are
speech. So we find, that these smaller issues,other systems which deal with morality and
these matters that are brought to us today, areexplaining right from wrong acts, or differentiating
opposed or supported based on what we believethem. The idea of karma, for example, disables
the rights of the people are. However, whenpeople from the ability to change anything, and
comparing these often thought about rights, suchrenders them subject to a system of justice
as freedom of speech, with those absurd rightsincorporated into the natural world. It argues that
that I mentioned, such as the right to pokegood things happen to good people and that bad
anyone at any time, one may try to find athings happen to bad people. Thus, if a man is
fundamental difference, to justify one and villifygoing to have surgery, the doctor's ability means
the other. Of course, there is no difference,nothing -- since the man will survive if he is good,
except the foundation or justification beneathbut will die if he is bad. That would be an entire
whatever right it is.So, if someone were toviolation of the mechanics of the natural; besides,
support the cause for war, they may argue thatthere are few who argue that good things don't
it is because a nation's people have the right tohappen to bad people -- at least, in the world in
own the property of the other nation; if someonewhich we live in.Or, instead of a non-rights based
were to oppose the cause for war, they maysystems of ethics, there are those systems
argue that it is because a nation's people have thewhich are based on rights, but presents a method
right to security and their own homeland. We seein deciding what those rights are. The most
then that the current issue is decided upon basedcommon of these ethical systems are those of
primarily on the idea of preconceived rights. What,religion. The Bible, for example, denies people the
then are the reasons that justify or villify aright to murder, to covet, among other things,
right?To answer this question, I am going to drawwhich we can be found in the Ten
a scenario, by which we can judge why weCommandments. The ethics of Buddhism deny a
believe that one party has the rights or the otherperson the right to use drugs or alcohol. Islam
party has the rights. Then, once we decide whichdenies the right to eating pork but allows them
party has the rights, we can poke and prod ourthe right to have many wives. All in all, the
own lifestyles and philosophies until we find somereligious systems of ethics are unfounded, in that
sort of balance in consistency. Consider thethere has yet to be an iota of evidence on behalf
situation of a Nudist and a non-Nudist. The firstof any spiritual beings. Even so, if a spiritual being
believes that if he or anyone else must cover upwere to declare the validity of one right, is that
their bodies, that he will suffer and be in misery.even an authority? There is no reason to believe
The second believes the opposite, that if he orthat it is more of an authority than any mortal
anyone else has their bodies not covered up, thatman. Besides, if a god had argued for man's right
he will suffer and be in misery. We have anto rape women, would it be just? Or what of the
opposition of interests in this situation. Who's rightright to theft and murder? What if there were
prevails? That of the Nudist or that of thetwo gods with contradictory moral systems?
non-Nudist? If we recognize the right of theWhatever the case may be there, there is no
Nudist, then the non-Nudist suffers; if we acceptevidence for god, and furthermore, religious ethical
the right of the non-Nudist, then the Nudistsystems are dictated without the slightest bit of
suffers. Of course, this example is perhaps theauthority or proof.There is, plainly, no answer to
most believable, because any cultured personwho has a justified right. In either case, someone
understands that Nudists generally feel trappedsuffers. Unfortunately, I have not been able to, in
when forced to wear clothes, and feel the sameall my theorizing and research, been able to come
for others -- and, as the common meme of theup with a justifiable reason why one's right is
Western Civilization goes, not wearing clothing inmore just than the other. One may argue that
public is considered taboo, if not outrightly illegal.the person who deserves the right is the one
Consider another example, using the absurd rightswho would suffer more, but in that case, the
that I talked about before. What if someone feltrights to life, property, and the various liberties all
a great misery, a great suffering and pain in theirare able to be faultered, once society has been
heart, if they couldn't punch everyone they met?convinced that it wants something more than
It seems absurd and ridiculous, considering thatanother thing. It may very well be true that there
human nature has never demonstrated thisis no just answer to this dilemma, and our thinking
before in history, but consider that in one humanon the issue needs to expand to more
they did manifest this. Now, this person and aopen-minded thinking when compromising.
normal person. In the same scenario, one feelsWhatever the case, I have written out what I
the need to punch the other, otherwise theyhave discovered thus far on the question of
suffer; the other feels the right not to berights. Life,
punched, otherwise they suffer.It may very wellPunkerslutPunkerslut (or Andy Carloff) has been
be true that in this case, there is no justificationwriting essays and poetry on social issues which
for one person's right, or the other person's righthave caught his attention for several years. His
-- at least, no justification that we can find. In thewebsite provides a complete list of all of these
normal political turmoil, between the rights thatwritings. His life experience includes homelessness,
one group asserts we have and those of anothersquating in New Orleans and LA, dropping out of
group, there is usually some reason, if nothigh school, getting expelled from college for
absolute, that would allow us to stray towards"subversive activities," and a myriad of other
supporting one right over another. Revisiting therevolutionary actions.