The Question of Rights

When it comes to the question of rights, it seems				case of abortion, one may argue that an unborn
that there are a variety of diversed opinions on				infant 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 ethical				that right to life. In the question of tax-funded
implications, one will find that there are different				welfare and social programs, one may make a
dispositions, each holding to the idea that their idea				case for them in arguing that the common people
of rights is the correct one. For example, in the				are responsible for producing all the wealth of
case of Pro-Life and Pro-Choice, on the issue of				society, and therefore are entitled to part of the
abortion. Pro-Life believes that the unborn fetus				dividend. When supporting such broad and basic
has the right to life, whereas Pro-Choice believes				freedoms, such as that of religion or speech or
that the woman has the right to choose. In some				life, it seems that there needs to be no
cases of the Pro-Choice movement, there are				argument, in that the greater part of the
those who believe in limited rights of women to				population desires these freedoms, and even
abortion. They believe that a woman has the right				those who don't support these rights, they have
to abortion only in cases of incest and rape, or				some desire of a limited freedom for them. We
that a woman has the right to abortion only up to				can reason, in some way or regard, to support
the late second trimester. When understanding				one right over another, when they contradict
the ideology of Conservative and Liberal political				each other. Revisiting the scenario of the Nudist
parties, we find that the former more strongly				again, one may argue that all animals are born
believe in the right to private property than the				nude, and therefore, the Nudist shouldn't be
others. Conservatives are opposed to welfare and				blamed for what his natural disposition is. But,
social programs, in that these are supported by				what makes this scenario so perfect for our
taxation, which appropriates some of the wealth				observation, is that no matter what arguments
of everyone, and they oppose these programs				we present, both side will suffer some pain unless
because it violates what they believe is the right				their right is recognized. We can reason to the
to property. Liberals, on the other hand, are				non-Nudist all that we like that it is natural to be
supportive of such wealth appropriation, because				nude, or we can reason to the Nudist all that we
they believe that every person who labors is				like that it is part of the non-Nudist's culture. We
entitled to some of the profits of the land. In				can expend all the words of human language, use
these examples, as many others, we find that it				every argument known to man, but no matter
is the question of rights that the parties are				what we reason, they will still suffer unless their
arguing over. It is in this piece that I will delve				right (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 could				except possibly a deeper explanation to the
apply. We could argue that people have the right				justification of rights.To anyone who have studied
to dress like the other sex, to make sexual				the depths of the field of ethics, they will know
advances towards anyone at any time, to poke				that there are other approaches to this subject.
others, to borrow without paying for something				For example, the Utilitarians argue that there are,
(steal), among many other things. Of course, this				in fact, no such things as right, but that an act is
short list of rights I provided was absurd and				judged as moral or immoral based on how much
ridiculous. It's mostly because when we think of				happiness or misery it creates; though, I find
rights, we tend to think of the right to freedom				certain flaws in such a system. Particularly, I find
of speech, the right to freedom of religion, right				that there are particular inductive reasoning
to elect our own government officials and expel				falacies 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. These				a child's life, but I cannot conceive of any
are all rights that we commonly think about when				reasoning that would render someone immoral for
we think of rights, or they are rights we appeal				not 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 supplying				that mean the murder was just? According to a
tax fund to churches because it violates the				Utilitarian, yes, but as I argued before, I do not
freedom of religion; another person may oppose				believe that there is any reason to believe that a
the government censoring books on sexuality				person is immoral to not sacrificing to the greater
because it violates the right to freedom of				good. 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, are				explaining right from wrong acts, or differentiating
opposed or supported based on what we believe				them. The idea of karma, for example, disables
the rights of the people are. However, when				people from the ability to change anything, and
comparing these often thought about rights, such				renders them subject to a system of justice
as freedom of speech, with those absurd rights				incorporated into the natural world. It argues that
that I mentioned, such as the right to poke				good things happen to good people and that bad
anyone at any time, one may try to find a				things happen to bad people. Thus, if a man is
fundamental difference, to justify one and villify				going 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 beneath				but will die if he is bad. That would be an entire
whatever right it is.So, if someone were to				violation of the mechanics of the natural; besides,
support the cause for war, they may argue that				there are few who argue that good things don't
it is because a nation's people have the right to				happen to bad people -- at least, in the world in
own the property of the other nation; if someone				which we live in.Or, instead of a non-rights based
were to oppose the cause for war, they may				systems of ethics, there are those systems
argue that it is because a nation's people have the				which are based on rights, but presents a method
right to security and their own homeland. We see				in deciding what those rights are. The most
then that the current issue is decided upon based				common 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 a				right to murder, to covet, among other things,
right?To answer this question, I am going to draw				which we can be found in the Ten
a scenario, by which we can judge why we				Commandments. The ethics of Buddhism deny a
believe that one party has the rights or the other				person the right to use drugs or alcohol. Islam
party has the rights. Then, once we decide which				denies the right to eating pork but allows them
party has the rights, we can poke and prod our				the right to have many wives. All in all, the
own lifestyles and philosophies until we find some				religious systems of ethics are unfounded, in that
sort of balance in consistency. Consider the				there has yet to be an iota of evidence on behalf
situation of a Nudist and a non-Nudist. The first				of any spiritual beings. Even so, if a spiritual being
believes that if he or anyone else must cover up				were 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 or				that it is more of an authority than any mortal
anyone else has their bodies not covered up, that				man. Besides, if a god had argued for man's right
he will suffer and be in misery. We have an				to rape women, would it be just? Or what of the
opposition of interests in this situation. Who's right				right to theft and murder? What if there were
prevails? That of the Nudist or that of the				two gods with contradictory moral systems?
non-Nudist? If we recognize the right of the				Whatever the case may be there, there is no
Nudist, then the non-Nudist suffers; if we accept				evidence for god, and furthermore, religious ethical
the right of the non-Nudist, then the Nudist				systems are dictated without the slightest bit of
suffers. Of course, this example is perhaps the				authority or proof.There is, plainly, no answer to
most believable, because any cultured person				who has a justified right. In either case, someone
understands that Nudists generally feel trapped				suffers. Unfortunately, I have not been able to, in
when forced to wear clothes, and feel the same				all my theorizing and research, been able to come
for others -- and, as the common meme of the				up with a justifiable reason why one's right is
Western Civilization goes, not wearing clothing in				more 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 rights				who would suffer more, but in that case, the
that I talked about before. What if someone felt				rights to life, property, and the various liberties all
a great misery, a great suffering and pain in their				are 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 that				another thing. It may very well be true that there
human nature has never demonstrated this				is no just answer to this dilemma, and our thinking
before in history, but consider that in one human				on the issue needs to expand to more
they did manifest this. Now, this person and a				open-minded thinking when compromising.
normal person. In the same scenario, one feels				Whatever the case, I have written out what I
the need to punch the other, otherwise they				have discovered thus far on the question of
suffer; the other feels the right not to be				rights. Life,
punched, otherwise they suffer.It may very well				PunkerslutPunkerslut (or Andy Carloff) has been
be true that in this case, there is no justification				writing essays and poetry on social issues which
for one person's right, or the other person's right				have caught his attention for several years. His
-- at least, no justification that we can find. In the				website provides a complete list of all of these
normal political turmoil, between the rights that				writings. His life experience includes homelessness,
one group asserts we have and those of another				squating in New Orleans and LA, dropping out of
group, there is usually some reason, if not				high 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 the				revolutionary actions.

Chali Center

The Question of Rights