Discover the secrets of the Celts


The Question of Rights

When it comes to the question of rights, itRevisiting the case of abortion, one may
seems that there are a variety of diversedargue that an unborn infant has no right to
opinions on the matter. As you go fromlife, since it is not conscious -- but when
social issue to social issue, encompassingit does become conscious, it gains that right
the political and ethical implications, oneto life. In the question of tax-funded
will find that there are differentwelfare and social programs, one may make a
dispositions, each holding to the idea thatcase for them in arguing that the common
their idea of rights is the correct one. Forpeople are responsible for producing all the
example, in the case of Pro-Life andwealth of society, and therefore are entitled
Pro-Choice, on the issue of abortion.to part of the dividend. When supporting
Pro-Life believes that the unborn fetus hassuch broad and basic freedoms, such as that
the right to life, whereas Pro-Choiceof religion or speech or life, it seems that
believes that the woman has the right tothere needs to be no argument, in that the
choose. In some cases of the Pro-Choicegreater part of the population desires these
movement, there are those who believe infreedoms, and even those who don't support
limited rights of women to abortion. Theythese rights, they have some desire of a
believe that a woman has the right tolimited freedom for them. We can reason, in
abortion only in cases of incest and rape, orsome way or regard, to support one right over
that a woman has the right to abortion onlyanother, when they contradict each other.
up to the late second trimester. WhenRevisiting the scenario of the Nudist again,
understanding the ideology of Conservativeone may argue that all animals are born nude,
and Liberal political parties, we find thatand therefore, the Nudist shouldn't be blamed
the former more strongly believe in the rightfor what his natural disposition is. But,
to private property than the others.what makes this scenario so perfect for our
Conservatives are opposed to welfare andobservation, is that no matter what arguments
social programs, in that these are supportedwe present, both side will suffer some pain
by taxation, which appropriates some of theunless their right is recognized. We can
wealth of everyone, and they oppose thesereason to the non-Nudist all that we like
programs because it violates what theythat it is natural to be nude, or we can
believe is the right to property. Liberals,reason to the Nudist all that we like that it
on the other hand, are supportive of suchis part of the non-Nudist's culture. We can
wealth appropriation, because they believeexpend all the words of human language, use
that every person who labors is entitled toevery argument known to man, but no matter
some of the profits of the land. In thesewhat we reason, they will still suffer unless
examples, as many others, we find that it istheir right (and not the other right) to be
the question of rights that the parties areis recognized. This is the one fact that
arguing over. It is in this piece that Inothing can override, except possibly a
will delve deeper into this question.Whendeeper explanation to the justification of
looking at rights, there is an infiniterights.To anyone who have studied the depths
plethora of them that we could apply. Weof the field of ethics, they will know that
could argue that people have the right tothere are other approaches to this subject.
dress like the other sex, to make sexualFor example, the Utilitarians argue that
advances towards anyone at any time, to pokethere are, in fact, no such things as right,
others, to borrow without paying forbut that an act is judged as moral or immoral
something (steal), among many other things.based on how much happiness or misery it
Of course, this short list of rights Icreates; though, I find certain flaws in such
provided was absurd and ridiculous. It'sa system. Particularly, I find that there
mostly because when we think of rights, weare particular inductive reasoning falacies
tend to think of the right to freedom ofin the philosophers of this system. For
speech, the right to freedom of religion,example, it may very well be a good act to
right to elect our own government officialssave a child's life, but I cannot conceive of
and expel them upon misconduct, among manyany reasoning that would render someone
other rights. The right to political andimmoral for not doing so. Or, for example,
labor association. These are all rights thatif one man is killed, and his organs save the
we commonly think about when we think oflives of ten people, does that mean the
rights, or they are rights we appeal to whenmurder was just? According to a Utilitarian,
arguing for or against a certain issue.yes, but as I argued before, I do not believe
Someone may oppose the government supplyingthat there is any reason to believe that a
tax fund to churches because it violates theperson is immoral to not sacrificing to the
freedom of religion; another person maygreater good. I believe in a system of
oppose the government censoring books onrights.There are other systems which deal
sexuality because it violates the right towith morality and explaining right from wrong
freedom of speech. So we find, that theseacts, or differentiating them. The idea of
smaller issues, these matters that arekarma, for example, disables people from the
brought to us today, are opposed or supportedability to change anything, and renders them
based on what we believe the rights of thesubject to a system of justice incorporated
people are. However, when comparing theseinto the natural world. It argues that good
often thought about rights, such as freedomthings happen to good people and that bad
of speech, with those absurd rights that Ithings happen to bad people. Thus, if a man
mentioned, such as the right to poke anyoneis going to have surgery, the doctor's
at any time, one may try to find aability means nothing -- since the man will
fundamental difference, to justify one andsurvive if he is good, but will die if he is
villify the other. Of course, there is nobad. That would be an entire violation of
difference, except the foundation orthe mechanics of the natural; besides, there
justification beneath whatever right itare few who argue that good things don't
is.So, if someone were to support the causehappen to bad people -- at least, in the
for war, they may argue that it is because aworld in which we live in.Or, instead of a
nation's people have the right to own thenon-rights based systems of ethics, there are
property of the other nation; if someone werethose systems which are based on rights, but
to oppose the cause for war, they may arguepresents a method in deciding what those
that it is because a nation's people have therights are. The most common of these ethical
right to security and their own homeland. Wesystems are those of religion. The Bible,
see then that the current issue is decidedfor example, denies people the right to
upon based primarily on the idea ofmurder, to covet, among other things, which
preconceived rights. What, then are thewe can be found in the Ten Commandments. The
reasons that justify or villify a right?Toethics of Buddhism deny a person the right to
answer this question, I am going to draw ause drugs or alcohol. Islam denies the right
scenario, by which we can judge why weto eating pork but allows them the right to
believe that one party has the rights or thehave many wives. All in all, the religious
other party has the rights. Then, once wesystems of ethics are unfounded, in that
decide which party has the rights, we canthere has yet to be an iota of evidence on
poke and prod our own lifestyles andbehalf of any spiritual beings. Even so, if
philosophies until we find some sort ofa spiritual being were to declare the
balance in consistency. Consider thevalidity of one right, is that even an
situation of a Nudist and a non-Nudist. Theauthority? There is no reason to believe
first believes that if he or anyone else mustthat it is more of an authority than any
cover up their bodies, that he will suffermortal man. Besides, if a god had argued for
and be in misery. The second believes theman's right to rape women, would it be just?
opposite, that if he or anyone else has theirOr what of the right to theft and murder?
bodies not covered up, that he will sufferWhat if there were two gods with
and be in misery. We have an opposition ofcontradictory moral systems? Whatever the
interests in this situation. Who's rightcase may be there, there is no evidence for
prevails? That of the Nudist or that of thegod, and furthermore, religious ethical
non-Nudist? If we recognize the right of thesystems are dictated without the slightest
Nudist, then the non-Nudist suffers; if webit of authority or proof.There is, plainly,
accept the right of the non-Nudist, then theno answer to who has a justified right. In
Nudist suffers. Of course, this example iseither case, someone suffers. Unfortunately,
perhaps the most believable, because anyI have not been able to, in all my theorizing
cultured person understands that Nudistsand research, been able to come up with a
generally feel trapped when forced to wearjustifiable reason why one's right is more
clothes, and feel the same for others -- and,just than the other. One may argue that the
as the common meme of the Westernperson who deserves the right is the one who
Civilization goes, not wearing clothing inwould suffer more, but in that case, the
public is considered taboo, if not outrightlyrights to life, property, and the various
illegal. Consider another example, using theliberties all are able to be faultered, once
absurd rights that I talked about before.society has been convinced that it wants
What if someone felt a great misery, a greatsomething more than another thing. It may
suffering and pain in their heart, if theyvery well be true that there is no just
couldn't punch everyone they met? It seemsanswer to this dilemma, and our thinking on
absurd and ridiculous, considering that humanthe issue needs to expand to more open-minded
nature has never demonstrated this before inthinking when compromising. Whatever the
history, but consider that in one human theycase, I have written out what I have
did manifest this. Now, this person and adiscovered thus far on the question of
normal person. In the same scenario, onerights.  Life,
feels the need to punch the other, otherwise
they suffer; the other feels the right not toPunkerslutPunkerslut (or Andy Carloff) has
be punched, otherwise they suffer.It may verybeen writing essays and poetry on social
well be true that in this case, there is noissues which have caught his attention for
justification for one person's right, or theseveral years. His website provides a
other person's right -- at least, nocomplete list of all of these writings. His
justification that we can find. In thelife experience includes homelessness,
normal political turmoil, between the rightssquating in New Orleans and LA, dropping out
that one group asserts we have and those ofof high school, getting expelled from college
another group, there is usually some reason,for "subversive activities," and a myriad of
if not absolute, that would allow us to strayother revolutionary actions.
towards supporting one right over another.



1 A B C 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101