your “rights” are only those that are provided by the government - and they can changed very quickly. educate yourself.
This makes it seem as if rights are only provided because of the generosity of the government. That’s not really true. A lot of people have fought and died for what we now call “rights”. Yes, they are written on some piece of paper and legitimized by the government, but for most people, they are more than that.
100 years ago, many people didn’t have the same views on “rights” as they have today. They didn’t believe that, for example, disabled people should be treated as normal people. Since then, this has largely changed. Most people think that a person who is in a wheelchair is just as much a human being as anybody else.
The reason for this change isn’t “the government”. It’s not as if the government passed a law and everyone went “well, I guess it’s official now, I really didn’t like those damn disabled, but I guess I have to respect their rights now”. Instead, there was a shift in culture and how people saw other people, and this has over time reflected government policy.
If the government suddenly changed the laws, most people would still believe that disabled people deserve the same respect as everyone else.
You do have somewhat of a point when you say that rights can suddenly be lost, but the concept of rights goes further than just government policy, at least in the eyes of most people.
yeah I suppose you have a point - societal rules do exist and play a part of the ruleset that governs how we interact with each other, but “our” rules/rights in America and the western world are not the same as the rules/rights in other places/times.
if rights aren’t intrinsic and/or universal, and they change over time, are they merely a figment of our collective imagination?
if rights aren’t intrinsic and/or universal, and they change over time, are they merely a figment of our collective imagination?
I mean I don’t really believe in a sets of universal or inherent set of rights. I do agree that at the end of the day, they are social constructs and change over time and space.
But I wouldn’t call them a “figment of our collective imagination” either because that implies that they are not important or “real”.
I do think they are somewhat important, I do think they “exist” in some form, even though they are not material in nature and are, in some ways, just “made up” by humans.
This makes it seem as if rights are only provided because of the generosity of the government. That’s not really true. A lot of people have fought and died for what we now call “rights”. Yes, they are written on some piece of paper and legitimized by the government, but for most people, they are more than that.
100 years ago, many people didn’t have the same views on “rights” as they have today. They didn’t believe that, for example, disabled people should be treated as normal people. Since then, this has largely changed. Most people think that a person who is in a wheelchair is just as much a human being as anybody else.
The reason for this change isn’t “the government”. It’s not as if the government passed a law and everyone went “well, I guess it’s official now, I really didn’t like those damn disabled, but I guess I have to respect their rights now”. Instead, there was a shift in culture and how people saw other people, and this has over time reflected government policy.
If the government suddenly changed the laws, most people would still believe that disabled people deserve the same respect as everyone else.
You do have somewhat of a point when you say that rights can suddenly be lost, but the concept of rights goes further than just government policy, at least in the eyes of most people.
yeah I suppose you have a point - societal rules do exist and play a part of the ruleset that governs how we interact with each other, but “our” rules/rights in America and the western world are not the same as the rules/rights in other places/times.
if rights aren’t intrinsic and/or universal, and they change over time, are they merely a figment of our collective imagination?
I mean I don’t really believe in a sets of universal or inherent set of rights. I do agree that at the end of the day, they are social constructs and change over time and space.
But I wouldn’t call them a “figment of our collective imagination” either because that implies that they are not important or “real”.
I do think they are somewhat important, I do think they “exist” in some form, even though they are not material in nature and are, in some ways, just “made up” by humans.