1. are humans right something innately within us because we are human or are they conferred by a political organization?
no. i think rights are "conferred" once we realize that there are political applications/definitions to our actions. perhaps i'm too much of a jj rousseau fan, but i think its only when individuals band together into a group/society/civilization (which are really the same thing, just in different degrees) that we get to talking about "rights".
as for "human rights", we like to think we are more special than other creatures in this world.
2. do we allow our legal entities to decide what people have rights to and what they don't?
i don't think its a matter of allowing as the actual designation of functions once we create a society, supposing we start from the rawlsian scratch and put on a veil of ignorance. however, the cynic in me realizes that it is those in power that decide who have rights and who don't. the granting of rights to disenfranchised people is either a ploy to continue to screw the disenfranchised or to avoid a complete revolution. coming from a country that does this on a constant basis, excuse me for being a little cynical about governmental and bureaucratic institutions.
3. are the callous lines drawn between who gets healthcare and who doesn't right? or somehow necessary for the preservation of the institutions that hold up and enforce those human rights?
yes. there are lines drawn between the haves and the havenots. and it is for the presevation of the systems of institutions. institutions are about access. if you can control access, you have power. granted, access can be granted on a limited basis depending on how beneficial such access is considered.
i'm not saying altruism is dead. but it is sure hard to keep track off in the land of bureaucratic red tape.
4. does an ethic of kindness and love demand from us that we take care of our own and stretch that concept over people we think do not belong and do not earn a productive place for themselves in society?
well, how are we defining love? i think that gandhi and mother teresa, and other great humanitarians, would speak that care is about caring and not quantifying it into the worthy and the unworthy.
the use of "productive place in society" is just another term we have co-opted from capitalism and economics to justify the delineations/categories/definitions we have in place. we have to rationalize why our decisions are the correct ones. more importantly, we want to be able to attach the "just" label to them.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
eep's thought
Date: 2004-09-12 07:49 pm (UTC)or are they conferred by a political organization?
no. i think rights are "conferred" once we realize that there are political applications/definitions to our actions. perhaps i'm too much of a jj rousseau fan, but i think its only when individuals band together into a group/society/civilization (which are really the same thing, just in different degrees) that we get to talking about "rights".
as for "human rights", we like to think we are more special than other creatures in this world.
2. do we allow our legal entities to decide what people have rights to and what they don't?
i don't think its a matter of allowing as the actual designation of functions once we create a society, supposing we start from the rawlsian scratch and put on a veil of ignorance. however, the cynic in me realizes that it is those in power that decide who have rights and who don't. the granting of rights to disenfranchised people is either a ploy to continue to screw the disenfranchised or to avoid a complete revolution. coming from a country that does this on a constant basis, excuse me for being a little cynical about governmental and bureaucratic institutions.
3. are the callous lines drawn between who gets healthcare and who doesn't right? or somehow necessary for the preservation of the institutions that hold up and enforce those human rights?
yes. there are lines drawn between the haves and the havenots. and it is for the presevation of the systems of institutions. institutions are about access. if you can control access, you have power. granted, access can be granted on a limited basis depending on how beneficial such access is considered.
i'm not saying altruism is dead. but it is sure hard to keep track off in the land of bureaucratic red tape.
4. does an ethic of kindness and love demand from us that we take care of our own and stretch that concept over people we think do not belong and do not earn a productive place for themselves in society?
well, how are we defining love? i think that gandhi and mother teresa, and other great humanitarians, would speak that care is about caring and not quantifying it into the worthy and the unworthy.
the use of "productive place in society" is just another term we have co-opted from capitalism and economics to justify the delineations/categories/definitions we have in place. we have to rationalize why our decisions are the correct ones. more importantly, we want to be able to attach the "just" label to them.
rebuttal?
y to the izzo, s to the izzay.
~eepie