Philosophy What is a Right? What is Freedom?

The Name of Love

Far Right Nutjob
Here's a discussion here for those of us who disagree on the definitions of those things and how they can be justified. In modern pluralistic societies, people have so many definitions of these things, it's difficult to count. So I want to put this out there. Let all ye willing to discuss this come.
 
D

Deleted member 88

Guest
Ah interesting question.

Freedom is the lack or absence of restriction in the most general sense.

A teenager has freedom to stay out late at night. An adult has freedom to drink alcohol.

A right is more specific-it can mean either a freedom that is absolute, and not a privilege. Or a right to be free of something.

Freedom to own guns, and freedom from want-this debate over what freedom is defines a lot of political disputes in the US.

The difference that gets brought up is-what is a privilege and what is an absolute right? A privilege can be taken away and is not absolute.

The teenager who is out partying and is brought home by the cops(perhaps doing nothing wrong except being there with a bad crowd) might have his freedom to go to such parties revoked. That is not a right-its a privilege.

Under the constitution-right to freedom of speech is absolute. It can not be taken away or hampered. Except in yelling fire in theatre cases(that is where using your freedom of speech could or will likely cause physical harm to others).
 

The Name of Love

Far Right Nutjob
Freedom is the lack or absence of restriction in the most general sense.

A teenager has freedom to stay out late at night. An adult has freedom to drink alcohol.
That's the sort of Hobbesian definition of freedom, sure. It's the ability "to buy, and sell, and otherwise contract with one another; to choose their own aboad, their own diet, their own trade of life, and institute their children as they themselves think fit; the like." Freedom in this sense is allowing decent people to do reasonable things.

There's also another view of freedom, found in Christian philosophy. It's the freedom of self-mastery. It's the kind of freedom Saint Augustine was talking about when he claimed that the "virtuous man, though a slave, is free." It's freedom from passion, freedom from irrationality. It's the freedom to pursue what on ought to do as informed by one's own reasoning faculties.

Certainly, there's nothing mutually contradictory about these two kinds of freedoms in my book. In fact, I'd say they are both necessary for a good society. But the former kind of freedom is an effect of good governance; it's what happens when people are safe and there's a well-established order to things. It only exists in a world where the state doesn't feel the need to micromanage people's lives because the people aren't going around destroying themselves and each other. In other words, the former kind of freedom can only exist in societies where the latter kind of freedom is shared amongst the citizenry.

A right is more specific-it can mean either a freedom that is absolute, and not a privilege. Or a right to be free of something.

Freedom to own guns, and freedom from want-this debate over what freedom is defines a lot of political disputes in the US.
I don't quite understand what you mean. A right is, from what I see, an object of justice. It's something owed to an individual or a corporate body as a matter of justice. At its most basic, I believe that all rights amount to the right to do what one ought to do because, as Kant pointed out, ought implies can. Rights, therefore, have a teleology to them in that they exist for a purpose - to help us pursue virtue. We can therefore never have a right to do wrong.

The teenager who is out partying and is brought home by the cops(perhaps doing nothing wrong except being there with a bad crowd) might have his freedom to go to such parties revoked. That is not a right-its a privilege.
Million dollar question there. Complicating things are the ideas of political rights (rights you have as citizens) versus human rights (rights you have as human beings). Voting is a citizens' right, not a human right, for instance.

Under the constitution-right to freedom of speech is absolute. It can not be taken away or hampered. Except in yelling fire in theatre cases(that is where using your freedom of speech could or will likely cause physical harm to others).
Actually, "yelling in a crowded theater" is an outdated standard. I would read this article a bit to understand what I mean.
 
D

Deleted member 88

Guest
That's the sort of Hobbesian definition of freedom, sure. It's the ability "to buy, and sell, and otherwise contract with one another; to choose their own aboad, their own diet, their own trade of life, and institute their children as they themselves think fit; the like." Freedom in this sense is allowing decent people to do reasonable things.

There's also another view of freedom, found in Christian philosophy. It's the freedom of self-mastery. It's the kind of freedom Saint Augustine was talking about when he claimed that the "virtuous man, though a slave, is free." It's freedom from passion, freedom from irrationality. It's the freedom to pursue what on ought to do as informed by one's own reasoning faculties.

Certainly, there's nothing mutually contradictory about these two kinds of freedoms in my book. In fact, I'd say they are both necessary for a good society. But the former kind of freedom is an effect of good governance; it's what happens when people are safe and there's a well-established order to things. It only exists in a world where the state doesn't feel the need to micromanage people's lives because the people aren't going around destroying themselves and each other. In other words, the former kind of freedom can only exist in societies where the latter kind of freedom is shared amongst the citizenry.


I don't quite understand what you mean. A right is, from what I see, an object of justice. It's something owed to an individual or a corporate body as a matter of justice. At its most basic, I believe that all rights amount to the right to do what one ought to do because, as Kant pointed out, ought implies can. Rights, therefore, have a teleology to them in that they exist for a purpose - to help us pursue virtue. We can therefore never have a right to do wrong.


Million dollar question there. Complicating things are the ideas of political rights (rights you have as citizens) versus human rights (rights you have as human beings). Voting is a citizens' right, not a human right, for instance.


Actually, "yelling in a crowded theater" is an outdated standard. I would read this article a bit to understand what I mean.
Yeah that's kind of the ideal of the American system. That people will be virtuous and disciplined on their own and so the government won't have to regulate people's lives either for theirs or society's greater good.



To be lazy and use Google as a definition, "

a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way." I have the right to speak my mind. I do not have a right to drive. That is a privilege granted by the state which can be taken away. If I am caught speeding too many times. A right is inviolable, a privilege is an entitlement dependent on someone else's will.

In America day-democrats and leftists argue the "right" to Health Care, which conservatives respond isn't a right-its a privilege of being able to afford it. It was an aside of mine.

Voting is a privilege-felons don't have that right. Neither do people under the age of eighteen. Its a right with caveats and conditions. But in your opinion does that make it any less of a right?

Ah interesting-I would say that presents an interesting question. Where if anywhere does the first amendment end? Someone on a street advocating the overthrow of the government or the genocide of a certain group? Intentional libel or slander? Implicit appeals to murder-"will no one rid me of this troublesome priest"?, explicit calls for murder, "Someone shoot him!".

I in general think the First Amendment extends a long way, but the question is how far? And if there are any limits, even only for the most egregious uses of one's speech-is that a violation of the right?
 

The Name of Love

Far Right Nutjob
Voting is a privilege-felons don't have that right. Neither do people under the age of eighteen. Its a right with caveats and conditions. But in your opinion does that make it any less of a right?
You can have your natural rights abrogated if you commit a crime. John Locke said so, at least.

Ah interesting-I would say that presents an interesting question. Where if anywhere does the first amendment end? Someone on a street advocating the overthrow of the government or the genocide of a certain group? Intentional libel or slander? Implicit appeals to murder-"will no one rid me of this troublesome priest"?, explicit calls for murder, "Someone shoot him!".

I in general think the First Amendment extends a long way, but the question is how far? And if there are any limits, even only for the most egregious uses of one's speech-is that a violation of the right?
Well, in order to know the limits of free speech, we must know its purpose. The original purpose of it, as it appeared in English Common Law, was as a defense against libel charges. The idea was that it was morally just to tell the truth, so telling the truth shouldn't be punished, even if it caused damages. So freedom of speech as a right protects truth-tellers. Therefore, any speech that is not intended to tell the truth is not protected by the right to free speech.
 

Doomsought

Well-known member
A right is a moral principles by which you judge the laws and actions of a state.

Rights are categorized into two non-overlapping, and arguably mutually exclusive, equivalence sets: Positive rights and negative rights. Positive rights dictate actions that the state must take. Negative rights proscribe actions that a state must not take.

Negative rights enshrine freedom, but also imply personal responsibility because the people must take actions that the state should not.
Positive rights grantee safety, but not only require restricting peoples actions but also require the state to force people to take actions in accordance to their demands.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top