Newbies

Re: Quick Question - Individual and Society

wilderness — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 14:08:02 GMT

Fluery:

Hey all,

The other day in one of my classes we had a discussion about the individual's rights vs society's rights. More specifically, the reasons an individual has the right rebel against society (if he does at all)

To rebel would have to do with repercussions, the seeking of justice for wrong-doings against an innocent person. There are exceptions to this, disagreements, and on-going questioning as to what's the best way to seek justice. It is not universal as far as we understand as to how justice ought to be sought after. Though there are strong arguments for any one position on how to seek justice. Justice itself might be considered universal, though I'm not quite sure how to argue if it is or is not. But how justice is to be carried out is not universal (a right). So in the case of rebelling, it's not a question of a "right", other what justice is trying to restore in terms of the rights of life, liberty, and property.

These rights are currently violated by the State now, but people for the most part are tolerant. But let's say the government came and took my house and tried to kill me or my family - for no reason whatsoever. I would fight back in self-defense. I don't think I would have any other options. So self-defense is usually the best way to figure out when is the right time to rebel.

Fluery:

and the reaons society has the right to control the individual (if they do at all)

Society has no right to control the individual, unless that individual is a criminal. That's called slavery or tyranny. The individual is composed of free-will. As the State grows more tyrannies the options for a free-thinking person will shrink. Eventually if those options disappear enough a certain unknown breaking point would occur for rebellion.

Fluery:

We had read some of Locke earlier, so I made my case that an individual can rebel (assuming rebelling is nonviolent) for any reason he wants, but especially when the government/society becomes oppressive of his natural rights. I said that society could and should control the individual when the individual starts to harm others, or not respect their natural rights. I had a little bit of trouble with the why part, but I think I got it.

What you said here is really good.

Fluery:

I guess I have two questions.

1) What would your response be to those first two questions?

2) How can you "derive" natural rights without invoking the idea of a supreme creator (as Locke does)?

Since I gave the first a try, I'll discuss the 2nd now.

The natural rights of life, liberty, and property are about minimizing conflict. Natural rights are derived from nature and are considered natural laws. And when I say natural laws I'm talking about the same natural laws found in the physical sciences such as the natural law of gravity. But when considering natural rights these particular natural laws are about human nature.

hope that helps...

Re: Quick Question - Individual and Society

banned — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 02:35:50 GMT

Fluery:
What would your response be to those first two questions?

Society is a description of an aggregation of beings, not an autonomous being in itself. There are no rights garnered to it. Rights are only useful where they are applied to individuals.

Fluery:
How can you "derive" natural rights without invoking the idea of a supreme creator (as Locke does)?

There are endless ways. And a devine creator doesn't entail rights, which are social conventions, not spiritual ones.

Quick Question - Individual and Society

Fluery — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 01:15:07 GMT

Hey all,

The other day in one of my classes we had a discussion about the individual's rights vs society's rights. More specifically, the reasons an individual has the right rebel against society (if he does at all) and the reaons society has the right to control the individual (if they do at all)

We had read some of Locke earlier, so I made my case that an individual can rebel (assuming rebelling is nonviolent) for any reason he wants, but especially when the government/society becomes oppressive of his natural rights. I said that society could and should control the individual when the individual starts to harm others, or not respect their natural rights. I had a little bit of trouble with the why part, but I think I got it.

I guess I have two questions.

1) What would your response be to those first two questions?

2) How can you "derive" natural rights without invoking the idea of a supreme creator (as Locke does)?

This was only for a 10th grade history class, so it's not supposed to be too deep :p

Thanks!