Rights

[m_m]

Hello to everyone. I have a very important question ( for me) about rights. 

There's the principle "Your rights end when another’s begin."

But my argument is that, i am also others, and someone else's rights end, when mine begin. Because it looks like my rights end even without the beginning. 

For example, while we may have the right to own property, this doesn’t mean we have the right to use our property in a way that interferes with our neighbor’s right to enjoy their property.

But...it also doesn't mean that our neighbors have the right to use their property in a way that interferes with My right to enjoy my property.

So, who's is a right? 

Edited Sunday at 09:04 AM by m_m

[studiot]

Just now, m_m said:

There's the principle "Your rights end when another’s begin."

Frankly I don't approve of that 'principle' since it is of the 'all or nothing' variety and the situation is nothing like that ie non binary.

Since we all live together in the same world a far better principle IMHO is

'With every right come the duty to exercise it properly'

This way you don't end up with the contradictions you have identified.

[exchemist]

58 minutes ago, m_m said:

Hello to everyone. I have a very important question ( for me) about rights. 

There's the principle "Your rights end when another’s begin."

But my argument is that, i am also others, and someone else's rights end, when mine begin. Because it looks like my rights end even without the beginning. 

For example, while we may have the right to own property, this doesn’t mean we have the right to use our property in a way that interferes with our neighbor’s right to enjoy their property.

But...it also doesn't mean that our neighbors have the right to use their property in a way that interferes with My right to enjoy my property.

So, who's is a right? 

Where does this "principle" come from? I have never heard of it before. It certainly sounds rather silly, on the face of it.

But perhaps all it it is intended to mean is that, in a civilised society  nobody has total freedom to act without consideration for others.  

[m_m]

5 minutes ago, studiot said:

Frankly I don't approve of that 'principle' since it is of the 'all or nothing' variety and the situation is nothing like that ie non binary.

Since we all live together in the same world a far better principle IMHO is

'With every right come the duty to exercise it properly'

This way you don't end up with the contradictions you have identified.

Thank you for your respond. As for me, the situation is not binary until it concerns your own skin and your personal life. Or we wouldn't need courts.

As for me someone is right and someone is not. 

Just now, exchemist said:

Where does this "principle" come from? I have never heard of it before. It certainly sounds rather silly, on the face of it.

But perhaps all it it is intended to mean is that, in a civilised society  nobody has total freedom to act without consideration for others.  

This is some kind of the harm principle

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principle

Why does it look silly to you? 

I just want to understand the logic of this principle.
 

Quote

 

in a civilised society  nobody has total freedom to act without consideration for others.  

 

 

 

In a theory yes, we are civilized people, we should consider freedom of others. But where these limits? Where do these boundaries come from?

 

Edited Sunday at 10:30 AM by m_m

[exchemist]

19 minutes ago, m_m said:

Thank you for your respond. As for me, the situation is not binary until it concerns your own skin and your personal life. Or we wouldn't need courts.

As for me someone is right and someone is not. 

This is some kind of the harm principle

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principle

Why does it look silly to you? 

I just want to understand the logic of this principle.
 

In a theory yes, we are civilized people, we should consider freedom of others. But where these limits? Where do these boundaries come from?

 

It sounds silly because it expresses the limits of personal freedom in absurdly negative terms. It suggests that recognising other peoples' rights is ipso facto an infringement of one's own. That attitude is a recipe for anarchy and allowing dominance by the strongest. 

In fact I think your comment, that "you" are also "others", sums up why this is wrong very neatly.    

[studiot]

Just now, m_m said:

In a theory yes, we are civilized people, we should consider freedom of others. But where these limits? Where do these boundaries come from?

this is part of the problem with this thread.

It is too open ended.

You need to clarify what yoy mean by 'rights'.

Starting from the observation that in the natural world there are no rights you need to set the scene (context) for your question.

Do you mean legal rights ?

or

Do you mean Human rights ?

or what ?

Include, please in your scene setting, since you mentioned 'civilised'  the society you are setting this in.

Slaves in ancient civilised societies had no rights.

[m_m]

3 minutes ago, exchemist said:

It sounds silly because it expresses the limits of personal freedom in absurdly negative terms. It suggests that recognising other peoples' rights is ipso facto an infringement of one's own. That attitude is a recipe for anarchy and allowing dominance by the strongest. 

In fact I think your comment, that "you" are also "others", sums up why this is wrong very neatly.    

There's the quote 

"Your Liberty To Swing Your Fist Ends Just Where My Nose Begins". Obviously, it belongs to Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. 

What I mean is that I have rights, and other people also have rights - this is what I stand on. Where is that line, which marks a limit for my freedom, where I am NOT RIGHT. This is my question.

Quote

 

In fact I think your comment, that "you" are also "others", sums up why this is wrong very neatly.    

 

I just try looking from the both sides: mine and others. 

Just now, studiot said:

You need to clarify what you mean by 'rights'.

Right to act freely. 

[Sensei]

You have a property, and your neighbor has a property. Your neighbor decides to open a pig farm, a poultry farm or a hazardous waste landfill.  Restaurant, steak house in a less extreme version. The stench from them will fly to you and make your life unbearable. Your real estate prices will drop.

Do you have the right to own your property in a clean environment, or does your neighbor have the right to do what he wants with his land?

 

Your neighbor created a steak house, and made your life miserable with barbecue smells all day and night. Should you make him a dumping ground, and flush out his customers? He will be just as unhappy as you were after making a barbecue 24/7 at his place..

 

The vast majority of economic initiatives can fall under this.

Edited Sunday at 12:38 PM by Sensei

[swansont]

3 hours ago, m_m said:

For example, while we may have the right to own property, this doesn’t mean we have the right to use our property in a way that interferes with our neighbor’s right to enjoy their property.

But...it also doesn't mean that our neighbors have the right to use their property in a way that interferes with My right to enjoy my property.

So, who's is a right? 

The situations are symmetric, so I don’t understand the alleged conundrum.

[Genady]

15 minutes ago, Sensei said:

Do you have the right to own your property in a clean environment, or does your neighbor have the right to do what he wants with his land?

Do they have zoning rules?

[iNow]

Society requires a balance and while personal rights shall be protected they must be constrained in context of good for the greater whole. Where those thresholds should be is exactly what political discussion and legislative debate is intended to focus upon, not whether someone is woke.

[m_m]

9 hours ago, Sensei said:

You have a property, and your neighbor has a property. Your neighbor decides to open a pig farm, a poultry farm or a hazardous waste landfill.  Restaurant, steak house in a less extreme version. The stench from them will fly to you and make your life unbearable. Your real estate prices will drop.

Do you have the right to own your property in a clean environment, or does your neighbor have the right to do what he wants with his land?

 

Your neighbor created a steak house, and made your life miserable with barbecue smells all day and night. Should you make him a dumping ground, and flush out his customers? He will be just as unhappy as you were after making a barbecue 24/7 at his place..

 

 

Thank you very much. This is exactly what I am asking about. My neighbor has a right to do what he wants with his property, but i also have that right. 

And it's not about political discussions and legislation. It is about My freedom to live in my property and breathe clean air.

9 hours ago, swansont said:

The situations are symmetric, so I don’t understand the alleged conundrum.

Situations are symmetric as long as they don't involve your property or something that belongs to you. 

 

[CharonY]

12 hours ago, m_m said:

There's the quote 

"Your Liberty To Swing Your Fist Ends Just Where My Nose Begins". Obviously, it belongs to Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. 

What I mean is that I have rights, and other people also have rights - this is what I stand on. Where is that line, which marks a limit for my freedom, where I am NOT RIGHT. This is my question.

This quote does not indicate that one should have the right to swing freely. I.e. it does not address the freedom part. It really indicates that there must be limits, and just highlights one area, in this case if it causes harms. It does not say that other than doing harm you are or should be allowed to do whatever you want.

I think the only school of thought that has that kind of ideal is Libertarianism, which takes freedom as the baseline and then limits it based on principles such as harm.

Other philosophies follow different principles with more or less specific basic rights and limitations thereof.

[swansont]

59 minutes ago, m_m said:

Situations are symmetric as long as they don't involve your property or something that belongs to you. 

Why? Don’t other people own property?

If other people can’t go into your yard without your permission, it means you can’t go into theirs. It’s symmetric.

1 hour ago, m_m said:

Thank you very much. This is exactly what I am asking about. My neighbor has a right to do what he wants with his property, but i also have that right. 

But we have zoning laws that address the very problem described. You don’t have the right to do whatever you want, and if someone wants to start up a factory, they can’t do it in a residential area, so you don’t invite this sort of problem.

And if you buy property near an industrial zone, presumably you would have the ability to know what you’re in for.

[m_m]

10 hours ago, swansont said:

The situations are symmetric, so I don’t understand the alleged conundrum.

You see, you say that situations are symmetric. But they are not. 

I already gave an example regarding the opening of the Olympic Games 2024. And INow answered that people were expressing themselves. Though the Catholic Church considered that scene to be offensive. 

I am not talking about religion but about the way you choose a side. 

[swansont]

3 minutes ago, m_m said:

I already gave an example regarding the opening of the Olympic Games 2024

You did not. Not in this thread, at least.

[m_m]

Just now, swansont said:

But we have zoning laws

Let's not talk about zoning laws.  What about you personally, for example. 

To what extent are you willing to consider the rights of other people and not feel that your rights are being violated?

 

 

Edited yesterday at 12:29 AM by m_m

[iNow]

19 minutes ago, m_m said:

INow answered that people were expressing themselves

Say what now?

[swansont]

 

33 minutes ago, m_m said:

What about you personally, for example. 

To what extent are you willing to consider the rights of other people and not feel that your rights are being violated?

Legal/civil rights are between a person and the government. A person who is not an agent of the government can’t violate my rights.

Some of what we call rights are freedoms or privileges, and those are what we agree on, and are supposed to be symmetric. I can’t do it to them if they can’t do it to me. We have legal protections, both criminal and civil, to ensure this. If you transgress, you are supposed to be punished for it.

[studiot]

6 hours ago, m_m said:

Thank you very much. This is exactly what I am asking about. My neighbor has a right to do what he wants with his property, but i also have that right. 

So you mean legal rights, as I already asked.

 

There is no country on Earth where that right is completely unrestricted, although such rights as do exist vary extensively from country to country.

 

Edited yesterday at 11:11 AM by studiot

[TheVat]

16 hours ago, m_m said:

What about you personally, for example. 

To what extent are you willing to consider the rights of other people and not feel that your rights are being violated?

 

What part of "we all answer to the same laws" are you not getting?  The law enacts Kant's categorical imperative.  We follow a law because there is a morally acceptable outcome (e.g. safe streets, clean water, disease control, less traffic accidents, etc.) when that law is universally applied and followed.  Most desirable personal freedoms are secured when we exercise restraint in our actions and respect those freedoms in others fostered by our restraint.  Absolute freedom would be anarchy, and no civilization has promoted it.  Anarchy, lawlessness tends to result in a lot of violations of personal rights.  So we accept some reasonable restraints on our personal actions in exchange for preventing general anarchy.  

To give a (I hope) clarifying example, imagine being sleepless until 4 AM and then doing poorly at your job the next day as a result, maybe even becoming ill from the stress.  Would you accept this outcome in order to preserve the freedom of your apartment neighbor to play his stereo loudly all night?  It seems pretty clear that apartment buildings (and more broadly, municipalities) need some kind of code which all must follow for the general good of those who dwell in them.  The value of knowing you can sleep at night and not being subject to a bullying inconsiderate neighbor vastly outweighs the childish freedom of being able to make loud noise whenever you feel like it.  So apartments have rules.  Cities have noise ordinances.  

Edited yesterday at 05:06 PM by TheVat