When I was younger I was arrested a good handful of times, and ironically, they never read me my rights, except for once. My lawyer then informed me that it didn't matter, because it was my word against theirs, and they're cops, so their word carries more weight than mine, because I'm apparently actually guilty until proven innocent.
I too have been arrested, perhaps not that many times, but enough times, Now can you tell me why you were not informed as to your rights(so-called)? Consider this: Whatever a "right" is (and the young swagggerer(lecturer) has no ide of his own at all) what is the shadow of a right?- what is the condition subsequent to whatever a right might be? If you don't already have some information about law, you are simply wasting your time with jurisprudence; the philosophy of law. The lecturer struggles with, and waffles about, jurisprudence-what is law, or what is a "right" because he has no experience of law-has never practised as a lawyer in-real-life. Only those with a minimum of 40 years' practice of the law were best placed to embark upon 'jurisprudence' Why might you suppose that you or anyone has or had any rights when you have no the slightest idea what a right is? From where do you get any idea at all but rights albeit that you have not the faintest idea what a right is? See my remarks herein and se if you can win a prize. It is not a fault or failing on the part of you or the lecturer blindly purporting to lead the blind; you and he are simply attempting the intellectual equivalent of trying to stand on your own shoulders, but cannot understand that Take it by stages and see if you can see what sort of process is taking place when you try to understand what a "right"(or a law, or 'morals') is? Law is a subset of which of the many(how many?) functions of men(human beings)? If neither you nor the lecturer have the slightest idea, then perhaps best not to try to stand on your own shoulders. Into what category of experience do law or 'rights' fall? Start there and go on from there; that way you will avoid trying the impossible The real reason that you were not informed as to your rights(so-called)-if you can discover it, is crucial or fundamental to the whole whatever it is of " rights"- a huge clue, and you will only come to it through dialectic-by stages.
So a family member of mine was arrested and his lawyer explained to him that he didn't need do be read his rights before being arrested, but rather before he could be questioned.
Your lawyer was both wrong and a weakling; there is nothing to prevent a defendant from claiming in what is called a " voire dire", that evidence offered against him is not admissible for one or another reason. The short point is whether or not for every right there must be a corresponding remedy? And If there isn't is it a right?And no one can define a right or rights for the very simple reason that no one(but the writer) - including the much vauntedHohfeld, can define a right,because the very idea of rights is so vague and generalised that is tantamount to, or equivalent to, an unfocused photograph, and nobody on this planet with the best will in the world can focus an unfocused photograph or discover of what it happens to be, or is claimed claim to be, a photograph, and exactly the same thing goes for various other vague generalised ideas such as law, ownership and what are called morals or morality/morals or ethics.
@@vhawk1951kl there is nothing preventing a defendant from claiming it, but how often is this actually used and successful? Because I've spent my good share of time in court rooms and I've never been in front of a judge that would do much more than laugh most likely if you tried to make that claim in their court room. You'd have to get on the stand and testify, and then the officer would do the same, and in most cases, especially with a criminal record, the jury would most likely side with the word of the police.
@@brandonmiles8174 In my 40 odd years as what Americans call a trial lawyer, I have had excluded evidence on the voire dire scores of times if not hundreds. Not all judges are necessarily prosecution minded, or certainly not in England.Moreover I have had convictions quashed because inadmissible evidence was wrongly admitted also several or scores of times if not hundreds of times.
I just want to say I really appreciate learning about the Hohfeldian theory. I recently attended a philosophy course about Law, Liberty, & Morality. We discussed various theories from such thinkers and influential people as Thomas Aquinas, John Stewart Mill, Dworkin, Smith, Mackinnon, de Beauvoir, HLA Hart, Austin, and others but we never once discussed Hohfeld. Every student in the class found it difficult to decide which rights everyone should have and how to define/prescribe them. While I don't yet have answers to your other questions, I do find it very useful for understanding how we talk about human rights. Thank you!
I (personally) feel like a lot of human rights ideas are generally agreed upon by a majority of humanity, and then you get less consensus the more specific you get about who, what, when, why, and how. Including who counts as human 😬
This is a really interesting concept! And I think a person's duties and stuff regarding rights are, for instance, moral duties if you're talking about people having rights on a moral basis, and legal duties if you're talking about legal rights, etc.
Aaaaargh! You ended the video where it got interesting. What doesn't fit? Also I personally much prefer the positive/negative rights distinction merely because it's easier to understand and I've been using that for a much longer time. It also helps as it is more useful for prioritizing different rights and what needs to be focused on in society.
+Sina Shahbazi Hee hee, sorry, I didn't want to make it too much. And the positive/negative distinction isn't a substitute for first and second order rights, they're not the same thing. You can have both. Interestingly primary/secondary has gotten some backlash in decent years - it's not the best.
+Sina Shahbazi The concept of positive and negative rights is often applied wrongly. Positive Right: If everyone had the positive right to being treated politely but no one was liable to be polite, that makes no sense. So when everyone has a positive right to be treated politely, everyone also equally has the duty to be polite. Negative Right: If everyone had the negative right to be a genius and no one may interfere, that makes no sense as not everyone is capable of being a genius i.e. even with no one is interfering, not everyone will become a genius. Positive rights really only apply to stuff one can both give and receive simultaneously, like respect of beliefs, politeness, etc. Negative rights really only apply to stuff one is capable of -achieving- attempting on one's own, like the pursuit of happiness, self defense etc. The concept of positive and negative rights therefore cannot be applied for the use of prioritizing rights to what needs to be focused on in society, e.g. right to healthcare or education. I am curious how you find it more useful, in particular, how you found a way to apply it.
Hey Olly. I know this wasn't the focus of your video, but I'd love to hear your thoughts on it? Where do rights come from, especially if don't believe in supernatural beings/aren't religious? I'm definitely a philosophy novice, but I would call myself secular, and an existential and moral nihilist. Like the concepts of currency or justice, morality and human rights are human constructs as far as I can tell. Unless you believe in a higher being (the assumption of which has its own problems), I don't see a legitimate source of human rights other than the human imagination. It seems to be part of a general trend of the conception of inherent value, which I understand but think it misguided. What do the great minds of philosophy have to say about the origin of human rights? Where does inherent rightness or wrongness in certain behaviors come from? Are there good books or essays which argue that the conception of morality and human rights are results of evolutionary psychology and that it's biologically advantageous for humans to think that way? Or is there something I'm not considering at all? Anyway, keep up the great work. I love your videos. Cheers!
Hey Olly (or Ally?) I admire your work very much, good job! I'd love to see you doing some stuff related to languages in the future, since language is basically a really big part of our lives
Good video - could be interesting to cover "how are 'rights' granted" (are they given by society or something we are inherently 'entitled' to?) Not sure if this is in your arena, or if you've done something on it before, but seems like it might go nicely with this video.
That's the ticket; in in doubt waft meaning less word like 'paradigm about the place. Sounds good, means nothing. Why not just come clean and admit that you have not the faintest idea what a right is? No shame in that; no more has anyone else.
I'm mostly interested in the 'non-falsifiable'-argument. Because there is a separation: the claim-duty relationship: 'you have a duty because i have a claim' is indeed non-falsifiable. As it is the definition of 'claim' (at least within the model): 'claim: the right to impose a duty on another'. A similar (or rather, the same) argument holds for the liberty-no claim relationship (and the concept of 'pick one') the concepts of 'liberty', 'no-claim' and 'the liberty- no claim relationship' can have 2 of them defined in terms of the others. (all 3 defined in terms of the others, would be circular reasoning, which can be internally consistent (in which case it would be merely useless) or not (in which case it is simply false.) ) The statement 'ALL rights can be broken down into this system' can either be the definition of the word 'right' (i assumed common consensus on this and then re-watched the video (less common than i thought.)) or it IS falsifiable. Simply because the model is 80% definition, doesn't make the whole thing 'non-falsifiable' Even if a counter-example arises (making the model 'technically incorrect') it still remains a really convenient tool for explaining most rights. The thing most models are for.
Do you see that the whole nonsense is merely a form of psychological algebra, specifically X =Y where neither X nor Y have any value whatsoever? All this nonsense about so-called "rights" is a species of what region or area of human experience? By way of a clue: consider this: Can a mirror reflected itself? There is a particularly obvious reason why men (human beings) struggle and tend to waffle when they consider the question either what is law or what is a "right", or what are "rights" Do you think you can help me with what that particular they clear and obvious reason is? It really is rather screamingly obvious, but don't expect me to tell you, you must come to of your own motion. The best I can do is tell you whether you are warmer or colder, nearer to it or further away, thus coming to it can only be oppress of dialectic or something taken in stages.
@@vhawk1951kl > Do you see that the whole nonsense is merely a form of psychological algebra, specifically X = Y, where neither X nor Y have any value whatsover? < No. If I were to assume that the the "X = Y" were a direct analogy, no. I don't see how "X = Y" is related to the Hohfeldian Analysis. > All this nonsense about so-called 'rights' is a species of what region or area of human experience? By way of a clue, consider this: can a mirror reflect itself? < Philosophy and Law? > It really is rather screamingly obvious, but don't expect me to tell you. The best I can do is tell you whether you are warmer or colder [...], thus coming to the answer can only be in the process of a dialectic, or something taken in stages. < Why so? Wouldn't it something be better understod through the immediate realisation of the answer from someone who knows what they're talking about, rather than just stabbing into the dark and hoping they can 1) find the coherent answer; and 2) not hit said more knowledgeable person?
@@theboxygenie Try to be more specific about what you do not or cannot understand, rather than rehearsing the entirety of what you have been told and saying why, like the child that keeps repeating why to every answer that its interlocutor gives it It would help me to help you if you identify specifically and exactly what it is that you do not or cannot understand. Presumably you can grasp that if you are asked to define X, you do not define it by substituting for one undefined-X (which is undefined,) another undefined- Y, (which is equally undefined) which comes to X=Y=X. *Can* you understand that? If you cannot understand that, it would be pointless for me to seek to convey anything to you or no different from trying to convey blueness to one that has been blind from birth, or music to one that has been deaf to one that has been deaf from birth; what*specifically* do you or can you, not understand? The generality of my point is that the idea of " rights" is so unfocused or blurred that is as impossible to clarify or define it as it is to identify someone(say X) by reference to a photograph of X that is unfocused, or no more than a blur, such that it is impossible to identify the features of whoever(X) that has been photographed through a lens that is incapable of focus, or see through a fog. If you are going to persist in repeating 'why' to everything I say, you had best tell me as soon as possible that I do not waste my wits on those that are witless. You must at least make some effort to be specific, if that appears on your menu of possibilities, moreover unless you have a level or degree of learning of at least degree level, and preferably in law or jurisprudence, you will place me in the position of one that seeks to set out the complexities of the calculus to one that cannot even master simple arithmetic, which is an example of the general(both prescriptive and descriptive) law that it is impossible to impart the beginnings of understanding to one that has no wits or understanding whatsoever, and the first step on the road towards*any* understanding is to have a more or less clear understanding of one one does not understand, and to be more or less specific about that also. Are you going to keep repeating why to that or any of its elements?
@@vhawk1951kl Oh, it was unclear to me that you were referring to "the idea of 'rights' being unfocused or blurred such that it is impossible to clarify or define it." Thus, in your example, Y would be the Hohfeldian Analysis, would it not? Your main point is that the idea of "rights" unfocused/blurred. Can you back this up?
@@theboxygenie I am quite content to let you do that for me by demonstrating that you have not the faintest idea what you mean by rights nor what notion is convey to you by that fuzzy blurred photograph, so you yourself will back me up as you put it ending a sentence with a preposition, my objection to which is aesthetic because prepositions look so ugly and stupid flapping around uselessly in the wind at the end
Why not seek to come to some understanding of "rights" or a "right" by yourself without looking to others to "tell" you? The lecturer has not the slightest idea of what rights are, or a "right" is, he is merely telling you about somebody else's idea/opinion, and not a particularly good or adequate one at that. Very broadly speaking prudence (which is a branch of philosophy) is only studied at the end of a law degree when the student already has at least two years of study of law generally - some slight information about law, and it is utterly futile to embark upon jurisprudence without at least 30 years' experience of law in practice, moreover a wide range of law in practice, because otherwise it is merely dreaming without practice, and thus jurisprudence is no more than dreaming without practice, and by the same token all philosophy is no more than dreaming - without practice or experience. The reason that the more rarefied areas of heavyweight intellectual subjects are only canvassed by those who have reached a certain age is that they can only be canvassed by those with some experience. In the words of a rather wonderful Ugandan proverb: "the old men sit in the shade under the trees because they planted trees many years ago." There is no particular reason that it should surprise me that some of the greatest wisdom in the form of proverbs have come out of Africa, not least the one just mentioned but also the rather wonderful: "You cannot change the wind, so change the sails". There is a particularly good reason why men (human beings) simply cannot come up with any clear definition of either law or rights. Do you think you can come to some idea of why that is?
Excuse me, I'm a bit confused... Should I attempt to think of my own definition of 'rights', or should I rather not do that because only people with at least 30 years of experience of law can properly do that? Either way, while I do try and think of the world myself, I also enjoy hearing the thoughts and perspectives of others. Especially when they are more experienced in the field concerned. That's the whole idea of education isn't it? You get told about what the people before you thought (be it about philosophy, law, or natural science), and then when you reached that level of knowledge you can build upon it with your own thoughts. But yes, I certainly agree that 'law' or 'rights' are difficult things to define, since they're concepts made up entirely by humans/human society (or rather, societies). So there probably won't ever be just one definition. It's still interesting to think and hear about :)
Great video as always Olly! Would natural rights fall into the category of rights that we cannot infer via this means. Again I know that they would be classed under liberties, but that does not explain how they would be inferred via this means.
You only have a right if you can keep it yourself. If you can't its not your right, but the right of the person that allows you to have the right. Max Sterner Gang
2 things I thought of, of the top of my head. 1) How does this relate to parent/children relationships? We accept that children do have some liberties, but that parents have claims over these in a lot of instances. This could also apply to people with mental dissabilities or others who might need some sort of assistance. 2) Can one use his or her liberty, to remove ones own claim? Let's say that we live in a country where euthenasia is illegal. But if a person wants to die, wants to give up their claim on life or whatever claims creates the duty of others not to kill that person. Does that mean that these people shouldn't be prosecuted? I am biased cause I'm pro-euthenasia. But it seems like a dodgy line.
off topic I know, but re your reference to falsifiability, any thoughts on the current debate in phi of sci on the practical limitations of Poppers falsifiability test and proposals for using other methods such as Bayesianism? A vid on Poppers falsifiability would be great.
When applying Hohfeld's analysis to rights, does it specify certain types of rights or "sects" of rights? For example, everyone knows the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but what about someone with a second level ability to affect those? Does that technically mean the president or any form of governmental power can impede those whenever and we have the liability to follow that? And does that also affect the way Hohfeld's analysis is seen as either moral or legal if things most consider moral can or cannot be taken away?
Rather than define or focus the idea of a right or rights, Hohfeld does no more then tell you that there are various different species of right and it may be also what he calls but does not define, duties, and and goes on to declare that some of them are blue others pink others green, but not exactly what a right or rights* is* or are, in other words he dances round the idea of rights rather like a girl on a dancefloor or dances *round* her handbag - he does no more than waffle *around* the word rights which tells you absolutely nothing about right or what they are or might be, or simply he goes into a species of psychological algebra or substituting for one undefined idea or word yet another or other undefined ideas or words
Awesome video. Maybe it's just me, but I do think the first order rights can contradict each other depending on what rights a person has. Here's my example: -Claim: I have a right to life. -Duty: It's your duty to not kill me. -Liberties: I have a right to kill myself since it's my body (a bit morbid I know) -No-Claim: You cannot stop me from killing myself. If I were to commit suicide, would I be infringing upon one of my basic human rights even though my suicide itself is another right that I have? Would I myself have a duty not to kill myself? Maybe it all boils down to choice. If someone else were to murder me, then it wouldn't be my choice to die. But if I did it, then it would be my choice. Can my own free will (or supposed free will) override my rights?
+Marquise Williams I heard an argument against suicide being that when you are suicidal, you are not autonomous (i.e. you have some mental problem causing you to be suicidal). So, when you do have that chemical imbalance in the brain, you're not really yourself and you don't have the right to make the decision your "sober" (for the lack of a better word) self wouldn't make. Kind of like how a person addicted to drugs doesn't exactly have the right to keep going even though we should all have the autonomy to choose whether or not we want to. I think the argument gets more interesting when you get into euthanasia. An elderly person who is in pain signed a living will that he didn't want to be on life support, so what's the obligation of his family? In a place where it's illegal, they wouldn't have the legal right, but would they still have the moral right? If the decision was made when the person was of sound mind and body, my points earlier stop working. And yet, while the person may have the right to die, having the right to live (despite not wanting it) forces others to respect it.
+Marquise Williams It all boils down to property rights. All rights stem from property rights. Knowing this, the answer is clear: I have the right to kill myself because I own my body.
+Nitsugalego Good point. Kinda like how I can sell my own house but you can't sell mine since it's not your house. Brice Burchett does also make some good points with not being totally autonomous if you are suffering from some mental disease like depression. So with that being said, I guess I should have the right to kill myself if I am of a sober mindset (which is pretty much euthanasia). I know we're getting into some extremely dark territory, but I feel like the whole First Order system can be either contradictory or paradoxical under certain circumstances. But what if I have a family to take care of and provide for, and my euthanasia (meaning I'm "autonomous" in this decision) means that they would lose some of their rights like the the right to eat (claim) and the right to shelter (claim) because they can't afford it themselves? Would my liberty (right to kill myself) go against their claim (right to eat, right for shelter)? If I think of my family as property, then my suicide wouldn't infringe on any rights. But if I think of my family as individual people with individual rights, it seems like the whole thing runs a bit into a snag. Sorry for the cumbersome response. And before you ask cause I know someone will, NO I'm not planning to kill myself and YES I'm very fun at parties. I still crank that Soldier Boy on the dance floor.
@Nari'ed E. A person who is born drunk (bruchett's example) can't act sober (the normalized version that society expects). This may easily become a life of unmitigated suffering which continuously exceeds the joys of life. Pain spread around in time and space will eventually convince the person to choose nothingness instead of the negative. Seeing no end to suffering usually becomes the cause of suicide. For example, in nazi concentration camps, people would run towards electric wire fences to die immediately instead of being worked to death or gassed out. They were not depressed, in fact they were doing very well in their lives just a few months back.
@@marquisewilliams3904 They still have the right to life so the state should provide them the means to live (I'd consider a job they could reasonably do and get to to be means, as well as money or just the shelter and food and stuff) if you died, regardless of how or why you died.
+Robert Wofford I've looked everywhere and I can't find any evidence of having made one, but I mean I COULD still have done it???? Do you see what I did there?
Yes, hahaha nice. I would very much appreciate it. Once again I appreciate all of your work. This is a subject I have an interest in, but I am having some difficulty fully grasping.
If I have a duty to keep a promise it does not necessarily translate to you having a right to enforce the promise because my duty arises from my voluntary obligation to undertake that responsibility, it’s enforceability has nothing to do with your right
Thank you for this very awesome video.I like it when things are broken down to fundamental levels, it makes it easier to apply it to our indivdual understandings. :D . I have a question , i am afraid it is not direclty related to 'rights' but hopefullyu will guide me somehow I do not have the right phrases to describe the exactly in one sentence but here goes "What is the most objective way of understading the reality surrounding me? Every time i read a story or theory written by person who have lived through it, i feel that i may never understand it completely as that original person has. So what conceptual tools can i use to narrow that gap? How can i 'artifically' create a 'lived experience' that comes closer to what the original person has experienced. Can there be middle ground between theory and practice ? " thanks
I believe it was Descartes who believed one cannot view the world objectively as one's senses induce a personal bias on each individual perception and observation. In attempt to answer your question, it's impossible to receive 100% of objective observations, and to receive even close to that amount from another's, however slightly biased, observation is still impossible. One suggestion I have would be to attempt to experience everything you can in nature to understand a theory through one's own observations viewed through personal senses.
+Hailemelekot N. What gterry said but my suggestion is slightly different. Like her, I recommend first developing your critical thinking. I don't think you have to apply it to yourself first though; instead, analyze the line of argument/ thought of a subject. At some point in any analysis, you'll always hit a faith threshold, where the person can no longer be objective. BTW, doing a critical analysis on yourself is how you develop self awareness. Such unexamined premises demarcates their belief, which also shapes their world view. If you can accurately identify the belief and then form arguments from those premises, you'll be able to see the world through their eyes. Sort of like how your own unexamined premises is what makes you see the world in your own way.
@@gterrymedJR Not so much "believed", but positively asserted; belief is passive automatic faute de mieux and a weakness. He was making the point that it is not possible for men to be impartial, which is self -evidently the case
If you please, and if that be the case perhaps you are capable setting out *exactly* what you mean by, or how you define, a right, or rights or what you seek to convey when you use the words, or what *exact* associations are evoked in the associative apparatus when you hear or use the word or words right or rights. What *exactly* are people doing when they say that they certainly have rights or if you yourself assert yourself to have a right or rights what *exactly* are you asserting?. There is absolutely nothing objectionable about your confessing that although you have some very vague generalised idea of a right or rights, for the life of you cannot discover anything clear or precise about either rights or a right, such that you can identify its salient features, and it may help you if you understand the difference between a definition and description and that a definition must enable whoever is doing the defining or having the defining set out to them, to distinguish whatever it is from all else, and that without reference to cognates and synonyms and or resorting to defining one undefined term by reference to another or other undefined terms,.The plain fact of the matter is that you will discover that you are wholly unable to do so anymore than you can discover of what something is a photograph if that photograph is unfocused - you can make out something, but you can't make out exactly what it is. Is that not exactly the case for you? Oddly enough, exactly the same goes for various other vague generalisations or vague words/ideas such as law, ownership and what are called morals or moral or ethics or ethical. The plain fact of the matter is that some ideas that can be found in the mire or fog of the human associative apparatus or brain, or mind, that simply cannot be focused, what is simply impossible to discover anything exact and precise about the salient features of whatever they are supposed to be, or in short men (human beings) tend to speak of vague generalisations and use words which represents no more than vague generalisations, and that is the best they can do without confessing they have not the faintest idea what those vague generalisations are are,or of what they are merely vague generalisations and no *more* than.
In order to have a claim to something, you must also be at liberty not to use it; to do the opposite. A claim to life is only a right if you equally have the liberty to end your life; if you only have the option to live, it is a duty rather than a claim. Thus the claim can't just be part of a pair, but it must come in a quartet: -A claim to continuing your own life -A duty to not end another's life -No claim to the continuation of another's life -The liberty to end your own life The liberty can however exist as just a pair with the no-claim. Having the liberty to end your own life does infer that others do not have a claim to the continuation of your life, but it does not necesarily grant you a claim to continuing your life or a duty for others not to end it. I'm not sure whether a duty neccesitates a claim either. If you are imposed a duty to continue living your life, that duty doesn't seem to have a claim of anyone in particular to you continuing your life. Maybe the government, in which case I suppose the government is at liberty to end your life (again: otherwise they don't really have a claim to it) and you have no claim to the continuation of your own life. Considering however that plenty of situations exist where neither you, nor the government, nor anyone else, is at liberty to kill you; it seems like duties can exist without granting anyone a particular claim to it; instead all parties (including yourself) have a duty not to end your life. Similarly I don't see the no-claim as neccesitating a liberty. If I have no claim to consensually marrying another woman, that doesn't provide anyone with any additional liberty
It feels like the problem arises from a semantic (or lexical) limitation which names different (and often incompatible) incidents (to use your own term). I do not think that essential (or natural) rights are the same "phenomenon" that the duties, or claims that arise from contracts.
In the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights (www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/), Article 23 says "Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment." What does that mean from a Hohfeldian perspective? Does someone else have a duty to provide me with work? If so, who? Is it the government, or is it my fellow citizens? Or, as you said in the video, is it a moral right, meaning business owners have a moral obligation to not only their current employees, but to their potential employees as well? (Personally, I would say that yes, absolutely they do, and that therefore the "right to work" laws in several states are violating workers rights. But that's just, like, my opinion)
glad to have learnt sth, but... i was hoping to get an answer to WHAT makes a right a right? Do you have any literature on that? how is freedom of speech a right? why isn’t a privilege? for example.
What is a "thought",or are "thoughts"? What characteristic might make a thought or thoughts of a higher or lower " order". There is a particularly good (and screamingly obvious) reason why men (human beings) simply cannot come to any clear understanding of whatever it is that they are trying to express or convey when they speak of law or rights, or thoughts for that matter. Do you think you can be of any assistance to me as to precisely what that screamingly obvious reason is? Blue can a mirror reflected itself? There really is a remarkably good reason and clear reason why it is that men(human beings) cannot even begin to define law or rights or a right. The best to which they can come is no more than a vague approximation thereof.
Also worth mentioning that liberties and powers are classifiable as "active" rights, while claims and immunities are "passive" rights, and that all of this is separate entirely from positive and negative rights. Almost all of the discourse on positive and negative rights is implicitly about first-order passive rights (claims), and only discusses active or second-order rights by implication of those claims.
When talking about negative rights the duty this right implies is a non-action. However a duty not to perform an action can never be a duty. It’s like saying you owe me zero dollars. If you don’t owe me any money, I simply do not have a claim on you. Likewise, if you owe me a non-action, there is no duty to perform. How does this work in the hohfeldian model?
"He responded to the Question by not giving a response." "His action was to take no action against them" By the way, you own me zero dollars, now pay up.
Does anyone agree that adultery in committed relationships does not fit this model. a person id physically at liberty to cheat and the partner has no claim but partners sometimes impose duties on each other without having a claim to do so. does power/ other second order rights come into it?
Sounds pretty straight forward to me. However, would this model still work if we were talking about animal rights? Given that they exist, then, as far as animal rights are concerned, there is no active participation on the side of the animal. I mean, how would we even communicate?
The model might have a problem explaining the right to certain commodities needed for human life if scarcity becomes an issue. For example, if you claim that access to clean water is a right, but there is not enough clean water for everyone to have it, the model does not seem to me to have a way to deal with the dispute other then claiming that clean water is not a right.
the "well" performs what function? "widely accepted" is rely a fallacious appeal to a democracy of truth. The common currency point is valid only insofar as it is any kind of definition, which self-evidently it is not. It amounts to no more than others have no clue either.
To me, these second order rights sound more like privileges. A ship captain only has them because of his position of authority and if he abuses them, mutiny is an option.
I think it is useful. The best example that comes to mind right now is gay rights. The Supreme Court ruled that same sex marriage is legal and can not be infringed upon. They have a liberty to marry whoever they want and other people have no claim to interfere with that regardless of personal opinion. Unfortunately there are those who will deny same sex couples things like jobs and services which do violate their liberty.
A much better example of immunities would be things like most of the rights in the (American) Bill of Rights, which are explicitly limits on the powers of the government, and conversely establish immunities for the people with respect to that government. The right to freedom of speech isn't just a liberty to speak freely, an absence of any claim against you speaking, it is an immunity against the power of the government to take away that liberty. The Constitution in general is traditionally seen as saying nothing about first-order rights, but only second-order rights: it's all about who has what powers and immunities, with your claims and liberties either being pre-existing (and unchangeable if you have immunities protecting them), or created and modified over time by whoever the power to do so is granted to.
What are human rights? More religion, religion being defined as : Any set of related unquestioned beliefs, assumptions, presumptions, preconceptions and norms(that bunk that men call morals or ethics)[not necessarily having anything to do with the god idea]
Hohfeld's analysis, second level, is basically might is right, because: The captain has POWER and can change duties of the crew, the crew has LIABILITY and must allow the captain to change their duties; the admiral has IMMUNITY, (s)(he) takes orders from no one, and thus the captain has DISABILITY, and can't do anything to the admiral----so the admiral is basically God -- and from this analysis alone, rights are basically might is right. However, it does not say who has or should have IMMUNITY, so depending on your belief about who should have IMMUNITY, this can go many ways: For example, democracy means IMMUNITY comes from consent of the people, and autocracy means IMMUNITY comes from the "good". I understand Hohfeld's analysis to be: Not answering the question: "What are rights?" But rather, "How most humans think and do about rights?" The first level is basically The Golden Rule, or empathy's evolutionary advantage, empathy being the backbone of human ethics, i.e. evolutionary biology; the second level is basically social behavior in general, alpha male, drone, and so on, i.e. the factor that made it possible to domesticate cows: Because they have similar social psychology to humans, and humans simply take on the alpha role and domestication is done, almost naturally, note that in the case of humans this proclivity for social hierarchy was really boosted by evolutionary adaptation to agrarian society, i.e. in hunter-gatherer both man and woman hunt, in agrarian, the table turned. In summary: Hohfeld does not give us a system for ideally arriving at rights, he describes the system that we actually use in the real world to come up with rights we are actually invoking now. Thus my objection to Hohfeld is that it's naturalistic fallacy: just because it's natural, does not necessarily mean it's good; just because it's unnatural does not mean it's necessarily bad: Indeed what Hohfeld describes is what naturally happens, but I think it also naturally happens that the second level is begging for abuse of power, sure, if you choose democracy then the IMMUNITY part is kept in check by the people, but can we really choose democracy? When our biological proclivity for hierarchy leans in favor of autocracy? This biological proclivity which is the second level of the analysis... And then abuse of power follows naturally; the environment where such proclivities was an advantage is long gone, but not the adaptation... Even the first level's empathy is far from perfect, for empathy is limited, we simply aren't telepathic, and while I argue that---- a psychiatrist understanding schizophrenia so well (s)(he) extrapolates from that understanding a general sketch of what the patient might be feeling such that (s)(he) could successfully sympathize with the patient leading to successful treatment----is empathy, I have found that generally humans feel uncomfortable with such conception of empathy.
I think second level rights are really just an extension of contracts. A boss can't demand that I go to a job at a place I haven't agreed to work. However, if I take a job working at a particular place, then my boss can impose a duty on me to be at a certain place at a certain time in order to perform a certain task. Even then, he can't impose the duty that I keep the job, because I'm still free to quit. Governments are tricky, because they only have authority because the social contract says that we elect them to protect our freedom. A government may outlaw something that isn't a threat to freedom (e.g. non-violent drug users), but then we get into a situation of the contract being violated, because they're passing and enforcing a law that inhibits freedom rather than protects it. So the legal right is being taken away, but the moral right is not, and ideally, legal rights would reflect moral rights. Likewise, if I have ten dollars, and someone comes along and wants to take it from me, I have the right to keep it. If he points a gun at me, I'm going to lose the ten dollars, but I still haven't lost the moral or legal right to that ten dollars. It still belongs in my hand, even if it's no longer where it belongs. Alternatively, if I have ten dollars, and I say I'm willing to bet it on a hand of blackjack, and then I lose that hand, not only have I lost the money, but I've also lost the right to it, because I chose to enter into a verbal contract which superseded my ownership rights. So while people can impose their will, they can't impose duty unless you agree to it. I guess the exception to this would be children who aren't old enough to exercise their own rights, but that's a whole other topic.
When children aren't old enough to exercise their own rights, then you add a third person (four elements). The adult enforces the child's first order rights rather than creating any new rights or duties. It's basically like a bodyguard who enforces a celebrity's first order right to not get shot-- there are no new rights involved (although a bodyguard would be under a contract involving second order rights, unlike the adult in the case of the young child.)
If you please, but consider for a moment, what exactly are you doing or what do you envisage when you use the word right or rights?It is all very well to say that rights are very often found in conjunction with duties, but that is little more than a description and doesn't even begin to to be a definition, or what distinguishes rights from all else - what exactly are men (human beings) or anyone saying when they assert a right?
Does it work as a liberty though or do I just have the same claim to life and their duty changes to something else? I am sort of almost seeing this as something that doesn't quite work inside this thing like he was talking about. I could also just be a compete twit and be misunderstanding something.
That sounds logical according to the way it was explained here. Thanks for this always nice to have conversations and help in understand things like this.
Well the only reason I do is simply I enjoy my freedom. Most rights if infringed upon will end up with the infringing party segregated from the rest. Typically in prison with the way things are done now.
With regard to Second Order Rights, why should any individual be granted Power and Immunity? You could say that democracy is essentially the majority giving permission that their rights (and thus the factors associated) be altered, but what about the minority? I suppose the thrust of this is, why should anyone have Second order rights over anyone else? What grants them that?
FWIW the president's role is to enforce law not create it. That responsibility belongs to congress, while the supreme court applies constitutional principles.
+Bobby Johnson That's the on-the-tin model I was told in civics class, but deciding how (or whether) to enforce a law is a basic part of deciding what the law actually is, and judicial review of executive has almost as substantive a role in codifying the legal code as congress has. The three are always all making up what the law is.
Good old psychical algebra: X=Y=X where neither X nor Y gave a value or definition. The blind leading the blind, a puppy purporting to "teach" puppies.
If I have the liberty to be "a gender of my choosing", surely that doesn't impose any duty on _you_ other than to accept my choice? And, put like that, why is it so hard for many people to accept that duty? ... Okay, when it comes to who pays for gender reassignment surgery, I can see cause for concern, but...
Why stop at sex?-why not choose you genus or species or chose to be a pot-of-geraniums, possibly a trans-pot-of-geraniums? Wherein lies the difference? You are no more a sex-that-you-are-not, tan you are an object that-yo-are-not.. No womb, not a woman; simple as that. That you deceive yourself deceives no other.
It doesn't seem to me like you sufficiently explained the foundational first order concepts. For example, if someone is at Liberty to kill you, then according to your framing you have no claim on them not to kill you so they have no duty not to kill you. This also doesn't explain where the force of a duty comes from; if you have a claim on them to not kill you, the only thing that would enforce their duty to not kill you would be your ability to prevent them from doing so. This doesn't so much make the idea of a duty something that a person has within them, unless, of course, there is a sense of obligation; it would more so be that it's a limitation put upon them.
I'm not sure if this is the wording of the Hohfeldian analysis, but it bugs me, as a lawyer, to hear the words "if I have a claim, that means you have a responsibility", because in legal terms, at least in UK English, the correct analysis is: - If I have a RIGHT, that right has a correlative RESPONSIBILITY (we more commonly say DUTY); - If I have a RESPONSIBILITY, that does not necessarily mean someone has a correlative right (for example, there are a lot of duties on public bodies that have no specific means of enforcement, or the Party Wall Act 1999 provides a lot of duties without creating and rights (one could argue that a right is implicit if there is a duty, but one could also argue that a right with no means of enforcement is not really a right); - A CLAIM only arises once a RESPONSIBILITY which has a correlative RIGHT has been breached (and often only if there has been any loss arising out of it).
I have a question: if my reasoning is correct, everyone has the duty to report crimes and the government has a claim on them punish them for not doing so. But a therapist or such like has to take an oath not to divulge their patients' secrets and the government recognises that. So do therapists have second order rights to overrule their first order ones?
+ExistentialOcto I think we'd say therapists (and doctors and clergy) are relieved of that first-order duty by people with second-order rights. FWIW, my understanding is that citizens have surprisingly few legal duties to report crimes unless asked by an LEO (and I think even fewer moral duties in some cases), and therapists are actually more likely to have to report crimes if they're indicative of an ongoing dangerous situation.
i feel like the second order rights as defined in the video are more privileges. i had never thought of them as rights... interesting thought though. a right which is not held by every person, hmm. personally i am of the opinion that rights are about morality. but i think law should be created with morality in mind. it is immoral to kill therefore we made it illegal to kill. but of course there are arguments to say that morality should be informed by legality. and arguments to say that legal things are really just based upon function and independent of morality. i really need to think more on this and do some more research
@@vhawk1951kl Exactly what it says. An opinion based upon intuition and not on logical argument. That was 5 years ago, now i would give it a slightly different analysis: i think there are two different but related things covered under the term "rights". There are human rights where it's immoral to ever violate them. And then there's legal rights like "the right to bear arms" where it is given by law and not necessarily connected to morality and not necessarily universal. I think past me got confused because i didn't separate the two. Second order rights make plenty of sense in the context of legal rights, and second order rights just don't exist in the context of human rights.
It doesn't seem necessary to define rights/duties/claims etc. in pairs. If I have a right to live, it's implicit that you don't have a right to kill me. It would be like saying that a person's location inside a house coincides with his location as being not outside... (unless he's leaning out a window or something, but that's beside the point).
+Shawn Ravenfire If its implicit then you have already defined rights in pairs. If my right to live, implies you don't have a right to kill me then you agree with this model (in this instance). In philosophy everything needs to be clearly and rigorously defined, so its important to define this theory before trying to apply it
Delta X I guess you're right. It's like those guys who wrote an entire book to prove that one plus one is two. I guess really intellectual people don't want to take anything for granted.
@@ShawnRavenfire That isn't even the most ridiculous part. They even proved some really obvious and implicit stuff like: If A is a number in one set, and B is a number in another set, and A =! B, a set which encompasses these two sets will contain two numbers.
Every single individual has the exact same rights. The members of the ruling class (including the president) have the exact same rights as everyone else. It would be impossible for them to acquire "extra rights" since nobody could give these extra "rights" to them. This is why all forms of government are illegitimate aside from self-government. If you are going to make a video about rights, it would be good if you knew what you were talking about. If there is no victim due to someones actions, there is no crime which means the individual is just exercising his natural rights.
Why can't rights be both legal AND moral? If they are legal, wouldn't the legalities be constructed from morality anyway? And if they were moral, isn't the legality there to enforce those morals?
''Why can't rights be both legal AND moral? ''they could be''If they are legal, wouldn't the legalities be constructed from morality anyway?''since morality is subjective the laws may reflect a version of morality thatdoesn't result in fair decisions
+Jahman Davine Slight misunderstanding here. Olly never claimed 'we all understand DNA, right? so lets use that analogy as the jumping off point', which indeed would be a bad idea, as we no not 'all understand DNA'. What he did state was 'this aspect (the 'can be broken down in 4 'things' where each is linked directly to 1 other, resulting in corresponding pairs') works the same as in DNA, so those who do understand DNA will have an easier time following the consequences of 'corresponding pairs' as they already understand the concept'. Which is true. (and hints at NOT assuming 'we all understand DNA')
No, no. There exists no 1st order or 2nd order rights, as only rights exists. A "president" that you claim has 2nd order rights, only has powers to enforce rights. The president is of the executive branch, after all.
Here's a question then: What gives us the right to have a right? Why do humans have more rights than animals, and they have more rights than plants? Why do certain humans under certain conditions get more rights than others (i.e. age, licenses, etc)?
Sure it's falsifiable. If you can create a right that could work in a contract or law but doesn't fit the model, you have disproven its assertion of universality.
I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. (Luke 13:5 [KJV]) And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: (Hebrews 9:27) Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. (Matthew 7:13-14) For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. (Romans 10:13)
Not a bad rough stab at a definition and more an opinion than a definition, and not really a definition at all and there is a particular reason why rights or a "right" are impossible to define and the first person to identify that reason gets a prize; clue: focus on what a definition is. the speaker has no idea what a "right" is, he is merely giving you another's opinion absent one of his own. the reason that he has no idea is that he is looking in the wrong place but has no idea that he is looking in the wrong place because he is young and looks to others all the time, lacking the confidence to do his own analysis bless him but at least he is well spoken, speaks as does a gentleman, but he babbles, because he is young in the sense of lacking experience and confidence. There is a very good and simple reason why men (human beings)simply cannot define their terms such as "law" or rights", now who can identify that very simple reason? Clue: A mirror cannot reflect itself. Now who can tell me why men cannot define their terms be they law, rights, morals, or whatever
Apparently a right(and none including Hohfeld have the faintest idea what a "right"is) can come in a variety of flavours shapes and forms, but is anyone any closer to a tight definition of what a "right" is? Of course not. All the puppy does is chatter a-b-o-u-t "rights" , but an actual d-e-f-i-n-i-t-i-o-n of a " right"?-Not on your life
Why not joust accept that while men(human beings) talk and bleat about rights, not a single one of them has any clear idea what a right is, nor can eve begin to define a right. Why not just accept that? Men use theses vague generalised words to indicate a vague feralization of which they have no very clear idea at al, and you only discover that when you challenge them to define whatever it is or invite them to set out clearly what they seek to convey when they use them. Short answer: They have not the faintest idea. Of course one or another of them will earnestly tell you that there are all sorts of rights, but what a right actually is? No chance. Why don't they just admit they have no idea what a right is? Because they feel right fools when they have been talking about something of which they have no clear idea whatsoever, and no-one cares to recognise facts.
Well let's consider the right to self-defense for example. It corresponds to other peoples bodies (since if they attack you you can hurt them), so it would seem that I don't have the right to self-defense because it does not correspond to what is only mine. Is this your meaning?
What you (and Hoffeld) talk about is a construct. Like a dance. Its not absolute. History knows many examples when simple sailor found himself in position to order an admiral. For law to be a LAW it has to be absolute. You can't suspend or modify the law of thermodynamics, can you. So laws are social constructs open for interpretation and suspension and if it is so - then they are rules and privileges. Not laws. Here today, gone tomorrow. Is there a real RIGHT then? Yes. But YOU have to first give it to YOURSELF and then act on it. And it helps to be smart least you'll get crushed by unhappy about your rights majority because... group represent might, and might is right too.
A definition is the intersection of a differentiative concept with an integrative concept. This video defines nothing. This video is a load of crap. "A right is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man's (More accurately: a conceptually thinking life form.) range of activity in a social environment. A corollary of this is the principle that a man must never initiate the use of physical force in human interactions. The validation of rights is that rights are necessary for man to use his faculty of reason and reason is man's sole and most fundamental natural tool of survival. Rights derive not from Legislative Law nor from Divine Law but from the Law of Identity; man is man." ---Ayn Rand
