Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Red Team Ethics/ Politics/Economics
If you assume that every person on the face of the earth is in fact intrinsically good do you think that people would live a just and good life without a political system? Depending on which theory you support whether that is relativism, consequentialism, egoism, or utilitarianism your theory pertaining to a just and good world without a political system might differ from mine. It is a common understanding that rights come from nature, that they have a “natural foundation”. Meaning that from the moment you are born, you have the right to live, and there is not one person that has the right to take that from you. So a right is attached to a person and it can not be taken away. This might be true, but what if someone said they had the right to steal from you? How could you argue what that person’s rights are without looking toward something concrete, like the US Constitution. Hull says that rights that come from political communities would be non existent if they were not protected by the legal and political system. Therefore human rights are only given meaning by the “documents and discussions in which they emerge.” I see Hull’s perspective on rights to support my statement that people would not live a just and good life without the presence of a political system.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I completely agree that the presence of a political system is essential. Rights are a privelage and should not be taken advantage of. If there were no laws, or no US constitution than people would have the power to develop and enforce any rights that they believe they deserve. I do not know if I believe that every person on the face of the earth is intrisically good, or else we could trust that people would create fair and just rights for themselves and we would not have to worry about people thinking they have the right to take someones life, or the right to own anothers life. The fact that we have laws and a constitution proves the fact that all are not intrisically good or else we wouldn't have them. In order for us all to live a just and good life, there need to be boundaries set. With "just and fair" come laws and boundaries. We cannot all just walk doing whatever we please because in some way it will harm another person. I do agree that we are all born with the right to live, but I feel that all other rights you have must be the same as everybody else. I also do not think that everybody should be able to do as they please as long as they're not harming anybody. We discussed in class that some believe that the consumsion of drugs should be legal as long as it does not harm anybody. But I believe that with drugs and the business involved there will always be violence and harm even though it may be legal.
Hull says that rights "are founded in a political system." (pg 30a) And in class, most of us agree that the presence of a political system is important to protect people and their rights. But we also have to keep in mind that the rights within that system are insecure. We cannot depend totally on a political system to protect our rights. As Foner discussed in his writing, freedom (which I take as one of the human rights) is a matter of political struggle. What if something happened to the political system? What if the government is no longer able to protect its people? What if there are other nations invading our nation and they start to mess up with our life? Our rights to run our own country will be violated. Our rights to live a peaceful life will be violated. That is the case if we look towards the threat from outside of the nation. But what if the government itself is being monopolized by corrupt people? They have the power to modify the laws, which means they have the power to eliminate (or at least to limit) our rights. Therefore, in my opinion, despite of having their rights protected by the political system, it is not good enough. People still have to struggle in order to keep their rights, and to maintain their freedom.
Post a Comment