The world’s top chess federation has ruled that transgender women cannot compete in its official events for females until an assessment of gender change is made by its officials.
The world’s top chess federation has ruled that transgender women cannot compete in its official events for females until an assessment of gender change is made by its officials.
Right. Which is why they’re doing the uyghurs so much good right now. Those intrinsic rights sure are protecting them.
Point being, they’re only intrinsic because we say so.
I think I see what’s going wrong in this conversation.
By definition, “rights” can be legal, social, or ethical.
To you, they are only a legal thing and if they don’t exist in law or custom, then to you they don’t exist.
But to me, (and others here) they also have an ethical dimension and exist as an ethical value independent of the legal or social useage.
Saying ethics depend on laws and customs would be moral relativism (which is a tricky thing to hold for most people, because of the implications around stuff like child rape and murder being ok if everyone was doing it).
I agree. I explicitly said I’m only referring to which one is functionally more powerful.
I would point to history though, to show thousands of years where rape and child murder were considered just fine, in certain circumstances. You had to be conquering a city or something, but then it wasn’t too unusual to murder and sell the population into slavery.
Ethics, in its entirety, is also one of our creations. We all tacitly agree to something of a unified code of ethics that we follow to keep our societies running smoothly. This code, unless it was given by some divine structure, though, remains one of our constructions, through whatever governmental/organizational structure we exist in.
Just curious, are you pointing to history because you are adhering to moral relativism (i.e you think that doing those things was just fine because so many people thought it was)?
No, I am not describing my personal beliefs, merely arguing what I perceive to be an objective position. I think the idea that right and wrong can exist outside of people’s judgements is a little silly, honestly. I am not a philosopher though, admittedly.
I’m actually not trying to argue with you, @Candelestine, just trying to work out what your perceived “objective position” is so I can understand you. It does kind of sound like moral relativism if you think “wrong” is only a construct.
If that’s the case, I can see why you don’t believe in inalienable human rights.
So, I guess I don’t. I give people inalienable rights, but I do not think they exist outside of our opinions. We choose the things we value, and some things make more sense to value than others.
This is why it remains so important to fight for the rights of people. Because otherwise we will not necessarily receive them.
Thanks for explaining your position. One nitpick, if rights only exist when/where they are given, then they can’t be “inalienable”. You believe rights are alienable (able to be removed).
But I agree with you totally about the importance of fighting for rights to be extended politically, recognised and not violated.
In the end, it doesn’t much matter whether you think people have rights from an ethical point of view or if you just think they should be given them - we both want the same outcome.
The only problem arises if there is a group of people you want to take human rights away from.
Those Uyghurs had and have rights whether the Chinese government knows it or not. Bad things happening doesn’t make those things suddenly not-bad.
The sky is only blue because we decided on the word “blue” for that frequency of light, and there’s plenty of other things that are the way they are just because we say so.
And if this isn’t just a “I just don’t think ‘rights’ are the correct word” semantic argument for you here, please refer back to the first two sentences.