The Realities of Rights

Our awareness of our rights eminates from our heart’s ontological experience.

It is from this awareness that we get our endemic sense of right and wrong.

Behaving in a moral manner is to respect our rights, to behave rightly.

Behaving in an immoral manner is to disrespect our rights, to behave wrongly.

Thus respect for rights have to do with our existence and behavior toward one another.

There are three and only three general classes of rights: life, security, and freedom, listed here in value and conflict-resolving hierarchy sequence.

There is only one paramount, foundational right: the right to life. This is an existential or state of being right. This right is unalienable, inviolable and absolute, so that only God, not another human being, can rightly revoke this right.

From the paramount foundational right to life, there eminates the singular secondary right as a result: the right to physical and psychological security of person. This is a personal space right. This right is inviolable except when one is in the act of violating this or the foundational right of another.

From the paramount foundational right to life with respect to the singular secondary right, there eminates the singular tertiary right as a result: the right to freedom of action. This is an activity right. This right is situationally relative and may be rightly abridged, limited or revoked for justified circumstances either personally or collectively.

These are the only three general rights that exist. There are no more general rights than these.

Conditions and behaviors must be reasonable and customary, and then classified as belonging to one of these three “classes” of rights, thus making the behavior a “right”.

For example, the right of the behavior of self-defense is reasonable and customary and classified under the right of security of person, and that makes the behavior of self-defense a right.

If a person unjustifiably attacks you, something he has no right to do, threatening your life, you have the right of self-defense to deflect the attack. If the attack is truly life threatening and the attacker is killed in the process, the defender is not liable for violating the attacker’s right to life because the attacker was both 1) in the process of violating the defender’s foundational right and 2) the defender was executing his secondary level right.

When rights conflict then appeal is thus made to the level of rights involved. In the preceding example, the attacker had no right to make the life-threatening attack and the defender had every right to defend the threat against his life with equal force if necessary. Thus the decision goes to the defender, and the attacker’s right of security of person is suspended during the attack and the attacker’s appeal to the tertiary right of “freedom of action” is trumped not only by the defender’s appeal to the secondary right of security of person, but by the fact that the attacker had no right to the attack.

Conflict between behaviors that are both rights present a challenge for resolution.

The general rule of resolution is that the foundational right overrides the secondary right which overrides the tertiary right.

For example, a person wants to own a nuclear bomb. The person claims that owning a nuclear bomb is his freedom of action right. However, that freedom of action is not reasonable and customary, so such is not a right. So whether or not the person will be privileged to own a nuke will depend on the government.

However, in another example, a person wishes to own a gun for protection. The person claims that owning a gun is his freedom of action right. Circumstantially, it may also be a security of person right. Such a behavior is also reasonable and customary, so indeed owning a gun is a right.

However, freedom of action rights are, by nature, situationally relative, and may be abridged, limited or revoked for justified circumstances, either personally or collectively.

So although gun ownership is a right, the right may be revoked, for example, if the person is justifiably considered a threat to the right of security of person of another individual or people in general.

Resolution between two conflicting freedom of action rights becomes more complicated.

For example, it is reasonable and customary to allow the right of property owners to build on their land and sell them and it is reasonable and customary to allow people the right to drive their cars on the roads.

But if the roads are congested beyond acceptable function, governments may deny property owner “developers” the right to build homes on their property and sell them, as such would bring in new vehicles adding congestion to the roads and thus contribute to the revoking of the right to drive one’s car freely without constriction on the road.

Ultimately, however, rights in conflict involving freedom of action rights may appeal backwards to the secondary and foundational rights which always trump freedom of action rights.

So, for example, though we have freedom of action, if a crime is committed, the criminal may have his freedom of action rights abridged via a stay in the pokey. However, during his stay in prison it is a violation of his right of security of person to be subjected to “beatings” of various natures at Bubba’s whim.

All situational abrogation of rights follows this hierarchical appeal to the three classifications of rights.

These are the realities of rights.

Moral relativism is the irrational concept that rights can be arbitrarily suspended situationally without utilizing respect for the realities of rights in the suspension process.

Moral relativism is always a contrived immature excuse for utilitarian behavior of a quick-fix addictive nature where the user wishes to violate the rights of another with impunity to egotistically get what he wants.

Hitler’s experimentation on and attempted extermination of the Jews in the name of German science and nationalism is a most famous and representative example of moral relativism.

The pro-abortion perspective is another example of moral relativism.

The mental aberration of moral relativism is always in violation of the realities of rights, rights that orient in the heart, and thus moral relativism is behavior that is wrong.

Rights rightfully trump moral relativism every time, just like the heart rightfully trumps the mind, every time.


A very good thesis, but in most of the world, not even the first “right” is a given. Your position implies empowerment of the individual, and I’m not sure where we would find that condition.

An interesting thesis but I have a small issue with some of the premises:

You claim:

But then below state:

In the second passage you give an example of a situation where one may justifiably violate another’s right to life.

If the right to life is universal, inviolable, and absolute there can be no situation in which it would be justifiable to violate it. If the first premise is true, the second passage cannot be. If the second passage is true, the first cannot be.

If you are making an attempt to defeat moral relativism, (which, incidentally, I don’t agree with either) you must do some more work about defining what is reasonable and customary.

By using those terms you have opened yourself up to the reasonable question, what exactly is reasonable and customary? And can’t those things change over time?


I posted this thread in Social Sciences because its ramifications are far reaching in the geopolitical world.

But the gist of the matter could easily reside in Philosophy.

A right is a right whether or not the minds of some admit to it.

Respecting rights means to mentally acknowledge them, affirm them, and not violate them.

Just because a right is not respected in some manner does not mean it’s not a right.

It does not matter where a right is respected and where it isn’t respected.

If it’s a right, it remains a right, whether respected or not.

Philosophically it may be justifiable, but the overbearing pragmatism of life in a human world dictates that the only rights anyone has, are the ones they can adequately defend.

Politics never enter into it, other than to obfuscate the issue with superfluous language.

Yes, a definite conumdrum for the mind.

Fortunately we do not live in just our mind … I mean, if we’re lucky we don’t.

The right to life is inviolable meaning that it is singular and universal, and that no appeal to “reasonable and customary” can be used to rightfully allow that right to be abridged by another.

That being said, there are behaviors one can do to surrender that right to life back to God. Adamantly “refusing” to desist in the act of attempting to kill an innocent other can be one of those behaviors, at God’s discretion.

And though that death would still be a very troubling thing to those surrounding it, everyone accepts the naturalness of it, and we have since time immemorial.

Thus what appears as an exception to the mind is simply an act of God to the heart, and has been since time immemorial.

Nevertheless, it is irrational to take what erroneously appears to be an exception and make it the excuse to create a violating rule.

Thus, rationally, with respect to substance rather than form only, there is no “loop hole” here.

The fact that someone innocently defending his very life is involved in the death of a guilty attacker does not in any way make him liable from a tradional legal perspective for the attacker’s death, as the attacker’s death in that situation is rightly acknowledged as an act of God.

Nevertheless, an honest defender who lives from his heart will tell you that he is quite troubled by the death of his attacker. Such an experience validates the sanctity of the life of every human being.

That mental dysfunction, ill behavior, still creates “attackers” in no way invalidates the sanctity of the foundational and inviolable right to life.

Instead it lets us know that progress, true social evolution, must include major change to insure that everyone gets the love and met needs they require as children, so that they will not grow up to become “attackers”.

There is no more work required other than reasonable and customary.

I realize that such is not something one can program into a computerized mind, but such is the life of human beings and our societies.

Reasonable and customary does not change the natural reality of the three types of rights (life, security and freedom), nor does it inviolate the foundational right to life.

Reasonable and customary merely specifies the specific methods acceptable in relationship to our rights.

Remember, moral relativism isn’t the application of “reasonable and customary” to determine acceptable methods of executing one’s rights.

Moral relativism is the behavioral excuse for violating one’s rights.

Though the right to life can only be taken by the giver – God --, methods of executing security and freedom are societally determined with respect to the hierarchy of rights.

For example, in some regions, carrying a gun is not a right, whereas it is in other regions. Reasonable and customary is all about societally accepted methods.

But the right to self-defense as accorded by the primary right of life and the secondary right of security remains a right.

It is up to that society to demonstate that it might be inadeqate self-defense in the gunless region to go gunless, and if successful, that society will allow guns for self-defense.

Yes, absolutely.

Methods change.

At one time there was a freedom of action right that allowed one to own a horse and ride the horse anywhere.

Today, some are not allowed to own horses because, among other possible reasons, they have offended the security of others by being cruel to animals or damaging the property of others with the horse, and some places simply are not horse-friendly any more, like a major inter-city expressway or city boulevard.

But the right to freedom of action to move about via transportation remains a reasonable and customary right.

The methods are simply modified in justifiably accepted accord with society at the time.

Social evolution is about eliminating aberrant right-disrespecting behavior so that respect for rights is respect for all rights, all the time.

I have several questions.

  1. What is a “heart” mean in your scheme.

  2. Is it immoral when people do things that we don’t like, but then later when we’re more mature find out was a good idea. In other words, how does you idea account for being stupid or ignorant?

I realise what your intent appears to be Jenny, but reality is thusly “other than”, which is what my statement was about.

Not to mention, I would personally find “social” and “evolution” oxymoronic terms. Humanity changes not, history is the marker.

But you’ll start with just two, I see. :wink:

The center of our being, where, among other experiences, we experience the fundamental truth of reality: “I am”.

This is not the mind’s ego or the “false heart”, the nexus of the mind’s ego and superego.

Explaining heart to the mind frequently borders on the futile, and such is often the case in written-word forums.

Better is to let people simply admit the truth of it in their own time.

One of the best references I have found, however, on the matter is this:

With respect to rights as they are assailed by moral relativism, what matters isn’t our experiential reaction at the time, as if we aren’t living from our heart, such a reaction might be mental and could be erroneous.

What matters, in that case, is whether our right(s) was violated or attempting to be violated.

That’s all that matters.

Thus our relative level of maturity is irrelevant in the matter.

That’s why it doesn’t matter if we, in silent suffering, “accept” our own rape. Our right to security of person was violated, regardless. And during recovery we often become aware of our rights right about the time we finally begin to feel the pain of the violation, some for the very first time.

The realities of rights are simply that.

With regard to one’s rights, one’s rights just are, regardless if one is stupid or ignorant of one’s rights.

Stupidity or ignorance does not change reality.

That rights violations occur is reality, yes.

That rights violations occur is wrong. That too is reality.

That we human beings intrinsically like good and right and dislike bad and wrong and that we are thus motivated to goodly right wrongs is also reality.

That civilization is a lot about the social evolution of righting wrongs is also reality.

Though the “why” of these realities are a mystery to some, they are, nevertheless, reality.

You have a right to your coping mechanisms. :wink:


Both the website and your responses seem like parody to me.

Are you a person making fun of New Age philosophy?

This is laughable. What good and right? What bad and wrong? Is that good and right what humans beings intrinsically like (i.e., what all human beings always find pleasant)? Is that bad and wrong what human beings intrinsically dislike? But then, you have said nothing.

Pleasure in murdering is as old as murdering itself. From the perspective of him or her who takes pleasure in murdering, murdering is right and good. From the perspective of him or her who takes displeasure in being murdered, being murdered is bad and wrong. So I think that most of the time, it is being murdered which is bad and wrong: “You should not be murdered! It is morally wrong!”; whereas murdering is usually good and right.

If you are being honest with your statement here, then you are simply in cognitive error.


“New age philosophy” is irrelevant as a phrase or concept to the initial post in this thread.

My hunch is that you’ve had your rights violated far too many times.

Such usually accounts for such an extreme cynical reaction to being faced with the truth of rights.

If you are sincere in your statement here, then you have my pity.


I was clear the first time that good and right are respect for rights and bad and wrong are disrespect for rights.

Grab a clue: “do right by rights”. Notice the relationship between the two italicized words?!

Irrelevant to the topical matter of this thread.

Damaged and dysfunctional people may get a kick out of murdering, but their behavior is still bad and wrong with respect to rights.

You are projecting.

My guess is you are pro-abortion, the ultimate disrespect for the right to life of the newly conceived.


Your sophistry has taken you on an irrelevant tangent.

The murderer’s mental aberrant pleasure is not the heart-centered calibrational source of determining right or good with respect to rights.

The difference in the two is that in your former statement the orientation of the pleasure was a damaged and dominant mind that blocks access to the murderer’s heart.

In your statement here, the orientation of the displeasure is in the being-murdered’s heart, where awareness of the foundational paramount right to life resides.

Do you see the difference here.

It is HUGE with respect to understanding the realities of rights.

You have compared apples to oranges in your sophistry here.

My guess is you had your rights violated to the degree that in experiencing powerlessness to prevent such violation you’ve succumbed to “if you can’t beat 'em, join 'em”.

It’s a sad but often true tale.

So tell me, what is your specific form preference of murder? Political leaders? Abortion? Euthanasia? Capital punishment? Innocent Iraqis?

Do tell. :sunglasses:

Really, all that “heart” and “you’re the center of the universe” is what a lot of people complain that New Age is. You seem to have recreated it.

one doesn’t have an innate right to anything.

rights are taken from others by force.


That is true and is testable in reality, usually with a gun or money of some sort.

Of course it is, reality being the occurrences of experience that are not dependent upon individual perception.

No, that is your personal suppositionary that cannot be asserted as an absolute. What you may view as a “right”, may inherently be nothing of the sort to another individual.

Again, personal suppositionary with no factual basis as concerns global human behavior.

No, civilizations are mostly about the benefit of the few against the majority, and history once again is on my side.

That may be in what you perceive as “reality”, but under the stresses of the pragmatism of actual living experience for others, may not hold even a glimmer of “reality”.

Casting judgements against others, especially those of whom you have no knowledge, shows an inability to move forward with discernment and clear perception.

“Coping” is what one does to placate their own conscience, and pad both an overbearing ego, and a diminutive character.

Reflections can be painful.

Your hunch is right, but your interpretation is wrong. I have felt moral indignation (i.e., resentment) many times - and is not every such an occasion one too many? But it was the idea of right and wrong - a false idea -, not the existence of right and wrong - the “truth” -, which caused this resentment. The lie of “love” has caused me too much hate. Now I just despise it - and my hate (but less than those who still believe in love, the blissfully ignorant).

It is a reaction of contempt - not in the least contempt of the smugness with which these assertions are made.

Such lies are expressions of resentment.

You are in no position to pity me. “Pitiful” is not ambiguous for nothing. Your pity is really resentment in disguise.

Then good and right and bad and wrong are manmade, as rights are only given by men.

Methinks it is rather people who keep blathering about “rights” who are damaged and dysfunctional. Such people are incapable and therefore envious of the joy of the knife. But they disguise their envy as moral indignation and “compassion”.

Shatter, shatter the good and righteous!
[Nietzsche, Thus Spake Zarathustra, Of Old and New Tables.]

I am not anti-abortion, if that’s what you mean.

Aberrant from what. What is your standard? Is it not your own frame of mind? But what if this is an unhealthy frame of mind? A resentful frame of mind? A disinherited frame of mind? (Note, by the way, that one’s mind is always a reflection of one’s body.)

The heart? Do you mean that blood-pumping muscle in the left side of the chest? If not, what do you mean.

Awareness resides in the heart? Where? Can you show me the spot on an anatomical picture of the heart?

That is exactly right. And it is not sad at all, but joyful. Helljoy, to speak with Unleashed.

“Can you hear the demon sounds?
The demons are dancing 'round and 'round”
[Melechesh, The Dragon’s Legacy.]