Rights and Responsibilities

[Mallard]

Anyway, I can't see how facing up to your responsibilities - which are correlative of the rights we claim - counts as indoctrination. The vast majority of threads on Urban seem to be complaining about people's lack of responsibility towards one another and society in general.

It's the language Purves and the assumption that this is the right way. I'm sure many teachers will teach it in a balanced way but I don't think that is the governments intention.

 

[Prince Rhyus]

I want something that will allow judges to increase the fines on runty-scruncks who 'ave it large at weekends, end up in the cells overnight before being released without charge and then go back to work on Monday morning as if nothing happened with the exception of some piss-taking from Trigger and the gang in warehouse.

DOn't mind people having a good time, but please, not at the expense of the rest of us.

Maybe fines should also be a proportion of income rather than fixed levels, with judges given the opportunity to use a sentence that is appropriate for the condition the person is in. So if they are large and loaded, a speeding fine could be like £10,000 or something like that.

Finland do it. http://www.trafficticketsecrets.com/speeding-ticket-news-finnish.html

Finland Finland Finland
That's the country for me!

 

[Gmart]

I don't believe that the word 'responsibility' is very useful in this debate as it is too wishy washy. The ability to respond, with the expectation to accept this duty to do so!!! However you define it, it is just rubbish. Respect for other people's rights is good enough, and lack of respect in society is the basic problem. Fix that!

 

[treelover]

It all reminds me of the Armstrong and Miller sketch where their WW2 RAF men speak in a modern 21st C patois and a 'can't care less' idiom and keep quoting their rights etc, to the German guards

 

[likesfish]

exactly your human rights are your rights even if your a complete numpty.

separate from your rights are what society needs from everybody to function a little bit of empathy and a bit of thought about the likely outcome of your actions.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I don't believe that the word 'responsibility' is very useful in this debate as it is too wishy washy. The ability to respond, with the expectation to accept this duty to do so!!! However you define it, it is just rubbish. Respect for other people's rights is good enough, and lack of respect in society is the basic problem. Fix that!

What was that you were saying about "wishy washy"?

"Responsibility" is as good a word as any for fulfilling one's part of the Lockean compact whereby (to paraphrase) the individual and the government each give up or take on certain rights and responsibilities in exchange for a mutually beneficial co-existence. You could always use the formulation of "moral obligations", but that would presuppose a (non-existent IMO) uniform morality as well as a uniform adherence to said morality.

As for "...lack of respect in society is the basic problem", that's an interesting statement. Please elucidate.

 

[Gmart]

#53 was clear enough I think.

The word responsibility is just a red herring which distracts from the basic issue, which is the lack of respect for other people.

 

[ViolentPanda]

#53 was clear enough I think.

Hmm, so
"I would suggest reading it, but I would summarise it as me saying that there is no such thing as responsibility (ability to respond with a duty) per se, more that we have certain rights and when people stop respecting these rights then we have a problem" elucidates
"...lack of respect in society is the basic problem", does it?
Because from where I'm standing, your point about "people" doesn't equate to "society", but only to small groups within society.

The word responsibility is just a red herring which distracts from the basic issue, which is the lack of respect for other people.

It's not a "red herring", what it is, is a normative "shorthand" term that communicates the desirability of people acting in a manner that reflects the needs of the "community" rather than serving only their own needs.

 

[Gmart]

is[/b], is a normative "shorthand" term that communicates the desirability of people acting in a manner that reflects the needs of the "community" rather than serving only their own needs.

IE respect, which is what i'm saying...

 

[ViolentPanda]

IE respect, which is what i'm saying...

It's not a case of "IE respect" though. Respect plays only a small part in social cohesion, you need the whole shebang; altruism, fellow-feeling, solidarity in word and deed, respect etc. To merely isolate on specific factor and indicate (as you have) that it's the crucial element lacking in the social isn't only reductive, but ridiculous too.

If people don't feel that they "belong" to something bigger than their core identity, then they have no reason to "respect" others. That's one of the reasons WHY there are "responsibilities" as well as rights; to tie us together, to provide a sense of contributing to something greater than oneself.

 

[Gmart]

What do you understand by the term 'respect' VP?

 

[ViolentPanda]

What do you understand by the term 'respect' VP?

In terms of your formulation of a "lack of respect in society" (context being everything) I see it meaning as a lack of esteem for and tolerance of others. You know, standard dictionary stuff.

 

[Gmart]

altruism, fellow-feeling, solidarity in word and deed

esteem for and tolerance of others

Sounds like that covers the whole shebang you mentioned above and so we agree

 

[ViolentPanda]

Sounds like that covers the whole shebang you mentioned above and so we agree

What something "sounds like" to you, and what actually is, seem to be, as is so often the case with your perorations, two entirely different things.

 

[Gmart]

Fair enough, but until you or anyone else shows me a big difference between your position and mine, you will excuse me while I kiss the sky

 

[ViolentPanda]

Fair enough, but until you or anyone else shows me a big difference between your position and mine, you will excuse me while I kiss the sky

You mean a "big difference" besides the fact that my definition of the word respect (a word which I notice you edited from the "whole shebang" I listed), ie "esteem for and tolerance of others", actually differs in meaning from:
a) altruism (which can be extended to people one doesn't esteem),
b) fellow-feeling (something which pertains those whose position one interpellates with rather than those one esteems and tolerates),
c) solidarity in word and deed (which can and does exist entirely separately from issues of "respect", and is often a function of ideology/belief rather than belief/tolerance?

You go ahead and kiss the sky. Perhaps the open vista will inspire you.

 

[Gmart]

My definition of respect is considering others and giving their view importance even if you don't agree with it. You know, standard dictionary definition

Your comments seems to incorporate exactly that as well:

a) altruism (which can be extended to people one doesn't esteem),

IE people you just tolerate? Respect does not distinguish between people in this way. Everyone deserves respect, not just certain people.

b) fellow-feeling (something which pertains those whose position one interpellates with rather than those one esteems and tolerates),

Same, do you mean that you don't have fellow-feeling with those who you don't question (interpellate)?

c) solidarity in word and deed (which can and does exist entirely separately from issues of "respect", and is often a function of ideology/belief rather than belief/tolerance? [)]

Your whole definition in brackets?!?

Why does solidarity have anything to do with it? I would suggest that it would mean that you treat people who you agree with differently from those who you don't, thus contradicting the all-encompassing nature of respect.

Why is there a division between those who you esteem and tolerate, and the rest? Or do those you esteem and tolerate encompass everyone?

I get the feeling though that you just WANT to disagree with me, and so you are jumping into semantics, when your ego is reluctant to accept that we actually agree for once!! C'mon, it doesn't mean that you and I will always agree, just that we don't always disagree!

Instead or 'responsibility', I would use the word 'duty'.

 

[likesfish]

unfortunatly "respect" has been taken by certain type of "yoth"
letting them do what they like regardless and any attempt to deny or question there right to anything is dissing them

how you teach the mini yob the world does not revolve around him in such a way that it sinks in is way above my pay grade.
well there our time honoured ways of doing it but they are either uacceptable or cost too much

 

[Gmart]

Didn't Socrates also complain about the youfs of his day too?

Learning that the world doesn't revolve around them is one of the revelations of life, and sadly I could name adults who seem to still think this!!

 

[likesfish]

true too true
people are keen on there rights
but not so keen on Duty, Respect ,responsability,Self discipline those are difficult words.
But your rights are not free they were paid for by people who came before you often with there lives.
They are kept today not just by the apparatus of the state but by those individuals who are prepared to stand up to stand up against the state or organizations often at personal cost.
you want your rights do you really want your rights ?
OR do you just want a bit of compo

 

[Gmart]

I thought I would give an example as to why 'responsibility' is such a problem.

Tonight I saw a news story about Amy Winehouse, and it quoted someone as saying that the record company had a responsibility to get her and her husband off drugs.

If that sentence is re-written saying that the record company has a duty to get her and her husband of drugs, then it becomes much more obvious that both of them are adults, and that it is none of the record companies business. Any duty needs to be enshrined in law or in contract.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I thought I would give an example as to why 'responsibility' is such a problem.

Tonight I saw a news story about Amy Winehouse, and it quoted someone as saying that the record company had a responsibility to get her and her husband off drugs.

If that sentence is re-written saying that the record company has a duty to get her and her husband of drugs, then it becomes much more obvious that both of them are adults, and that it is none of the record companies business. Any duty needs to be enshrined in law or in contract.

Ah, but the record company may perceive it as their "duty" to protect the investments of their shareholders by de-toxing Winehouse and her husband, thereby facilitating new recordings, greater publicity and increased sales.

You're assuming that "duty" is or has to be necessarily a public good.

 

[Gmart]

Makes it clearer doesn't it? The BoD might indeed feel a duty to their shareholders (it might even be enshrined in their articles of association, but this highlights their perspective of Winehouse as an asset like a building or stock, something that needs upkeep, where Winehouse might feel that her state of mind is her business, not theirs. It depends what they put into her contract.

All of this is set down in writing, however we were talking about assumed duties which people accept just by existing, ie they don't specifically accept them and don't feel bound by them. These are not able to be enforced if not set down in law. One cannot specify respect to that degree. There is a duty of care in common law, but that's as far as it goes.

Still we are singing from the same hymn sheet, and remain in a world where respect is apparently disappearing, necessitating more laws to ensure that the population 'behaves'...

 

[ViolentPanda]

Your last paragraph is pervaded with a doom-laden air of self-fulfilling prophecy. If you (and the media) make noises about "respect" becoming less of a feature in daily life you allow the legislators space to substitute social relations with social regulation, which in turn highlights the supposed breakdown of social relations, which...

I suspect you get the picture.

 

[Gmart]

Didn't Socrates also complain about the youfs of his day too?

I suppose we should stop worrying about such things and stop judging others so much!

Still I take your point about :

allowing the legislators space to substitute social relations with social regulation

Again we agree, thus my argument for a written constitution etc.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Didn't Socrates also complain about the youfs of his day too?

Of course he did. Carping about the youth is pretty much a historical constant.

I suppose we should stop worrying about such things and stop judging others so much!

It won't happen though. People will always worry and will always judge. The secret for success would be to convince everyone to do so from an informed perspective.

Still I take your point about :



Again we agree, thus my argument for a written constitution etc.

The problem with any constitution, written or the monkey's abortion we currently labour under, is that it's a snapshot in time, even when it has built-in mechanisms for amendment. Life is fluid, the difference between the two can cause as many social problems as it cures (I always think the US's 2nd Amendment provides a good illustration in this regard).
I'd love to see a legislative set-up that allowed for constant revision and/or renewal of a written constitution on a case by case basis (which is the only way I can see a written constitution functioning any better per se than our current one), but our current democratic system doesn't allow for that sort of constitutional change, and even if it did, we then have the issue of the political system itself (it's loyalties etc) to deal with before we can even begin to assure ourselves of credible representation rather than the current popularity contest every 4-5 years.

 

[Gmart]

Of course the decision as to the rights and wrongs of a country has to be made by a democracy (IMO) but would they do the 'constant revision' you talked about?

If we had the desperately needed shake down of the House of Lords and enshrined on a constitution the need for a (say) 75% majority in both houses to change said constitution, then that would be a step towards a better system.

Maybe we should be fighting for the slowly evolved European Constitution?

First up might be freedom of religion. Wait for that to be enshrined in all 27 countries, and then build up a consensus constitution?

to convince everyone to do so from an informed perspective.

Again we agree here. If only we could introduce critical thinking into the national curriculum!! Unfortunately (if you wish to go down a skeptical, conspiratorial route) one might suggest that those in power would prevent this (though this, as with all conspiracies, needs a step of faith).