The United States Constitution guarantees certain rights--the right to free speech, the right of free association, the right to worship in the way you want, etc.
These are different than the "inalienable rights" discussed in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
As discussed in class, we don't all define those rights in the same way and that leaves us with the question, do human beings have any inalienable rights?
In the Social Justice video (http://animoto.com/play/qV2S8JWtG21GIhkcVamWow), students name things like food, education, and dancing as inalienable rights. What do you think? What do people have a right to?
How does the piece by O'Neil complicate those ideas?
What do people have a right to? How does guaranteeing those rights infringe on the other rights?
What other limitations might there be?
35 comments:
When defining rights we must consider the peer group who is trying to define there rights. I believe as people mature there views on there rights change to a certain extent. In this Social Justice video there are individuals of all ages, but I did notice the differences in there responses. Some of the older individuals were relating rights to free education and healthcare, but on the other hand younger individuals were relating rights to objects such as ice cream and rock and roll. We as human beings have certain rights but I do not believe that we are directly entitled to anything that does not revolve around bettering ourselves and the community. Unfortunately some individuals believe they are entitled to so many things but in reality I believe they are just looking for a handout.
Rights need to directly relate to morals and values. Unfortunately in this day and age I feel like rights are directly related to what people believe they are entitled to, therefore I agree with O'Neil. O'Neil complicates all of the rights that the individuals in the Social Justice video believe in. I do agree with O'Neil because most of the rights those individuals believe in are just desirable goods that they expect someone to provide them. One of the points that I really agree with O'Neil is when he discusses "free education." If it is free when someone's money is really paying for it. Honestly there is no such thing as a completely free education because there are certain financial aspects that just can not be avoided.
I believe that people have the religious rights that no one can infringe on. A good example of this infringing on other people is the cross on Mount Soledad. Atheist have been fighting to get it removed because it goes against what they believe. This is an example of Christians infringing on Atheists, but in my heart I everyone is entitled to there own religious freedoms.
In conclusion I believe that all morals and values relate to rights. The youth of today have there hands out looking for entitlement rather than supporting themselves and helping others. Unfortunately this is really going to hurt our great country.
When defining rights we must consider the peer group who is trying to define there rights. I believe as people mature there views on there rights change to a certain extent. In this Social Justice video there are individuals of all ages, but I did notice the differences in there responses. Some of the older individuals were relating rights to free education and healthcare, but on the other hand younger individuals were relating rights to objects such as ice cream and rock and roll. We as human beings have certain rights but I do not believe that we are directly entitled to anything that does not revolve around bettering ourselves and the community. Unfortunately some individuals believe they are entitled to so many things but in reality I believe they are just looking for a handout.
Rights need to directly relate to morals and values. Unfortunately in this day and age I feel like rights are directly related to what people believe they are entitled to, therefore I agree with O'Neil. O'Neil complicates all of the rights that the individuals in the Social Justice video believe in. I do agree with O'Neil because most of the rights those individuals believe in are just desirable goods that they expect someone to provide them. One of the points that I really agree with O'Neil is when he discusses "free education." If it is free when someone's money is really paying for it. Honestly there is no such thing as a completely free education because there are certain financial aspects that just can not be avoided.
I believe that people have the religious rights that no one can infringe on. A good example of this infringing on other people is the cross on Mount Soledad. Atheist have been fighting to get it removed because it goes against what they believe. This is an example of Christians infringing on Atheists, but in my heart I everyone is entitled to there own religious freedoms.
In conclusion I believe that all morals and values relate to rights. The youth of today have there hands out looking for entitlement rather than supporting themselves and helping others. Unfortunately this is really going to hurt our great country.
As argued by Ben O' Neil in his article "The Injustice of Social Justice",I don't agree with the use of the word "right". Rights as we all know, are moral values that every individual is born with, this excludes the right to desires such as ice-cream and rock n' roll. When speaking of rights we talk about things more serious than that,such as the right to freedom, to live, etc. It was touching to see people requesting the right for healthcare, and clean water, but unfortunately not everyone can be supplied with such living styles. If we think about the people of Somalia, who suffer from a famine, it doesn't sound appropriate to include ice cream as a right, and not the "right for aid". I think people should have the right but we must keep in mind the kind of government, environment, and culture they are from. This is what causes limits, we can't declare rights that benefit our way of life but not of others.
When deciding on what people have a right to you must remember to really think about what the difference is between what is a right and a what a person wants. In the clip staff and students display what are rights and also what are wants. I believe that people do have basic rights such as life, and the freedom to practice their own religion. Items such as ice cream, free education and being able to dance are wants. It would be nice if every person in the world could have a bowl of ice cream or not have to pay to go to school, but it is in no way a right because you do not need ice cream to thrive in society and someone is going to have to pay for your education whether its you or a government.
The piece written by O’Neil complicates the rights that were posted in the clip. He challenges those so-called rights by saying that most of them are things were presume as rights. Many of them are things people think they have a right to, but in reality they are just things people want. For example O’Neil discusses what he believes to be rights by saying that, “genuine rights exist as eternal truths or moral philosophy.” Something such as the freedom of religion is a moral right but items such as ice cream and being able to listen to rock-n-roll music are not actually rights, but are things that people want and ultimately presume they are entitled to.
Guaranteeing rights will in some way infringe on other rights. For example if the right to life and the freedom of religion are rights and a certain religion calls upon its followers to kill people who do not have the same religion as them then that is infringing on the other group’s right to life. There are also limitations when it comes to guaranteeing rights. If everyone has the right to something it makes it very difficult and highly expensive to actually obtain that right. For example if free education was a right it would become very challenging for everyone to be able to attend a school because of limited space and it would be very costly for a government or another party to pay for all of the supplies.
I believe that every person in the world does have rights, but defining those rights can become difficult. One has to take into consideration what is actually a right and what is a want. People need to understand that just because they want something or believe that they are entitled to it does not make it a right.
Rights are something that allows you to earn what you want. Not to get what you want for free because you feel that just being alive you deserve it. People really don't deserve anything, its really just U.S. propaganda telling us younger generations that we are so special that if we work hard we can achieve anything. Everyone is so unique and everything is about the individual, we use common sense in some kind of variation on the self, take care of yourself, express yourself, stand up for yourself, just be yourself. We are a selfish country just look at that video, we think we deserve everything just for being alive or just cause we want it. Individuality and being unique is embedded in our generation like a faith, questioning those rights is blasphemy. O'Neil uses that piece to say we use the words rights and those ideas as a tool to reach our desires and most of the time it will infringe upon others. If everyone felt unique and original then doesn't that make everyone the same? That cutesy little video, I condemn that video, none of those things are God given rights and is purely a reflection of the propaganda fed to the young people from their birth.
After reading the article by O’Neil, my views on what a right is changed quite a bit. Living in the United States we already have access to a lot of the things the video defined as rights. We are a very wealthy country that does not necessarily need the same things as other people. I do not think that human beings have any inalienable rights. We do not have a right to food, education, healthcare, etc. Those are all things that we have to earn and work for. Having these things without working for them is privileges, not rights. O’Neil’s piece complicates the idea that people deserve to have various things but at the same time do not deserve them. He says that people need food, healthcare, the ability to dance, rock-and-roll and ice cream but they are not rights. By guaranteeing people the right to having a full stomach or a quality education, other people are losing their right to have a steady income that they actually benefit from. A lot of people work incredibly hard in their jobs and are taxed in massive quantities. This is infringing upon their rights. People should be able to control where their income is going to an extent. By providing food, healthcare and education to people that cannot afford it, some one has to be paying the bill. This is the people that are making the money and paying the taxes. Limitations include providing rights to people that are in need in countries like Somalia. They do not need the right to ice cream and dancing quite like they need the right to food and medical aid. We are limited when defining what rights people can have because the Somali people have no access to food because of the famine. We cannot guarantee them the right to food if there is no food to provide them with. O’Neil brings up a valid point about how the students that were in the video had good intentions with what they believe people have a right to. He states that this however is not practical. I agree with him because trying to help everyone is noble but not possible. Not everyone is equal because having equal “rights” just isn’t possible.
There is a difference between needing and wanting rights. Each individual deserves to have fundamental rights; however, there are certain limits to justice. In the Social Justice video people consists all manner of desirable things; for instance, lollipops, ice cream, rock-and-roll, dance etc. these are rights being wanted, which is unnecessary. When an individual need health-care, education, food, clean water, and knowledge it’s because they cannot afford these rights and they deserve to have them. I live in a wonderful environment and I am grateful for that, but I feel remorseful for the people who are living in Somalia. They are going through pain and death. Each person has to take care of themselves and their families so they can survive. They are fighting for their lives and cannot do much to fix the condition of the environment they are living in. These individuals deserve to have rights, to be able to get what they need to help them live.
The article written by Ben O’Neil explains the true meaning of ¨social justice¨ but he is giving examples that are not really related to rights, he is talking about what people want and cannot have. There is a greater value and limit to the meaning of justice and I believe that everyone is entitled to have rights. Although, rights can be given to the wrong people; some need more rights than others. Life is unfair; some people will not be satisfied with what they have. Justice should be given to the individuals who are struggling with their lives because they really do need it the most.
Individuals believe that we deserve certain rights, when we are only privileged to have these rights. Even the inalienable rights listed in the Constitution can be questioned. Yet, who could disagree that we all deserve to live, to continue our lives without an incessant fear of death? And who could logically argue that a human being does not deserve to be free? Who could say a human being should not be allowed to freely speak or worship or learn or love? These rights, these “inalienable rights” our forefathers fought for and won through bloodshed. They fought so that the youth could argue rock and roll as a right. Our inalienable rights consist of freedom and the right to live at the basic level. These are rights every living, breathing human being deserves in our society today. O’Neil argues that, “Most young people… have not been exposed to serious philosophical argument about the nature of rights,” and continues that they do not understand the consequences of education and health care as a right. O’Neil forgets to notice that these “rights” have only grown from the seeds of our forefathers. These rights the students discuss should not be considered inalienable, but they are considered rights by many American citizens, many that are not naïve – as O’Neil referred to them. Our rights should actually be considered privileges – privileges that American citizens take advantage of. Yes, the students in the video can be considered ignorant, but they are only upholding the American tradition of complete freedom – something we should cherish, for in other countries they are denied even the inalienable rights they deserve.
According to the video and reiterated in O'Neil's critique, what we have a "right" to is basically anything that exists and can be obtained, including but not limited to ice cream and rock 'n roll. Unfortunately, this just isn't correct because we would have anything and everything if that were the case. When you think of what is guaranteed by the society in which we live, such as our "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" and Bill of Rights, these centuries-old documents/statements technically outline our rights as such but in reality they are protections on what we would like to think is guaranteed. For the most part, we are afforded those things by our laws and constitution and they are functionally "rights"(and the term is generally agreed upon), but given that someone's life, property, happiness, etc. can be taken from them, in reality they are probably more fittingly called privileges. In O'Neil's response to the video, he takes a more realistic stance, basically pointing out what the idealistic video participants would not like to admit: to fulfill your "right", another's "right" is very likely going to be infringed upon. For this reason, no one should believe they have a right to material things as there will almost always be a give and take that shortchanges one person out of their own right when the other benefits. As far as what should actually be a bona fide right across the board, I believe we should all be guaranteed the opportunity to do what we desire, something you could certainly say is afforded in our country. No, we don't all get everything we want and some people have conditions that make it impossible to attain certain things but if it is possible, no matter how difficult, and you have the opportunity to do it, I would consider that just. In guaranteeing this right, there is no give and take like we saw with material things as each person's opportunity is an independent entity. Therefore, everyone has the chance at something and although attainment is sometimes competitive, each person has their shot at whatever they seek.
I feel as if we first need to differentiate the difference between believing what we should have as to what we are actually receiving in response to these rights. We may believe that everyone should be presented certain rights, but just because we believe that we should, does not mean that everyone is receiving that treatment that we optimistically look towards. For example, if we have the right to life, then why are so many helplessly dying in unnatural ways such as the individuals in Somalia? Whenever we put someone to death once they have received the death penalty, doesn’t this take away their right to live, hence, negating the inalienable rights that should be granted to every human being? As long as we have a society much like we do today, inalienable rights cannot clearly be defined for each and every individual.
Personally, a right that I depict that everyone should be open to the right to love whomever they desire. In today’s society, we do not deal well enough with the separation of church and state. The idea that other people with their own religious beliefs can vote upon who other individuals may love is absolutely sickening and degrading. Homosexuals, and the rest of LGBT community are not absolutely guaranteed the right to love whoever they would admire in every single location. People have been brought up on such an outdated tradition on the belief of an “orthodox” family, which any step that will transition what they’ll see in their neighborhood homes is absolutely out of the question.
The piece by O’Neill tries to complicate all of these ideas of rights by saying that these ideas of “rights” are merely just desires and in doing so, we are taking away from someone in order to get the rights that we believe that we deserves. For example, O’Neill states, “Not to earn desirable goods by rational thought and action, production and voluntary exchange, but to go in there and forcibly take goods from those who can supply them!” Hence, later saying that if we desire to have a right to ice cream then we will in some way require others to supply that desire to us because of their professional skills, therefore, taking away from another individual. O’Neill later defines an actual right of being “a moral prerogative derived from the application of moral philosophy to the nature of man.” Therefore, if we constantly believe our own desires to be rights then they further infringe on the rights of others.
The video was a good example of people’s dreams. I would love to have the right to dance and to ice cream and to all the things that were mentioned. But I know that it would be nearly impossible for everyone to have those rights. I believe that everyone should have the right to the things they need to live. For example we should have the right for food, water and the other supplies we need for survival. We shouldn’t become greedy and ask for things that we don’t really need when there are people out there that are starving.
I agree with O’Neil because he brings logic into this question of rights. If anyone wants something for themselves they can’t just get it from the air. They need to take it from someone that has worked hard for it. O’Neil shows that rights aren’t things that are desired they are things that you were born with. Since we live in America we were born with many rights and a lot of people still think that we should have more. We should be glad that we actually have great lives and instead of wanting rights to ice cream, we should be glad that we have the privilege to education and healthcare.
The social justice video features photographs of students voicing their opinion on what they believe everyone has a right to through writing their opinion on somewhere on their body. The students listed a variety of things such as dance, ice cream, and education. I believe that everyone has the right to what they desire. What they desire can range from intangible things like freedom, material objects like new clothes, to activities such as hiking. Even though the material objects are not “morally right”, as O’Neill claimed, I believe that they are still things that people should have access to. Everyone should have the right to ice cream just as much as everyone should have the right to a free education.
Ben O’Neill complicates the idea of people having inalienable rights in his article “The Injustice of Social Justice.” He claims that people view “rights” as “an expression of their own ideals.” He also claims that some rights might be better according to their morality. One example could be that the right to a good education is better and has more moral value than the right to buy a new mp3 player. The right to a good education is morally better than the right to buy materialistic objects, but that does not mean that people are not allowed to buy what they want.
In situations like the famine, malnutrition, and harsh living conditions in Somalia, most children do not receive any education. I believe that everybody has the right to be educated on basic subjects such as language, writing, and reading. If no one can do any of those, how will they voice their opinion?
Everyone is entitled to voice their opinions. Everyone has the right to desire and believe what they want. Everyone has the right to follow their dreams. If they believe that everyone should have the right to wear what they want, then so be it. That is their opinion! Everyone has the right to freedom of speech.
When considering what is a right one must take into consideration who is deeming it a right, if you ask a six year old what one of there rights is they most likely would say to have toys, yet some one in high school may say the right to no curfew. As you get older you gain more knowledge not only from school but also by experiences. I used to consider my rights to be things like being able to go out when I wanted to or to not have to clean my room, but now that I have learned more about rights I believe that rights are those privileges we have that the government should not infringe on. Examples of these rights are listed in the constitution like freedom of speech, petition, religion, etc, but I believe we need to expand on those rights since it has been decades since those rights first came about. Some of those expansions should be the right to a fair justice system, the right to employment (since its so hard to find and get a first job), and the right to express ourselves and not worry about what others will say or think. I believe O'Neil was spot on when he said "It is merely an assertion of desire, and a declaration of intention to use the language of rights to acquire said desire." These days’ people believe their wants and desires are rights and I believe that is wrong. I strongly believe that some things should be given with out question like freedom of speech, petition, religion, etc. However when it comes to stuff like ice cream, rock and roll, and designer clothes, I believe people should work for those wants and desires. People in Somalia probably just want the right to food and water, which should be considered rights and not privileges. Americans today take to much for granted, most Americans have the idea that we should just get what we want, however that is not the case. We should work for certain things and others we should just receive but those that we receive should not be material items like ice cream, rock and roll, and designer clothes
As an individual I believe that humans should have certain rights. It is unfortunate that some people do not have the same rights as I do. As seen in the video that our class watched, many people expressed what rights they believe people should have. For example, a lot of the comments were to smile, dance, or love. In short, people believed that everyone has the right to be happy and healthy. However, many of the people in Somalia do not have this right. Many of them don’t even get the chance to live long lives. But then the question gets asked, whose job is it to support these strangers to keep them happy? Should it be us? Or should it be the government? Or should it be the Somali’s to care for each other? As Americans, we have property rights; we choose what we do with our income. In order to feed other countries we would have to give up certain rights to Somalia for example. That goes with what O’Neal was talking about. In order for Somalia to get the desires they want, someone else would have to give something up for them. O’Neal ties it into education and health care. Saying that nothing is really free. It may not cost the person receiving the good or service anything, but something is certainly given up on the other side of things. I do believe that Somalia deserves help. They are unfortunately living in a country with poor leadership and a lot are not able to survive without help. The question is, where is the help going to come from?
The inalienable rights consist of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The objects that people desire complicate the idea of these rights. A right is having the access to do something and not the desire to have or do something. The alienable rights were created long ago and the definition of a right has changed in people’s minds as time goes on. People exaggerate what rights actually are and believe that anything that they desire is a right that they have. The rights were designed to enable citizens of the United States to be able to desire what brings them happiness and fulfills their lives.
If everyone had the right to certain free services, there would be chaos because everyone would want them. That is why there are limitations on the rights that people have. People have the right to desire a lot of different objects including: houses, cars, and education. Without the work and money people cannot obtain these items, therefore the right is almost useless. Aspects such as happiness and healthiness are not always achievable due to certain circumstances. The individuals in the video display many different desires that they have, claiming they have the right to them. This complicates O’Neil’s article because everything that is desirable is not necessarily a right. There is no specific right to items such as clean water, healthcare and education. A right is the main idea that you can desire what brings you happiness, not specifically the right to random desires.
People have the right to have their own opinions and ideas. They have the right to have desires in order to make their lives happy. That is what the pursuit of happiness consists of. Rights are given to people, not made by the people and that is what is often misinterpreted.
In the video we see a lot of people showing what they think a natural right is, but most of them are wants or desires as O'Neill mentions in his article, The Injustice of Social Justice. I agree with O'Neill, most of the individuals in this video mention natural rights to be such things as the right to dance or the right to ice cream, but if we think about it natural rights need to be accessible to every one at the cost of nothing. But in most of this so called rights by most of the individuals in the video are at the expense of others such as their time, effort or money. Natural rights as my philosophy professor defined were things like the right to breath, the right to land, the right to be happy or love, things like this is what I would consider natural rights and not other things that in the long run turn out to be desires or are based on physical objects that need to be produce on others sweat and hard work. I think most of the things that were expressed in the video are more to be privileges than rights.
This video showed different varieties of desires that each person believes they should have the “right” to. Though everyone deserves a chance at everything in this world, whether it is the right to free education, or the right to eat ice cream, the topics shown are more of an advantage that a person may have over another. Rather than considering these as inalienable rights, unfortunately we can’t control who is born where, and what type of resources they are left with. O’Neil has complicated the idea of inalienable rights by mixing desires, with natural rights. Lucky for us we are guaranteed by our constitution to have the right to our own opinions and expressing our individuality without being prosecuted unlike other countries. Limitations such as these separate states, countries, governments, religions, etc from acquiring simple rights that we as human beings believe we should have. There are many people around the world that starve to death, and young children that are put to work in horrible conditions, but they too deserve the “right” to a meal and a childhood. We can’t base inalienable rights by the physicality of things because there are millions of people who don’t have access to fresh water due to their surroundings and the environments that they may live in. All in all the possibilities to create change are endless, but it is the limitations and restrictions that are keeping us from progress in society, and the world entirely.
I do believe everyone has the right to free speech, free association, as well as freedom of worship, but this isn’t necessarily always the case as well as possible. I couldn’t help but notice the video stated a lot of wants as well as rights. It is important to distinguish what is considered a right and a want. Everyone has moral rights such as life, liberty, religion, and the pursuit of happiness, but I don’t think music and dancing are rights, but wants. Obviously there are limitations to what they consider “rights”, for example free primary healthcare isn’t possible because someone is required to pay for what is free for someone else. This is why it is difficult to say that things like education and heath insurance are rights.
O’Neil complicates the ideas because he states “This is hopelessly flawed view of rights.” The ideas they believe are “rights” are simply desires. People have moral rights, not the right to shoes, ice cream, and rock and roll. I do believe the people suffering in Somalia deserve rights that they currently don’t have right now. Yes it is a cost other people will be paying but I believe they need help during this desperate time. I truly believe everyone is entitled to rights, however it gets complicated when determining what they are. When considering them its important to distinguish whats a right and what is a desire.
The Social Justice Video "Everybody Has a Right To..." is very inspirational and positive however, it is also somewhat misleading. The majority of the participants in the short video answer the afore mentioned question with a material good. According to Ben O'Neill's argument in "The Injustice of Social Justice", he complicates the video by stating that these "rights" are what he likes to call "reductio ad absurdum". In short O'Neill states that if these things such as ice cream and rock and roll actually were rights, the consequences would be absurd. Albeit, O'Neill comes off as a bit of a cynic until he later states that the point of the film is to promote the positive mindset for human rights held by our current generation.
As far as my thoughts go on the topic, I believe that all people should have the right to life, to be healthy, to be free from oppression, and to have economic opportunity. I for one understood from the first time that I watched the video that it was an exaggeration on the idea that people should have access to whatever they want, as long as it does not cause harm to others. As I have learned from people that I look up to, life is tough, but it is what we do to secure our necessities and to plan for a future that makes life adventurous and exciting. I believe that if people hold the rights that I listed at the beginning of this paragraph, then they also hold the ability to control their economic state, and in hypothetical terms relating to the video, how much ice cream they have. On a different note, I agree with O'Neill when he states numerous times that the consequences of these "rights" would be absurd. If instead of free speech we had the right to ice cream whenever we wanted it, things would certainly be different. In summary, O'Neill complicates the video by stating that the depicted "rights" are absurd, and that I believe that if people have the right to life, to be healthy, to be free from oppression, and to have economic opportunity, then people should have the means to obtain whatever they want, so long as doing so does not harm others.
The Social Justice Video "Everybody Has a Right to..." discusses what people believe they should have as rights. O'Neil misconstrues the meaning of the video. When someone says they want a right to ice cream. it does not mean they feel entitled to being provided with ice cream by any means necessary. He states that "it asserts the moral prerogative to use force to attain one's desires - to force others to give you their ice cream". If you were forcing someone to giving you ice cream this would be infringing on their right to have ice cream. Furthermore, the right to ice cream, would mean that ice cream would be made attainable for all people. O'Neil seems to think the only way to do this is to disrupt others rights, when instead you could pay for the ice cream, or work for it.
O'Neil also claims that the rights sought in the video are "displayed by the advocates of 'social justice' as an expression of their own ideals." All rights are an expression of people's ideals. Saying anything is morally right or wrong is opinion, so therefore what is a right is opinion of someones personal ideals.
I believe that while people have rights that cannot be taken away by any other individual or government, the actual rights themselves are very few. Just as O'Neil states, an actual right has to be within a moral standard, something that can be universally accepted. In addition, how those rights are gained can also be questionable, since there are some instances where a "right" to something would mean that someone else has to pay for it. The example O'Neil provides come from the video "Everyone Has a Right to...", where he uses the more tangible examples given by the people in the video, such as ice cream or clean water, and questions how such a right can be supplied. He then goes on to mention that the only way such a right can be given is to force someone else to give it away, which would mean someone had to give up their right for someone else. In the end, the idea that O'Neil is broadcasting to others is that social justice today is merely being used to cloak the fact that someone else has to work for others to have access to what they desire.
Kari Mitchell
The social justice video, "Everyone has a right to..." shows students and staff presenting all sorts of answers to that very question. O'Neil however sees this as a bunch of people claiming that they are entitled to or should be given these "rights". For example, he states, "Is is merely an assertion of desire, and a declaration of intention to use the language of rights to acquire said desire". He is saying that what these people are really asking for are just what they desire and will intentionally use force to get these goods or not think where these goods may come from. He uses rhetorical questions to cause the reader of his piece to consider the obvious answer. For example, his question, "But what free education is this? Free for whom?" causes the audience to think and consider how an education could be free and who it would be free to.
I however disagree with O'Neil and believe that that is not what this video is arguing. I see this video as students and teachers presenting these answers to inspire people to go out and do what they can to acquire these "rights." It doesn't necessarily mean they are expecting to be given them for nothing, just that they have the opportunity to receive them. These people shouldn't just be given everything they desire.
Some limitations people should expect when acquiring these "rights" are that some are highly difficult to achieve or just plainly impossible to get. For example, ice cream can be bought or given quite easily while free education (especially college) is hard to attain. From books, pencils, paper, and etc. even if tuition was free there will always be something you need.
In conclusion, O'Neil wrongly interprets this
video to mean that these students and staff are expecting these right for nothing or that they feel obligated to get them, but personally I believe they are just stating what they desire and wish to be possible to acquire.
My belief is that everyone has the right to do what ever they want that does not infringe on anyone else rights. My answer is very broad and the reason why it is so is because not everyone will have the same desires or goals to fill. THerefore it must be a little broad to give everyone a chance in doing what their heart desires. In the passage the O'Neill wrote he made some very key distinctions in what rights are. He makes a statement saying, "For advocates of social justice,' the notion of 'rights' is a mere term of entitlement." O'Neill further state that the actual idea of having rights is "a moral prerogative derived from the application of moral philosophy to the nature of man." Many of us get the idea of rights and privileges mixed up. for instance in my situation I have the right to compete in football every day I play but it is a privilege in its self to play the game of football. The head coach of the football team, Coach Long, makes sure that all of us know that we are privilege to play the game we love where many of us have school paid for. He makes sure everyday we do not get that confused with our rights. There are many limitations in the world such as racism, sexism, and people being prejudice. If we took what many of us learn in kindergarten which was treat people how you want to be treated then we will be fine. It is humorous that grown people have more trouble than five year olds in following that rule. If everyone follows and uses their rights everyday and be thankful then everything will be fine. We are all blessed to live in a place where it is okay to talk about rights where other places would not let you even ponder of the thought of rights.
Anthony Balocco
Since humans were originated from animals, rights were never a guarantee for anyone in the first place. Rights were an attempt to ensure fairness and as much freedom as possible for each individual living within a particular society. Due to the fact that these rights were made up by humans, there is no set list of rights that should be granted to each and every human being on the planet. At the same time, this could be said about laws, property, governments, etc. Humans created a variety of concepts such as these in order to better society and grow as a race and civilization. Rules and rights were thought up with the best intentions possible, with the best interest of each individual in mind. However, the question remains: do humans really know what is best for themselves? Although these rights were designed with good intentions, do they actually benefit society? Or perhaps they are unnecessary and make people believe they are entitled to things that aren’t actually theirs. Personally, I believe that rights are a step in the right direction, but we are not quite there yet. Humans should be at least entitled to their life and freedom, and no one should be obligated to do anything. However, if this was completely the case, the world could end up in total chaos with no progress being made. The beauty of mankind is that we are always working towards something better, and sometimes these rights get in the way of that. So long as we all work together, we can find a solution that benefits our civilizations as a whole.
The piece by O’Neill complicates the idea of rights because he claims that just because something is desirable does not necessarily make it a right. People have a right to things that guarantee their existence, but other things must come at the expenses of others, which defeats the entire purpose of a right. Being guaranteed the right to “ice cream” may seem like a good idea, but it infringes on the rights of the rest of civilization, as someone has to provide said ice cream. This takes time, labor, and materials, and who is responsible for this, the government? Maybe this is why our nation is so far into debt. People believe they are entitled to way too much, and this forces other people to provide for them. Soon enough, resources are being spent that we don’t actually own, and the economy begins to spiral downward. Maybe we should have a right to not have rights, as we clearly haven’t advanced enough as a civilization to understand them completely.
In "Everybody Has a Right to...”, a social justice video constructed by students in GlobeMed at Rhodes College, many ideas of inalienable rights are proposed. Students throw out examples such as education, water and health care. While this video has nothing but good intentions, lecturer Ben O’Neill demonstrates how their ideas of true social justice are misunderstood.
Overall, the biggest problem O’Neill has with the video is how many of the “rights” the students proposed require someone to supply something. Obviously rights such as rock and roll and ice cream are thrown in half-jokingly, but other ideas of education and health care don’t come free. It would definitely be nice if all nations could provide all of these conveniences, but it’s as simple as it sounds. Services like these require money, and lots of it. Even a basic education would cost an astronomical amount of cash to educate every child in an entire country.
Although some of the students “rights” were misunderstood, I believe more practical rights that they did propose include free speech and some form of a democratic government. These basic principals will at least enable a nation to provide each citizen a voice in how it should be run and change it for the better. Under totalitarian dictatorships, citizens can have all of their rights stripped away without being able to do or say anything about it. A government like this will have a hard time servicing all the needs of its people and may never be able to modernize. For example, if Somalia had a stronger democratic government, it would be more difficult for an extremist group to take over and worsen the starvation. Free speech has its benefits as well. Corrupt politicians may be kept in check when a publication or even word of mouth is allowed to spread and educate the people. Without free speech, we are unable to know for sure whether or not what we are being told is true.
In conclusion, O’Neill fairly criticized the idea of proposing impractical rights. However, some few basic rights such as free speech should be enforced worldwide. It is rights like these that enable a nation to develop and provide even more free services such as clean water and education.
Images provided in the video convey a message that may be construed by others. Subjects named such as food, education, and dancing may sometimes be misinterpreted as inalienable rights, while certain audiences may understand these concepts to be more of a “want” rather than a “need”. In my opinion, genuine rights are neither a good nor service. An inalienable right can be defined as “god-given” and something that cannot be given or taken away. But as expressed in the Social Justice Video; rock-and-roll, ice cream, and dancing are “rights”. The Social Justice Video confuses our desires to be one-in-the same as our rights. Understandably, we must consider who it is that believe that these “rights” are so. Looking to the subjects of the video, we can clearly see that children or the younger age group tend to consider our aspirations and cravings to be rights. While when focused on the upper age groups we notice that there is a distinct change in ideas and concepts. O’Neil complicates the ideas presented in the video by arguing that the thoughts conveyed are nothing more than desires of mankind, and if said desires were to be rights, then everything we want would, naturally, be a right. I agree with O’Neil’s remarks on the video. A right is something that everyone is equally guaranteed, whether they be young or old, rich or poor, sick or healthy. Surely every desire cannot be considered a right can it? What if I said that I wanted to be rich? Does that mean that I should automatically find myself in a mansion surrounded by classy citizens and expensive looking décor? A “right” in the right sense should be considered something that everyone can acquire or have access to. The best example of this would be our natural rights. Our natural rights allow us the right to freedom, free speech, and the pursuit of happiness. Besides that we also have the right to dream, which may have been the cause for all the confusion amongst the children in the video. These are rights. These are ideas that are morally correct and effect everyone in every culture of every race. These are the rights that are promised to us, the ones that will not infringe on any others rights. They are equal in measure and meaning.
Everyone has the right to a brighter future, however in society; there are those that are more privileged than others. The Declaration of Independence puts much emphasis on the pivotal ideal that all men in the nation are created equal. Although most Americans refuse to admit that we live in an unequal class of society, in reality they see that each and every social system has a specific tendency to do certain things that fit the norm in that group. Americans are divided into categories it limits how far they can climb up the social ladder. I believe that everyone should have the right to a bright future if they choose to put in the effort that would lead them to achieve this goal. Many of the very successful people today were able to achieve their status in society due to their wealthy social status. This gives them more of an advantage to resources that would further help them excel in life. Are the wealthy the only ones worthy of living a wealthy lifestyle? What about the people who work hard but have no chance of having a bright future because of their social status? Statuses should be given to those who are willing to work towards their own individual goals and futures. It should not be given to those who take free rides from the already established status or their parents. According to Ben O'Neill, the author of The Injustice of Social Justice, he states, "for such people, the notion of rights is a mere term of entitlement, indicative of a claim for any possible desirable good.” I completely agree with his statement. People think that they are entitled to material possessions, but you have to work to obtain these material possessions. To have a right is to have something that you absolutely need to survive. It is a necessity in which if absent, life cannot be sustained.
In the Social Justice video, people listed a variety of right that everyone is entitled to, but the one right that truly spoke to me was the right to be. Everyone has the right to be however they want as long as they do not put harm to others. For example, Somalis have the right to be able to live in their own country and be protected by their government. Also, they are entitled to food and water so that they may live the way they want to be. However, the same cannot be said about Al Shabab though they are free to speak their mind, to food and water, they do not have the right to murder people that disagree with them. In the article “The Injustice of Social Justice” Ben O’Neill discusses the difference between right and actual right. O’Neill wrote this article in response to the same video the class saw. He states that the video’s message is “anything that is desirable is a right,” he asserts that this is the wrong way to define “rights.” This definition is mainly discussing what people want and not what they deserve, people want many things but it does not mean they deserve it. On the other hand, O’Neill describes actual right as “objective principles validated by moral philosophy” the best way to explain this is to repeat what Hamilton said above, “to have a right is to have something that you absolutely need to survive.” Therefore by definition, some of the things listed on the videos are not actual right, but just things people want. He also reveals the flaws in social justice, given that one does deserve the right, how does one receive it. For instance, people have the right to be healthy, but to receive it someone else must provide the supplies. Given that Somalia has the right to food and water, who is willing to provide the supplies when the economy is terrible. The limitations of right is discrimination, just because you believe you are entitled to certain rights does not mean everyone else does too.
The term "rights" has definitely been used for more than what it was meant for. I agree with Ben O'Neill in his
article "The Injustice of Social Justice", that people used the term "right" to define their desires. Rights are what people are entitled to and don't need to be supplied by others, such as the right to live as a free being, the right to make your own decisions,the right to speak your mind, and the right to live your life as your desire. These are the genuine rights that you are born with and should not have to compromise these rights. I agree that it can get hard to determine what's a right and what's a desire and for who is it a right and who decides what is morally right. For example, we here in the United States, may think that we all have a right to education because we are provided that, whereas in Africa it would be considered a privilege. We can not make everything that we desire a "right". We have to consider that to get what we are entitled to, it would require for someone elses efforts. As O'Neill states that "to assert a right to some tangible good...requires that someone else must supply that good...and supply you with your desires, at the expense of their efforts." I agree with him that a moral issue shows up when people are forced to supply for other people's desires. I feel that the message that the video was trying to put out was incorrect. Most of the ideas mentioned in the video were desires of the youth, and less of actual rights which i believe are things such as ideas and rights that you can not live without, not things that we desire and just label with the term "right."
I think that the balance of culture and the political/ governmental influence on that culture play the role of people rights and what is given to them as their right. Unfortunately as a result of corrupt government leaders, civil wars tear villages and on a larger scale, countries apart. Simple survival necessities come into the playing field as far as what the people most desire. Meanwhile because of Western influence, the United States, being among the financially richer countries in comparison to the world, has different day to day desires. I think this influence of corrupt and turbulent governmental control within a country pays the toll for all the "fanciful rights" richer countries, such as the Social Justice campaign video made by students and teachers labels as "rights". While I personally love ice cream and lollipops, I don't think the arguement O'Neil uses as an interpretation from the video is accurate. While it's a good mentality, I don't think this is the right argument to make when we're trying to drastically change some people's standard of living. While I believe the idea that we all have the right to do what we want, the baby step of that needs to go into account first if we plan on getting anything done.
O'Neil applauds the recent video made by students and teachers advocating directly to their cause through elegant simplicity. However in my opinion, I think that the presentation itself makes the viewer not over whelmed, but in fact complicates the argument, making O'Neil's accusations less accurate. While I understand the gist of what he was trying to argue, I don't feel that O'Neil answered the question straightforward and without "fluffy" writing that exaggerates and paints an unrealistic picture of basic rights. Hid claim that "the video created is a colorful montage of possible completions to this sentence" is referring to the presentation of the film as a success, and falsely associating structure and ideas in the film for guaranteeing these rights to everyone, when they are unrealistic for everyone. Essentially, O'Neil argues that the film's core message is that anything that is desirable is a right. I personally would have to rephrase that in my own interpretation of this film. Illustrating we all have different needs, different dreams; but inevitably should all be equal of the opportunity. Language can help persuade or hurt an argument, and I think that slight focus adjustment was all O'Neil needed to have a stronger argument.
I think that the balance of culture and the political/ governmental influence on that culture play the role of people rights and what is given to them as their right. Unfortunately as a result of corrupt government leaders, civil wars tear villages and on a larger scale, countries apart. Simple survival necessities come into the playing field as far as what the people most desire. Meanwhile because of Western influence, the United States, being among the financially richer countries in comparison to the world, has different day to day desires. I think this influence of corrupt and turbulent governmental control within a country pays the toll for all the "fanciful rights" richer countries, such as the Social Justice campaign video made by students and teachers labels as "rights". While I personally love ice cream and lollipops, I don't think the arguement O'Neil uses as an interpretation from the video is accurate. While it's a good mentality, I don't think this is the right argument to make when we're trying to drastically change some people's standard of living. While I believe the idea that we all have the right to do what we want, the baby step of that needs to go into account first if we plan on getting anything done.
O'Neil applauds the recent video made by students and teachers advocating directly to their cause through elegant simplicity. However in my opinion, I think that the presentation itself makes the viewer not over whelmed, but in fact complicates the argument, making O'Neil's accusations less accurate. While I understand the gist of what he was trying to argue, I don't feel that O'Neil answered the question straightforward and without "fluffy" writing that exaggerates and paints an unrealistic picture of basic rights. Hid claim that "the video created is a colorful montage of possible completions to this sentence" is referring to the presentation of the film as a success, and falsely associating structure and ideas in the film for guaranteeing these rights to everyone, when they are unrealistic for everyone. Essentially, O'Neil argues that the film's core message is that anything that is desirable is a right. I personally would have to rephrase that in my own interpretation of this film. Illustrating we all have different needs, different dreams; but inevitably should all be equal of the opportunity. Language can help persuade or hurt an argument, and I think that slight focus adjustment was all O'Neil needed to have a stronger argument.
-Becca Cohen (don't have a google account etc. and made the mistake of posting under anonymous a few minutes ago)
I do not believe the video that was made was to literally say that people have the right to eat ice cream or to get a free education. I believe the video was just an exaggeration. Of course, children do not go up to a grocery store and demand free ice cream. That is ridiculous. The point of the video was to lighten up the mood because of all the things that are going around the world. Most videos about social justice are serious and very common. Whoever directed this video probably just wanted to put some humor in it. Kind of like a common sense. There are people across the world who believe that not everyone has a right to speak or to follow their own religion. It is hard for them to understand or process that we are all worth the same. No one is as great as anyone else. Therefore, having the right to speak should be as easily as understood when a child believes he or she could have ice cream whenever he or she demands. Another thing that bothered me is that why do we not have a right to say where our taxes go to? Government makes it seem like our taxes are helping to build our country or educating the youth. But, the percentage of tax that goes to education is very low. Our taxes are going to supplies that are provided at the war; wars that have been going on for years and led us nowhere but to more human destruction. If the government does not give us the right to choose where our taxes go to then we should definitely have the right to free education or to free health care.
Post a Comment