What’s Wrong with the World

What we have now is a maximally selfish arrangement. Everyone sees the rights they have, and the obligations everyone else has to honor and protect those rights. At some point Reality is going to give our world a good solid thrashing, because that's the only way spoiled brats learn.

Two questions:
-On this web site, does each author provide the title for his or her own piece, or are they provided by an editor/compiler/webmaster?

But this is only illusory, precisely because one man's right is necessarily another man's obligation.

Can you give an example of what you consider to be a reasonable right/obligation pairing vs. an unreasonable right/obligation pairing?

I'm thinking that reasonable is: "I have a right to free speech, which means that you have an obligation not to imprison me for what I say" and unreasonable is "I have a right to a publicly funded abortion, which means you have an obligation to pay for it."

Here you go, Phil:

If you have a right to abortion, a baby has an obligation to die.

If you have a right to free speech, I have an obligation to tolerate the revolution that comes about because of it.

If you have a right to smooch with your gay lover in public, my children have an obligation to watch.

If you have a right to pornography, I have an obligation to live in the sewer you are making of this country.

You get the idea.

Jeff,
Are there any rights that are worth the resultant obligation, then?

As I say in the thread below, I'm still willing to use "rights" talk for important negative rights, which would make the obligations negative. Viz.

If a child has a right to life, other people have an obligation not to suck his brains out.

If even a terrorist has a right not to be tortured, those who have him in custody have an obligation to refrain from torturing him.

**********
Where things get interesting is where we start talking about helpless people for whom others have taken (or receive by nature) responsibility. Then the obligations become positive. Viz.

If your newborn child has a right not to be dehydrated to death, the person in loco parentis to him has an obligation to make every effort to make sure he gets fluids.

Certainly there are, Phil. The right to life, for instance.

But you raise a very good question. In general, there are no grounds for an *absolutist* doctrine of rights at all. A culture of "rights" will always tend to put the cart before the horse.

Certainly there are, Phil. The right to life, the right to liberty (i.e., not to be a slave), and the right to property are generally worth the resultant obligations.

But you raise a very good question. In general, there are no grounds for an *absolutist* doctrine of rights at all. Even the aforementioned rights are not absolute. A policeman may take the life of a dangerous criminal, a judge may take his liberty, and the tax collector may take his property. A culture of "rights", especially when perceived as absolute and inviolable, will always tend to put the cart before the horse.

On this web site, does each author provide the title for his or her own piece,...

I wrote my own titles.

Modern people like to think politically almost exclusively in terms of rights as opposed to obligations. Framing politics in terms of "rights" makes it seem as though there is a progression toward greater human freedom as more rights are recognized. More rights (the unreflective modern presumption goes) means more freedom.

If you have a right to abortion, a baby has an obligation to die.

If you have a right to free speech, I have an obligation to tolerate the revolution that comes about because of it.

If you have a right to smooch with your gay lover in public, my children have an obligation to watch.

If you have a right to pornography, I have an obligation to live in the sewer you are making of this country.

Excellent observations, people.

If you have a right to free speech, I have an obligation to tolerate the revolution that comes about because of it.

Are you saying that we don't have a right to free speech?

God has given us free will. If someone has the freedom to deny or accept God, they also have the freedom, and a God-given right, to be denied eternal life with God.

Many of your thoughts, although well meaning, sound simplified and lacking compassion.

Maybe having that gay couple smooch in front of your family is God testing you to become the good parent that you are.

Maybe someone's right to pornography is God testing us to rise above our own base desires and temptations.

I think we all have our difficulties and our crosses to bear. Who are we to judge other people? Maybe we should judge ourselves first? Christ's ministry was not about judgment, but about redemption - About reaching out to those who have sinned.

As much as we'd like, we cannot live other people's lives for them, but we can work toward a better life for ourselves and the people we love. Moments of moral and cultural ambiguity test our faith, compassion, and our mettle. They make us better people and Christians.

Aydreyin wrote: "Christ's ministry was not about judgment, but about redemption - About reaching out to those who have sinned."

The postings on this thread are not judging people. They are judging rights versus obligations -- the reason for one's actions, if you will.

The ministry of Jesus Christ is all about judging the resasons for our actions. That is what He spent much of His time talking about.

If your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out; better to enter heaven with one eye than to have two eyes in Gehenna.

Placing the sin of adultery into one's heart instead of only in the physical act.

Straining at gnats while swallowing camels.

...and so on.

Aydreyin wrote:

"Christ's ministry was not about judgment, but about redemption - About reaching out to those who have sinned."

The postings on this thread are not about judging people. They are judging rights versus obligations -- the reason for one's actions, if you will.

The ministry of Jesus Christ is ALL ABOUT judging the reasons for our actions. That is what He spent much of His time talking about.

* If your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out; better to enter heaven with one eye than to have two eyes in Gehenna.

* Placing the sin of adultery into one's heart instead of only in the physical act.

* Straining at gnats while swallowing camels.

...and so on.

We must reach out in Christian love to our neighbors, but we must also strive to bring to our civil life enough order to spread the truth of the good news of Jesus Christ. Calling a lie "the truth" does not do that. Calling evil "good" does not do that.

And, if I am understanding him correctly, Zippy is positing that calling obligations "rights" does not do that.

Watching two men smooch in front of your kid is challenging you to be a better parent??? So putting things in front of kids' eyes that don't belong there should just be regarded as a sort of challenge to parenthood? If you're going to say that, let's go the whole hog: "Watching a man and a woman have sexual intercourse on the TV screen is maybe challenging you to be a better parent. So play them-thar cable channels in your living room. And let's all remember: Judge not."

As for pornography being a "challenge," that's also insanity. So we should make our culture one giant cesspool to "challenge" ourselves? The words of Jesus on plucking out your eye (quoted by broed) come to mind, as well as Paul's words on fleeing useful lusts. I mean, heck, why not buy a pornographic book, set it on your kitchen counter, pass it several times every day, and use this to "strengthen" yourself to "rise above your base desires"?

Lead us not into temptation.

Lydia, you and I both know that you would not have the intercourse movie on in your own home. But at the same time you cannot make, just as God does not, make people act the way they should.

And I am not saying that we put pornography out there, or in our home, to challenge ourselves, but that it is there, now, to challenge us to rise above that sort of temptation.

Our freedoms end once they infringe upon the freedoms of another, be they religious, political, or social. We have to live in a society with other people, good or bad. It's in the catechism: "Man is a social creature."

And anyway, if everything was nice and perfect and you wouldn't have to worry about temptation and sin, then at least you'd know that you were dead and in heaven. I'm pretty sure it's a sin-free zone. But here on earth, it is one test of our Christian faith and nature after another. The world is not perfect for a reason that God in his wisdom only knows, but we have to strive to be perfect among each other.

Again, I am not advocating anyone bring pornography or other sinful or uncomfortable things and events into their life, but when a free society challenges us with these things, that is the time we let our light shine.

Honestly, who puts sin in their way to strengthen themselves? But how many of us have to come across things that cause us to challenge our moral and spiritual center?

As for lead us not into temptation, I'm not advocating that either. That is a prayer asking God not do that, but other people are doing that and that is a part of this wonderful life: Rising above adversity and staying true to our selves and our beliefs.

I am not advocating anyone bring pornography or other sinful or uncomfortable things...into their life, but when a free society challenges us with these things, that is the time we let our light shine.

I'd like to let my light shine by outlawing pornorgraphy.

I'm with Bill.

Aydreein, I apologise if I wasn't taking you seriously enough, but it seems to me that your approach is misguided, if only because you seem willing to take it to such an extreme. For example, if you are willing to apply this approach to a child's watching inappropriate behavior before his very eyes, then where do you draw the line? If our society came to accept people's walking about entirely naked, would you _not_ try to reinstate even minimal decency laws on the same argument you are using here? Your argument seems to be that we just have to allow other people to do or present whatever they are going to do or present in public before us, that we should make no effort to use the positive law to restrain other people's public behavior at all, even when it is in our and our children's faces, and that we should just patiently regard such "in your face" behavior as some sort of opportunity to exercise various virtues such as good parenting skills. And this is all supposed to follow from the positive fact that ours is a free society. That's going pretty far. What if it gets to the point of public sex in large windows on the street?

We're moving in that direction. A mall about an hour away from my house has, I'm told, an Abercrombie with _large_ pictures of naked models on the walls. Speaking for myself, I would feel not the slightest qualm about getting that stopped by local decency ordinance. Would you? How bad does it have to get in terms of the contents of large photographs on the walls of a local shopping mall or other public display or behavior before you think it's okay to impose upon other people and make them take it out of your and your kids' faces? Or is there just supposed to be no limit, because this is a free society?

God made the human body, how can it be bad?

For me, the ads may be in poor taste, but they do not bother me. I have a child on the way and I worry about things like pornography and the message in the media that it's OK to be a pimp or a ho or whatever, but we must have faith in God and ourselves and our thoughts and that we will pass on the right way to live and view the world. We should be wary of interpreting our own uncomfortable feelings as temptation or sin when they may just be our own uncomfortable feelings. Self exploration and faith will see us through temptation.

"We see that people are acceptable to God because they have faith, and not because they obey the Law." - Corintians 3:28

These discussions have been enlightening and in good spirit. Thank you.

Yes, Lydia is always enlightening and a woman of good spirit. But you have an annoying habit of not responding to her legitimate points. Seems to me you ought to be willing to answer her questions: How bad does it have to get... before you think it's okay to impose upon other people and make them take it out of your and your kids' faces? Or is there just supposed to be no limit, because this is a free society?

A book titled "Freedom v A Tyranny of Rights" (www.escapingbooks.com) addresses precisely these questions. As it says, we do not build a temple of freedom by stacking one right on top of another like bricks; instead we build ourselves a prison governed by a tyranny of rights.

John