https://www.reddit.com/r/freewill/comments/1fhyx3g/us_bill_of_rights/
created by diogenesthehopeful on 16/09/2024 at 07:38 UTC
0 upvotes, 8 top-level comments (showing 8)
At the constitutional convention, Madison's plan we to replace the confederation with a federation and this poll has little to do with that. However apparently it had enough to do with that that he couldn't get the new constitution ratified until he agreed to add a Bill of Rights to it. Therefore most historians see the first 10 amendments as an integral part of the constitution. Be that as it may, why do we need a Bill of Rights if we don't have free will? They are happy and content in the UK and they don't have a bill of rights in writing so why do we need one if you think we do but don't believe we have free will?
Comment by mildmys at 16/09/2024 at 07:43 UTC
4 upvotes, 1 direct replies
Its funny how much importance is placed on pieces of paper, they won't protect you from anything. I'm not from America but isn't having your rights violated by the cops/government very common there?
Comment by MrEmptySet at 17/09/2024 at 03:56 UTC
2 upvotes, 0 direct replies
why do we need a Bill of Rights if we don't have free will?
So that people's rights are protected? Your question doesn't make sense to me. I think the onus is on you to explain how free will has anything to do with human rights or whether they should be protected by the government, because I see no obvious connection here. For instance I see no relationship between whether a person has free will and whether it should be legal for that person to publicly criticize the government.
They are happy and content in the UK
Are they? Everyone? There have been some concerning issues regarding freedom of speech over there. Also, I don't know enough about their laws to be able to say to what extent the rights guaranteed in the US Bill of Rights are protected in some other form, but I'd assume at least some are to some extent.
Comment by LokiJesus at 17/09/2024 at 20:23 UTC
2 upvotes, 0 direct replies
There are no rights nor needs. The paper called the "bill of rights" is a set of communal agreements enforced by a paramilitary executive branch (cops) on the population. That's what it is. We have it in our governing documents in the US and we tend to enforce it. The idea that we "need it" presupposes some goal for which it is required. But ultimately that goal is *merely* someone's want (or the want shared by a group of people).
This has nothing to do with free will other than that some people believe in normative rights and ethical norms... none of which have any reality.
Comment by boudinagee at 16/09/2024 at 09:44 UTC
2 upvotes, 0 direct replies
I mean the supreme court can interpret the constitution/bill of rights however the fuck they feel like it, so its almost pointless anyways.
Comment by gimboarretino at 16/09/2024 at 14:13 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
we have free will and, although one can live without it, it is strongly recommended to have a bill of rights or some kind of constitution
Comment by platanthera_ciliaris at 17/09/2024 at 02:43 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
I ask what will promote the greatest good to the greatest number of people (utilitarianism), and this is more likely to be promoted with a bill of rights than without one. Free will doesn't even enter the picture here, as far as I'm concerned.
Comment by blkholsun at 17/09/2024 at 21:09 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
We don’t have free will and the bill of rights is a thing that happened.
Comment by MarvinBEdwards01 at 16/09/2024 at 11:07 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
In the *Declaration of Independence*, Thomas Jefferson speaks both rhetorically and practically about rights:
When Jefferson speaks of men being “endowed by their Creator” with certain rights, he is speaking rhetorically. The purpose of rhetoric is to win people over to your viewpoint, often by appealing to their emotions. But, at the time of the American Revolution, the opposite side could equally argue the “divine right of kings”. The problem with this rhetorical position is that it would require the Creator to come down and settle the matter. He didn’t, and war ensued.
The same may be said when people speak of “natural rights” or “inherent rights”. There are no objective criteria to determine the “naturalness” or the “inherentness” of a given right. Such claims are rhetorical assertions.
In the second part of the Jefferson’s statement, he addresses rights from a practical view: “to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”.
All *practical* rights arise by *agreement*. We agree to *respect* and *protect* certain rights for each other. For example, we agree to a right to property. We *respect* this right by not stealing from each other. We *protect* this right by passing laws against theft, establishing a system of justice to enforce these laws, and, most important, by calling the police if we see someone breaking into our neighbors house while he’s away.
Rather than just a rhetorical claim to a right, we now have both the means of reaching further agreements by legislation, and a practical mechanism to deal with those who would infringe. Rules and rights are two sides of the same coin.
We can measure, in a general sense, the *moral value* of a right. Consider the recently added right of two people of the same sex to marry. We can ask ourselves, “What are the *consequences* if we agree to respect and protect this right for everyone? What *benefits* and *harms* will follow? Will we *all* be better off adopting this right and creating a rule to protect it? Assessing consequences in terms of the benefits and harms for everyone, is called *moral judgment*.
Because none of us has a “God’s eye view” of the ultimate outcome of our choices, it is possible for two good and honest persons to disagree about what a right or rule should be. The best we can do to resolve differences is to gather the best information, consider different options, make our best estimates of the benefits and harms of each option, and then vote democratically. This establishes the working rule we put into effect.
After some experience with the rule, we will have better information and may alter or remove the rule. Sometimes rights and rules change because our moral judgment evolves. There once was a legal right to own slaves, protected by laws requiring the return of runaways. Now the right of every person to be free is protected by laws against slavery.
The moral judgment of society may also differ from the moral judgment of our conscience. We answer to both. Conscience often leads us to advocate a new law or work to repeal a bad one. In some cases, the judgment of conscience will find a law so egregious that the person must choose not to comply. Before slavery was abolished, many people broke the law by helping fugitive slaves escape. And conscience compelled many Germans to hide Jewish citizens in their homes in Nazi Germany.
Sometimes law accommodates conscience. People with a religious belief, that they must never kill anyone, not even in war, were classified “conscientious objector” in past wars, and given other duties that did not require carrying a gun.
So that is where rights come from. They come from us using moral judgment to decide what rights will benefit us all and which rules will best protect them. As our moral sense evolves, rights and rules may change, but hopefully always toward a more perfect good for everyone.