[Have you realised that its Rights and Duties and never Duties and Rights?] DUTIES AND RIGHTS ----------------- I will use this page to talk about why I think rights shouldn't exist and only duties should, and like how that would be organised. Perspectives 1. Pragmatic 2. Philosophical (kinda?) 1. Pragmatic I think that if people only had duties I would be easier to point who is doing wrong, because when people focus on the unmet rights of a person you have to suspect/inspect/investigate everyone person to discover why that person's rights are unmet (unless they tell u the specific person, obviously, but im speaking in a situation like a person without a house, or without enough food, like societal issues) But when a person isn't doing what they're supposed do to you see it cleary (and u can respond accordingly). Also, rights are always collective, for a right to be fulfilled people have to respect it, but duties doesn't always have to be collective, you can have a duty to not eat meat but another person doesn't, and there will be no conflict, but if you believe animals have a right to live the other person also has to not eat meat, and people (will, or maybe won't) defend the animal's right and conflict will emerge (thus making the system more unstable). And while duties are more respectful and individual I do not negate that for every group/society to exist there has to be a list/agreement of common duties, because if there aren't the group can't move foward. 1.1 IDK You may think that like: Well, but what if someone's personal right is to kill Asturians, if Asturians have no rights how will they prevent the attack (or something like this). In that case even if the Asturians had a right to live that person wouldn't respect it, like this happen irl all the time, people choose which rights to respect and which not... That is just a problem of hatred. 1.2 Redudancy Rights are also redudant, rights exist because peolpe have duties, if everyone had rights and no one had duties, there would be not way to have those rights fulfilled, because no one has an obligation do respect them. But duties can exist without rights, I can do something everytime I want. For example, this right: "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." (Article V of the UN declaration of human rights) If you are being tortured it means that someone did something wrong, if torture is wrong, there must be a duty to not torture someone, so if you have been tortured it means that someone hasn't done their duty to not torture, and they shall/have to be punished (or not, this depending on your morals ig) I think this demostrates pretty well why rights are redundant (tho, this specific argument doesn't demostrate that they're slow and contraproductive leave me a message at neocities.org/site/lupen if u disagree with me and want to debate, I want too! because like I came up with this idea by myself and I cannot find persons on the internet/in history with this exact same idea, the only things I find are murican conservatives complaining about how "wokes" want all handled by daddy state and not take responsablility [not very useful 4 me and a stupidity]) 1.3 Rights only exist in relation to other agents (duties doesn't require another agent, you can think you have a duty to not touch the river, but that river may not have a right to not be touched), so its something collective/interpersonal, but I think its wrong to frame this thing that rights and duties search (cooperation, cohabitation, improve material conditions) as an individual matter (rights, because they start from you, and are like more independent to your context/person around you) and not a collective/interpersonal one (duties, they start from your relation with others/your ambient). 1.4 Well, I have to say that rights may work better in large groups (like big states like idk, Spain, with millions of people and a lot of area). But I think this is not something wrong because large groups are like unstable and ideas get corrupted faster in them, because accumulation of power or smth I need to expand this THEYRE IMAGINATE THEYRE NOT INNATE u form societies based on agreed duties because theyre not innate it sounds unnatural to renounce to your rights to form part of a group but it doesnt sound unnatural to take responsabilities/duties to form part of a group But if I want universal duties like (do not kill other people) I have to have a base, like with rights its because people have an innate right to live so you should not kill them, but without rights where does that duty of not killing someone comes from? Maybe because we instictively value human life, but what about psychopaths? Well, maybe I don't have to have rights to say that human life is valuable and because of that you should respect it, or that happiness or liberty is good and one have to respect it, maybe I don't have to have rights after all, or maybe they are just hidden and buried... check mate rightists if you say "I/We have a right to X" it makes sense If you "I have a duty to X" its like OK? good 4 u but if you say "We have a duty to X" has more sense and like imapct this was kinda shitty, based on intuition maybe (30/05) How does that make any sense, what the fuck i was talking about (im listeing bitch boss by doja cat) am i cooking chat https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhRBsJYWR8Q history/origin of rights, it seems resonable but idk if its matters really