CreateDebate


Debate Info

22
22
Yes. . .yes you can No way
Debate Score:44
Arguments:57
Total Votes:44
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes. . .yes you can (19)
 
 No way (21)

Debate Creator

Kitk34(185) pic



Can you delegate a 'right' to someone else that you don't have?

A question people do not stop to consider, especially, when it comes to politics.  This is the first question with more to follow.

This is an edited and updated version of the question I presented.  The responses so far seem to not really understand what I am asking so, I will clarify by asking the same question, but worded differently:

If there is something that is morally wrong for you to do (such as, committing murder, theft, robbery, rape, assault or fraud), can you make it okay or 'right' for someone else to do it?

 

Yes. . .yes you can

Side Score: 22
VS.

No way

Side Score: 22

Do you have the right to vote? Yes. Who gave it to you? The founding fathers. Did they have the right to vote? No.

Side: Yes. . .yes you can
Kitk34(185) Clarified
1 point

I updated the question because I am not talking about voting, yet. But just for the record, the founding fathers did not give me the 'right to vote'. In the historical context it was primarily merchants and businessmen who were recognized as qualified to vote. The rest of it came later on.

Side: Yes. . .yes you can
1 point

On both sides: Can you delegate a right that you do have? What would that look like?

Side: Yes. . .yes you can
JustIgnoreMe(4290) Clarified
1 point

I think that is a much easier question.

You have the ability to make medical decisions for yourself, but you can delegate that "right" to someone else via a medical power of attorney.

You have the "right" to protect yourself, but you can delegate that to someone else (e.g. hiring a security team).

(Similarly, a group of people may choose to defend itself by hiring security or through setting up a government with that responsibility.)

Side: Yes. . .yes you can

If my co-worker gets robbed and killed - would it be morally wrong for me to (attempt to) track down the perpetrator and kill them?

Don't we delegate that "right" to the state?

Is it rational to believe that my inexperience, zeal, etc. would make me a less apt arbiter of justice in this instance?

Side: Yes. . .yes you can
Kitk34(185) Disputed
1 point

If my co-worker gets robbed and killed - would it be morally wrong for me to (attempt to) track down the perpetrator and kill them?

First of all, that is not the question I asked. I asked if there is something that is morally wrong for a person to do, for example murder your co-worker, can that person make it okay for someone else to do it, as in hire someone to commit the murder for them? And yes, if you were to go after that perpetrator, you would be well within your rights to do so. Even if you do not have the ability yourself, you can hire someone to track the person down. That really is no different than hiring a private detective or what "law enforcement" was supposed to be. Anytime you call the cops for any reason you are taking the law into your hands to seek some sort of justice for a wrong committed against you.

Don't we delegate that "right" to the state?

"The State" is not the issue in question just yet. This is a question on a personal level. Whether you can take a wrongful action and turn it into a right one; like murder is wrong no matter who does it.

Is it rational to believe that my inexperience, zeal, etc. would make me a less apt arbiter of justice in this instance?

I don't know, does it? It sounds like you are avoiding answering the question I asked. It is a simple answer but, it has a wide array of implications that you may not like. But I dare you to answer it and see where I am going with this.

Side: No way
1 point

that is not the question I asked.

It most certainly is. I am taking an immoral action (or at least a questionable one) - vigilante justice, and delegating it to others (in this case the state)

what "law enforcement" was supposed to be.

Tracking down was only the first part - killing was the second. We currently delegate the parts to two separate branches of government.

Anytime you call the cops for any reason you are taking the law into your hands to seek some sort of justice for a wrong committed against you.

In this case the wrong was specifically not against me. I deliberately contrived the scenario to not harm me or even direct family.

like murder is wrong no matter who does it.

Was killing Hitler or Osama bin Laden wrong no matter who did it?

does it?

Yes - it is likely that I am not as capable to enforce the law as a team of professionals selected for such purpose and which has sufficient checks (transparency, separate branches, input from voters, etc.)

If I am not as capable, does it become my moral obligation to delegate rather than pursue it myself - either by hiring a PI or calling the police?

Side: Yes. . .yes you can
2 points

Yes and no. Mostly no for reasons I will explain later in this argument, but also somewhat yes because elected officials without the right to kill, can permit others such as police officers to.

I say mostly no however, because 'rights' are just over glorified privledges, and whatever group is in charge, has the 'right' or privledge to do whatever it wants, even kill. They just don't say they can, but if the government wanted to establish it's group as a group with rights above average citizens (it wouldn't be fair, and a revolution might happen, but it would be possible) they can.

Side: No way
1 point

I say mostly no however, because 'rights' are just over glorified privledges, and whatever group is in charge, has the 'right' or privledge to do whatever it wants, even kill. They just don't say they can, but if the government wanted to establish it's group as a group with rights above average citizens (it wouldn't be fair, and a revolution might happen, but it would be possible) they can.

I disagree that 'rights' are just over glorified privileges because a 'right' is something that is inherent or you have by the fact of being human. The first line in the declaration of Independence stated this and the PTB hate even to this day. A privilege is a permission to do something that a person could not just do themselves.

But what you pointed out is one reason for the question because those politicians do not have a valid claim to do anything they want, even kill. Yet, the problem is in your point there; that someone or group is 'in charge'. And the belief that they have the 'right to rule' is, also, part of the problem.

It is as if everyone is forcing what they think others should do upon everyone else. It really boils down to the desire to control others; which is impossible without the threat or act of violence used upon them.

Side: No way
DrawFour(2662) Clarified
1 point

What you described to be a right, is literally a privilege. You say a right is something that is inherent of being a human. I ask what is inherent, and can't be taken away? I can think of simply 'being able to kill' simple as that, is inherent of being a human, yet we do not generally have this as a right, in fact only a select few are given this privilege under specific circumstances (soldiers in war time, and police with a hostile criminal). Or how about our very own lives, those are entirely inherent to us being humans, thus we have the right to do as we please with it right? Wrong. We can't drink or smoke before a certain age, on the grounds that we would be shortening our own lives before we even understand the repercussions of drinking and smoking. We must wear our seat belts and helmets because if not we're risking our very own lives. And the bit to sum it all up, we can't simply kill ourselves, if we even attempt to do so, we'll be detained and deemed mental. I feel these things we call rights, are only different than what we call privileges because we in some countries write them down and call them such.

Side: Yes. . .yes you can
Jace(5162) Disputed
1 point

What makes any right actually inherent to any person? The very concept of rights is a human cognitive construction, and there is absolutely nothing indicating that the idea of rights exists as an objective reality. There is nothing at all to even suggest that rights would continue to exist independent of and absent our conception of them.

The Declaration of Independence does not prove that rights exist inherent to the human condition and independent of our perception of the rights existing. The very fact that they had to be enumerated as existing to begin with speaks to this, not to mention the utter lack of evidence that rights exist independent of our perception of them.

People have been contriving ways to force their beliefs upon other people since we became capable of experiencing belief. Belief in rights is really just one more form of narrative construction that serves to manipulate existing power structures to the advantage of those capable of influencing the rights narrative. You have a right if, and only if, you or someone else is capable of asserting and securing that right.

Side: Yes. . .yes you can
Kitk34(185) Clarified
0 points

I say mostly no however, because 'rights' are just over glorified privledges, and whatever group is in charge, has the 'right' or privledge to do whatever it wants, even kill. They just don't say they can, but if the government wanted to establish it's group as a group with rights above average citizens (it wouldn't be fair, and a revolution might happen, but it would be possible) they can.

I disagree that 'rights' are just over glorified privileges because a 'right' is something that is inherent or you have by the fact of being human. The first line in the declaration of Independence stated this and the PTB hate even to this day. A privilege is a permission to do something that a person could not just do themselves.

But what you pointed out is one reason for the question because those politicians do not have a valid claim to do anything they want, even kill. Yet, the problem is in your point there; that someone or group is 'in charge'. And the belief that they have the 'right to rule' is, also, part of the problem.

It is as if everyone is forcing what they think others should do upon everyone else. It really boils down to the desire to control others; which is impossible without the threat or act of violence used upon them.

Side: Yes. . .yes you can
1 point

"A question people do not stop to consider, especially, when it comes to politics."

Strangely worded question.

Thinking of current political news, do you mean to ask:

Can Obama delegate a right to illegal immigrants without the authority to do so?

Side: No way
1 point

I think he is asking if Obama can delegate rights to illegal immigrants that Obama himself doesn't have. For instance, granting the right to vote for illegals would be something that Obama does have because he can vote, but something like the right to have a million dollars a week would not qualify because Obama doesn't have that right.

Side: No way
Kitk34(185) Clarified
1 point

I have updated the question to be more specific and apologize if there was confusion there or it was a bit vague.

To answer what you are addressing, no he does not have that 'right' but, then, I do not believe he has the 'right' to do really anything he does as "President".

Side: Yes. . .yes you can
1 point

On both sides: Can you delegate a right that you do have? What would that look like?

Side: No way
Kitk34(185) Clarified
1 point

Instead of dancing around, why not answer the question I asked. Will you give an answer?

Side: Yes. . .yes you can
Amarel(5473) Clarified
2 points

Mine was a clarifying question, not an avoidance. The question is meant determine if rights can be delegated at all. If the ones you have can't be delegated, then none could be.

Side: Yes. . .yes you can
1 point

For some reason it has me on the side of Yes, but I do not agree with that so I am making that clear.

I am hoping people will answer the question instead of trying to distract away from the topic. I will give an explanation of what I mean by 'rights', if that will help.

I would define a 'right' as any action that a person does that does not violate another person. For example, it is right for someone to provide themselves and/or their families with food, water, shelter, clothing, self-defense. You have the 'right' to go and get those things. You might also, buy certain things for their entertainment value or some other useful purpose you have for those items. But, you do not have the 'right' to take from someone else. You do not have a valid claim to any property that is acquired in such a way. And that person would be 'right' in stopping you from doing that wrongful action.

So the question stands:

If there is something that is morally wrong for you to do, can you make it okay for someone else to do it?

Side: No way
daver(1771) Clarified
2 points

NO

If something is thought to be morally or legally wrong, it was been so labeled by some social convention or belief. You as an individual can not decide what is right for a whole group, unless the group has given you that right.

On a side note: You mentioned other questions you have for later. I'm starting to wonder if this is a leading question. Don't like leading questions. If you have some point to make, then please make it directly.

Side: Yes. . .yes you can
Kitk34(185) Clarified
1 point

NO

Thank-you for your answer.

If something is thought to be morally or legally wrong, it was been so labeled by some social convention or belief.

As I understand it, moral action is different from legal. I mean, something that is morally wrong, like murder, theft, robbery, rape or assault, to me is wrong regardless of the legality of said actions. But, then, this was the point of the questions I asked because while on a personal level, an individual accepts that those are wrong actions; I believe it has something to do with "do not do unto others, what you do not want done to you." Yet, under the guise of "government" a person commits those acts and they are accepted as okay.

For example, I highly doubt anyone believes they can go and rob their neighbor and call it a 'tax', but those who work in the IRS do exactly that. So, when it pertains to politics it is as if those actions are okay, as long as they are done by someone claiming to be 'authority'.

You as an individual can not decide what is right for a whole group, unless the group has given you that right.

I agree, however, the group of individuals cannot give one person the right to do something that none of them have any right to do themselves. They could hire me to be a spokesperson for their group, and act in the interests of that group, but nothing that they do or I do can have any bearing on someone who is not a part of that group and did not agree to anything they decided on.

For instance, if everyone agrees to pay dues for their group to pay for expenses, etc. they have every right to decide that and follow through with it as long as it is voluntary. Yet, as soon as they try to force those dues upon others who did not agree to be a part of the group and therefore, not pay said dues, the group would be out of bounds. Even if they convinced me to go and collect those dues from those who are not a part of their group. I would be wrong to follow through with those actions and so would those in that group.

In other words, none of us in that group could claim the 'authority' to essentially rob those outside the group. We cannot turn robbery into a right action, even if it is used for benevolent purposes.

On a side note: You mentioned other questions you have for later. I'm starting to wonder if this is a leading question. Don't like leading questions. If you have some point to make, then please make it directly.

It certainly, was not intended to be a "leading question" but, more of a thought experiment. The questions I had were just follow up ones, but this one is the fundamental one. It starts with the Individual human being. So, if I cannot give a 'right' that I do not have to someone else, then, neither can I do this with another person and give a right that we do not have to a third person, etc.

Furthermore, an innumerable amount of people cannot delegate a right to do something that none of them have the right to do themselves as Individuals.

So this begs the question, how could Congress have gotten the right to do anything that any of us as Individuals do not have a right to do ourselves (like lay and collect 'taxes', etc.)?

The point to all of this is, if it would be bad for you do something, don't ask someone else to do it.

Side: Yes. . .yes you can