If right means, that which is granted by society, who has the right to judge?

Question: If right means, that which is granted by society, who has the right to judge!?
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker:

In the strict case you mention, it would be he who is empowered by that entity which decides right from wrong!. But a deeper 'right' may exist on some level!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

The key word here is "IF"!. There lays the dog's tail, because society does not grant our rights but the laws of truth!. To take a 'so called right' and apply it to everyone is condescending!. There are many things society grants and they may be a right in men's eyes but are they right!?
I don't think so, and with that lesson I've been taught I would have to say that no one has the right to judge!. We are allowed to judge, but we ourselves will be judged even more harshly than we ourselves judge!.
Making an assessment is a fine thing and that is a requirement in every-ones life on a daily basis, but an assessment is not judging and the individual has to know the difference or else he/she could be stepping in cow-pies while walking through the green and flowered pastures!.
In other words!. Life may look like you have a right to judge and pass judgments on what society thinks is right but you have to be careful that you don't hurt yourself with your decisions!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

There are many different kinds of rights!.

There are philisophical 'rights' that exist as abstract theories!. There are 'legal' rights (and responsibilities) within the context of your particular country and are enforced by the rule of law!.

There are certain 'inalienable rights' which are granted by the UN regardless of your country and while they are not really enforced they exist as a formal statement (ie - somewhere between pure theory and legal rights)!.

There are family rights decided by the senior member of your family!. (or whomever the decision maker is and how strong the family traditions are passed from generation to generation)!. There are societal 'norms' (which are kind of like rights) which kind of just happen by weight of numbers!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Rights are not "granted!." Rights are protected!. In the U!.S!., the things that are granted are "privileges and immunities," under the 14th Amendment!.

John Locke taught that rights are secured only in the consent of the governed through what is called "common sovereignty!." That is how our system works!.

But our Founders took the idea one thought further and concluded that if "common" sovereignty was the answer, that sovereignty could only be given by citizens who have sovereignty to give--after all, you can't give what you don't have, even politically speaking!.

So they were fervent believers in "individual sovereignty," which they described as being "unalienable!."

"Individual sovereignty was not a peculiar conceit of Thomas Jefferson: It was the common assumption of the day!.!.!."
http://www!.friesian!.com/ellis!.htm

You have rights, the rights you would have if you were NOT born under any political system, the rights which that non-existent system could then not take away from you!. They are, according to the Founders, "god given!." (They frequently spelled god with a lower case "g"!.)

Under the system of "common sovereignty" http://www!.basiclaw!.net/Principles/Popul!.!.!. you agree to give some of your rights to the state--the right to be your own cop, judge and jury; the right to be your own army; etc!.

In effect, this makes society work better because we then become a nation of laws, not of men; but also because the government takes over those duties!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

I don't think judgment is a right, more of an instinct!. It's hard not to judge at first!.!.!. impossible, judgment is how humans (and other animals), recognize others!. I think what you mean is, who has the right to base a person off a judgment, and possibly degrade them!?Www@QuestionHome@Com

All rights are created by the majority!. In democracy, this is easily seen, but even in dictatorships where the majority gives their rights to the leader or refuse to fight for their rights, they had made a choice about what rights they deserve!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Actually, our forefathers might have argued that rights are inherent to all human beings and cannot be put into law!. Society, on the other hand, grants privileges beyond that!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

there is only one correct answer to the question as you ask it;

whomever is given that right by society!.Www@QuestionHome@Com