The Debate Between Duty and Right! 30

Let's start with freedom.

Freedom is your right, and right is a person who is born with it.

No one can deny him.

But when you enjoy your rights, you also have obligations that you must do.

Any right is the other side of the obligation.

Freedom, then, cannot be a complete freedom without constraints.

Freedom is bound, and so is freedom of speech.

You can't just because you have the right to be free and you don't have to fulfill your obligations.

Freedom is relative.

The rhetoric itself is even more so.

When you speak, you are fulfilling your obligations.

You have to devour the consequences of yourself.

It is impossible and undesirable to insist on freedom.

If you are completely free, others will hurt your rights.

In this way, it is you who suffer, and you lose more than you gain.

Everything is relative, and there is a contradiction.

If you look at the problem separately.

Bringing to oneself can only bring the loss of one's own rights.

I think there is something wrong with the direction of your debate, and you should start to think about the debate in the direction of the right and the duty standard!

Suggested reference:

Hello, I have seen your question and am sorting out the answer, please wait a while

The right to duty is two sides of the same thing, and their arguments are also your arguments, and you can also bring their arguments.

1. The dialectical process of mutual correspondence, interdependence and mutual transformation of rights and obligations. Rights are conditioned on the existence of obligations, and obligations are conditioned on the existence of rights. Without any of them, he conveniently ceases to exist.

The obligee must bear obligations under certain conditions, and the obligor must enjoy rights under certain conditions.

2. Aggregate equation. Another relationship between rights and obligations is the equation between the total amount of rights and the total amount of obligations in a society. This quantitative reciprocity is the basic criterion of social justice and justice.

3. Consistency of value and complementarity of functions. The consistency of values means that both rights and obligations are created for the same purpose as the legislative purpose. The complementarity of functions means that rights and obligations contribute to the same subject at the same time: initiation and inhibition, incentive and constraint, active and passive, benefit and contribution.

4. The law of conservation of rights and obligations. This law is manifested in three proportional relationships between rights and obligations in different relationships: first, under the premise that the total amount of rights and obligations remains unchanged, there is an inverse proportional relationship between private rights and obligations and public rights and obligations; Second, the rights and obligations of private rights subjects are not proportional to each other; Third, rights and obligations are directly proportional to a country's economic, social, cultural, and democratic conditions.

Summary. The relationship between rights and obligations in logical thinking is: the right is fulfilled when the obligation is fulfilled, and the obligation is fulfilled, and the right is realized.

Generally speaking, it is difficult for the subject of the obligation to perform the obligation consciously if it does not have a noble personality and ideological character. In a society that has not progressed to the point where all or most of the members of the society have high moral character, there will inevitably be a rejection of obligations by people, making it impossible to fulfill them.

Hello, I have seen your question and am sorting out the answer, please wait a while Oh dear, the relationship between rights and obligations in logical thinking is: the right is realized and the obligation is fulfilled, and the obligation is fulfilled, and the right is realized. Generally speaking, if the subject of the obligation does not have a noble personality and ideological character, it will be difficult for the subject to consciously perform the obligation in a clear manner.

In a society that has not progressed to the point where all or most members of society have a high chain of moral character, there will inevitably be people's rejection of obligations, making it impossible to fulfill obligations.

Is there any argument that in the debate it is more important to state that the object is the obligation?

Some obligations are dictated by laws and regulations, and some are formed by the social contract.

Rights are what you can do, what you can do and what you can't do. And the obligation is what you should do, what you have to do.

That's right. 1. Rights and obligations are opposites and unified.

2. Rights and obligations are interdependent.

3. Rights can be waived, but obligations cannot be waived. So it's opposite.

4. Rights and obligations are a kind of correspondence, and the basis for enjoying rights is the performance of obligations.