Talk:Privilege
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | ||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale. | ||||||||
|
|||||||||
The following bleat of dismay does not convey much hard information. Can it be rethought?: This term is also used to describe certain advantages that some groups of people are felt to have more than others. Examples include race, social class, attractiveness, and gender. --Wetman 18:53, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I've added a link to Privilege (computer science) under the 'see also' section, since I fealt that is of interest to many people too. I'm not sure though if this is the right way to do it, since the article goes in the category 'legal ethics' which does not exactly go for the privileges in computer science. However the roots for the term in computer science are of course what is described in this article.
Maybe it would make sense to put in one of these branching pages for people to chose whether they mean privileges in the context of law or computer science? I don't know how to do that and whether it is adequate... --Crispy 13:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I added a "See also" link to the article on Executive privilege. It seems like an important example--but it may not quite fit the explanation of "privilege" given here, since it refers to a kind of exemption rather than a special power to take action. I'm not sure whether this is a problem or not.
Is there a well-defined concept of "privilege" in legal theory as contrasted (say) with what we call a "right?" If so, it would be great to have that made clear in this article; that seems to be missing. DSatz 15:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I would like to move the second paragraph into a seperate article Privilege (evidence). The inadmissability of certain evidence in a court of law is quite distinct from the original concept of special entitlements, and it seems sufficiently relevant to justify an own article. - Framhein (talk) 16:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Err.. the text in the article:
'By contrast, a right is an inherent, irrevocable entitlement held by all citizens or all human beings from birth.'
is patently incorrect on several points.
Firstly, 'rights' are generally seen as being dependent on the state (I suppose due to the fact that the state is the embodiment of the social contract of the society). This tends to be a bit confused in states which uphold the concept of 'natural rights' (such as the USA) but can still be seen. 'Human Rights' are conceptualized in a way which better fits the definition in the article, and are of course highly contentious as many major states (such as the USA) do not recognize many of the rights outlined in the 'Universal Declaration of Human rights' (http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html) (for example, #25), and states such as PRC put a different emphasis on aspects of universal rights (placing community aspects such as health and education above personal freedoms).
Secondly, rights can certainly be revoked (by the state) such as when individuals are imprisoned for their crimes - an uncontroversial revocation of a universally agreed fundamental right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Llaith (talk • contribs) 03:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
