Do ghosts have rights?

[Dooey Jo]

Assuming for a minute that the superstitious crap we see on bullshit television programs, with self-proclaimed psychics running around hearing voices in someone else's home, is actually real, what actual social implications would this have?

For instance, this part at the end of the show when the psychic tells the ghost to fuck off. What gives them the right to do that? They seem to be treating these ghosts much like they would pests, but supposedly these are lingering human consciousnesses that can be reasoned with, not some kind of invisible rats. If consciousness does not end at death, surely the person's property should not just be given away and his house be sold off to someone else, and so it ought be the new owners of the house that should move. The job of the psychic should only be to determine whether they have a real ghost or not, so that the would-be owners know that they are in the wrong.

Psychics worldwide might object that ghosts aren't allowed to stay in their old houses because they never pay any rent, and that they can never do so because a ghost can't have a job, but whose fault is that? I can think of a thousand different things that an incorporeal consciousness would be excellent for; security and surveillance being just a few of those. If the psychics instead would focus on getting jobs for the ghosts, and not destroying them, they could actually contribute to society for a change, and everyone would be happy.

Should psychics perhaps be a bit more self-conscious about the implications of the things they say, and if faced with questions like these, would they explode? They might object and say that they know the proper order of the universe, and that the ghosts don't belong here (a bit arrogant, I would say). Or that the ghosts really want to leave and they are doing them a favour, but we never see them asking a ghost if it wants to leave, they just tell it bluntly that it needs to piss off (or go into the light, or cross the line, or sprout wings)...

[Molyneux]

Those damn psychics, always reinforcing the status quo... >_>

If ghosts were somehow proven to actually be the surviving consciousnesses of human beings, I'd think it would follow that they would be eligible for all the rights and responsibilities any other humans follow. If they're not capable of rationality, though, it might be a different matter.

[Lagmonster]

Oh, fuck, I hated this discussion when I was younger.

There are two ways you could look at this; One, that the rights of a human being and citizen stops when you are no longer alive, and thus ghosts have no human rights or rights as citizens. This works for the psychics, who see it as their job to help ghosts be 'at peace', since the prevailing belief is that ghosts are people who do not actually belong on this 'plane of existence'. This line of thinking means that ghosts are like squatters - think of death as a sort of natural eviction in that case.

Alternatively, you could amend laws to take into account that ghosts are still humans and citizens until they 'cross over', although in most cases they're equivalent to the mentally retarded or the severely handicapped.

At which point, you have to qualify what ghosts you are talking about; the tormented spirits who don't know they're dead would be like mentally retarded people with no family - wards of the state who would need counselling or support or whatever they needed to make the transition.

And ghosts who are able to manifest telekinetic abilities and didn't want to leave would likely qualify for employment and the right to own property (since they would be invaluable for performing many tasks - imagine a strong poltergeist able to operate in and manipulate hazardous materials or, say, a poltergeist army corps).

[Johonebesus]

When I was a kid I was fascinated by all this supernatural stuff, and I read a lot of "theories" that claimed that ghosts weren't fully conscious, sentient, sapient beings, but were either psychic impressions left on the environment or delusional souls who didn't understand what was really going on (i.e. they didn't realize they were dead, didn't know where or when they were, were stuck experiencing a traumatic event in a loop, etc.). Under such theories, ghosts, whatever they would be, would not be persons with normal rights and responsibilities.

[Stuart]

Assuming for a minute that the superstitious crap we see on bullshit television programs, with self-proclaimed psychics running around hearing voices in someone else's home, is actually real, what actual social implications would this have?.

Would it have any? The dead have been voting in elections for years.

[General Zod]

So, in the bizarre chance rights were granted, how exactly does anyone propose to punish a ghost if it harms a living person? Ghosts usually aren't that way because they died peacefully according to virtually all folklore on them. Chances are there's bound to be a number of violent ones, so how do you punish a ghost that's responsible for assault or murder?

[Marko Dash]

who are you going to call?

[Gustav32Vasa]

who are you going to call?

Dean & Sam?

[DarthShady]

who are you going to call?

Call Craig

Me thinks a shrink should first establish if the ghosts have kept their sanity before granting them any rights of a human being.

[Coyote]

Ghosts' prospects for employment are limited. For the most part, they seem to be limited in range to their place of death. While this generally means a house, there are a few cases of ghosts haunting roads where they were killed. If it so happens that a county road crew needs a Flagger for that stretch of road, the spirit is in luck, but otherwise, it languishes.

However, lacking corporeal form and generally inable to clutch/grab things for extended periods of time, they may qualify for handicapped welfare support. Of course the bean-counters won't like the idea of supporting a spirit on the public dole for what could be hundreds of years before they "move on" or dissipate naturally.

Ghosts that are able to manipulate objects tend to be limited in range to throwing, dropping, and the occassional energetic hurling of objects. This could be handy in some cases, ie, pitching a baseball for sports events without worrying about hitting the ball back at the pitcher-- but again, we're limited to those ghosts that happen to have died in baseball stadiums.

If ghosts are typically the spirits of those who met an untimely death, probably at the hands of others, they would certainly be material witnesses, but according to psychics they are notoriously difficult to keep focused on a task and can be difficult to understand at times. If a conviction were to result from a ghost's testimony, however, the criminal responsible for their undead state certainly has an obligation to provide support for the entity.

An interesting question, overall.

[Superman]

Until they start paying taxes, their share of the mortgage, rent, etc., they get jack. Damn freeloading ghosts.

[Darth Mordius]

However, lacking corporeal form and generally inable to clutch/grab things for extended periods of time, they may qualify for handicapped welfare support. Of course the bean-counters won't like the idea of supporting a spirit on the public dole for what could be hundreds of years before they "move on" or dissipate naturally.

They're inability to interact with the corporeal world doesn't limit their ability to "survive", so they aren't really handicapped. Ghosts don't require material things to persist, so it's not like they need welfare.

[Lord of the Abyss]

So, in the bizarre chance rights were granted, how exactly does anyone propose to punish a ghost if it harms a living person?

Via exorcism, or with the help of other ghosts.

And as I see it, whether ghosts would deserve rights depends on what they "really" are. The "psychic recording" ones aren't people, and thus don't deserve rights. The "spirits that haven't moved on" versions do deserve rights, including the right not to "move on" if they feel like it.

[Flagg]

They have the right to get zapped and then mocket by Bill Murray. And if they don't like it, tough shit. I mean, who they gonna call?

[Broomstick]

I have two thoughts for this thread:

1) Legally, dead people have no rights. Whether or not they should is a different question, but for right now the dead have nothing.

2) You only hear/see on shows people who don't along with their local ghosts. For all we know, there are an equal number of people who don't have issues with their dead residents and live with them just fine, perhaps even has some affection for them.

[Superman]

I have two thoughts for this thread:

1) Legally, dead people have no rights. Whether or not they should is a different question, but for right now the dead have nothing.

That's very true, and there are specific laws on the books that forbid them from doing things like voting or owning property... So fuck 'em.

2) You only hear/see on shows people who don't along with their local ghosts. For all we know, there are an equal number of people who don't have issues with their dead residents and live with them just fine, perhaps even has some affection for them.

Yeah... and having some hot babe ghost around would rock. Maybe she could join in with my wife and I and make a threesome... err, or whatever the ghost and living people equivalent is.

[ray245]

Speaking of ghost..if there is REALLY such an option...would you stay as one? Or move on?

[Superman]

Speaking of ghost..if there is REALLY such an option...would you stay as one? Or move on?

Move on to what?

[Stark]

Don't start Ray on another of his bizarre 'justify my silly beliefs' tangents. Let's all hang around, shackled to a physical location, almost non-interactive with the world, that sounds awesome! Ray wants to live forever!

[Covenant]

Don't start Ray on another of his bizarre 'justify my silly beliefs' tangents. Let's all hang around, shackled to a physical location, almost non-interactive with the world, that sounds awesome! Ray wants to live forever!

Frankly your description sounds an awful lot like his posting record. All you need are some chains and you could title him "Board Poltergeist." I mean that in good fun, Ray!

If ghosts want Rights they need to be able to demonstrate the ability to be smart enough to justify them. Frankly, this supposes that spirits pass on. But to where? Wouldn't that basically assume some varity of afterlife? I think that'd have larger implications. We'd certainly need to be a lot more worried about bombing people if their Vengeful Spirits will haunt us until the end of our days, rattling china and posting on our message boards.

[Lord of the Abyss]

They have the right to get zapped and then mocket by Bill Murray. And if they don't like it, tough shit. I mean, who they gonna call?

Beetlejuice !

[Kanastrous]

Assuming for a minute that the superstitious crap we see on bullshit television programs, with self-proclaimed psychics running around hearing voices in someone else's home, is actually real, what actual social implications would this have?.

Would it have any? The dead have been voting in elections for years.

The Dead have risen! And they're voting Republican!

[Turin]

If ghosts are typically the spirits of those who met an untimely death, probably at the hands of others, they would certainly be material witnesses, but according to psychics they are notoriously difficult to keep focused on a task and can be difficult to understand at times.

Or, rather, immaterial witnesses.

However, lacking corporeal form and generally inable to clutch/grab things for extended periods of time, they may qualify for handicapped welfare support. Of course the bean-counters won't like the idea of supporting a spirit on the public dole for what could be hundreds of years before they "move on" or dissipate naturally.

and

1) Legally, dead people have no rights. Whether or not they should is a different question, but for right now the dead have nothing.

If we construct rights based purely on utilitarian concerns, then ghosts don't suffer as a result of not having access to the rights affording to the living (access to healthcare, food, shelter, police protection, etc). We could construct a separate set of rights for ghosts which is based solely around their particular needs.

Property rights, for example, definitely need to dissolve at death. We have enough problems with inheritance as it is... can you imagine the potential concentration of wealth possible if you keep your material possessions after death?

[Kanastrous]

Couldn't a haunting spirit have a property-interest, in the location they're haunting?

[Turin]

Couldn't a haunting spirit have a property-interest, in the location they're haunting?

Potentially, but from the standpoint of utility, I'd argue that interest is outweighed by the needs of the living. In most cases where the interests of the living and the ghosts conflict, it's clear that the interests of the ghost are largely overlapping or non-exclusive. (I can't believe I just wrote that in all seriousness.) A ghost can "have" a house at the same time as a living human in a way that other living human cannot. I don't see any particular reason why we'd need to construct social rights for ghosts exactly the same as they are for humans.

In essence, a ghost has reduced capacity for suffering inasmuch as it, well, is already dead.