Are There Innate Rights?

[seireikhaan]

To avoid potentially drifting off topic in the gun thread, I am going to ask it here:

Do you feel there are innate human rights that all have, regardless of circumstance? If so, what rights does that entail?

Personally, I feel there is nothing that is an innate right. No one person is born with their "freedom"(however that is defined, exactly). They are born with whatever privileges society has dictated that they should have. Of course, no two societies are exactly alike. Different privileges have been given around the world and at different times in human history. Some would say "self defense", yet that's quite vague in itself. Against whom? What about odd or difficult to predict circumstances? How to define "self defense"? Does someone lose that "innate right" if they attack someone else first and are retaliated upon? How can it be determined when and how they would even lose them if they could? And if they can lose a right, how can it even be innate in the first place?

Another, freedom to worship as one pleases. What if, in order to worship, they must do their best to ensure others do not have the freedom to worship? How can both "rights" cannot be satisfied? Or does the right stop at some point, and if so, how is that decided? And if it can be halted, again, how can it be innate?

Thoughts...?

[Vuk]

People are born with basic rights that should not be infringed on. They can however, lose these rights during the course of their existance by infringing on other's rights. A person has the absolute right to protect his wellbeing and his other innate rights by any means possible IMO. That does not mean that I think people should have nuclear asarnals, grenades, tanks, etc, as those are things used to fight wars, not protect individual freedom. I think that a gun though (automatic or not) is a must to give someone a fair chance to defend their rights, and I think that infringing on a person's rights to defend themselves is a crime. (you here that gun control people! You are criminals! :laugh4: jj) Likewise I think that freedom of speech is a basic right, but when you are marching down the streets and breaking windows, you are infringing on other people's rights so that is a crime as well IMHO. Likewise, when you preach Nazism, Communism, Blackpower, Whitepower, Feminism (:beam: ok, well maybe I was joking about that one :P) you are endangering other people's rights, and there for :laugh4:commiting a crime against others.
In short, no one has the right to infringe on other's rights, but as long as they are not doing that, then they are entitled to basic rights. Sure, it gets hard to interpret things some times, but I think that is a good rule to follow.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

You have innate rights, you can lose them when you infringe on others rights. I would agree that we don't have inalienable rights.

You're saying it's hard to determine when someone loses a right, and that it's society that determines that. This is true, but it doesn't mean that the rights aren't innate, and that a society which forces most of the people into slavery isn't taking away their rights.

[Yoyoma1910]

FFFFFRRRRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEDDDDDDDDDOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM!!!!!



You have whatever rights you are willing to die for. If you're not willing to die for it, it is merely a privilege.

[Furunculus]

i do not believe in inalienable human rights in the UK.

they interfere too much with a far more important concept called justice.

should a serial violent offender be allowed to own arms - no
should a people have a right to revoke another members life - yes

i can see that its a useful concept in those countries where excitable people run around with machetes, or machine-gun civilians into trenches, but it causes more problems than it solves in the UK.

[Yoyoma1910]

i do not believe in inalienable human rights in the UK.

they interfere too much with a far more important concept called justice.

should a serial violent offender be allowed to own arms - no
should a people have a right to revoke another members life - yes

i can see that its a useful concept in those countries where excitable people run around with machetes, or machine-gun civilians into trenches, but it causes more problems than it solves in the UK.

That's why you're still British.

[Strike For The South]

There are no innate rights. They must be constantly fought for and protected

[Rhyfelwyr]

Innate rights don't exist, but its practical for different cultures to form their own ideas of 'human rights' to ensure people get a decent quality of life. They are guidelines, and breaking them isn't the end of the world.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

An extremely difficult question to answer, but I am inclined to agree with this to a certain extent:


There are no innate rights. They must be constantly fought for and protected

[rory_20_uk]

No. All rights are earnt, and therefore can be lost.

~:smoking:

[Furunculus]

Innate rights don't exist, but its practical for different cultures to form their own ideas of 'human rights' to ensure people get a decent quality of life.

They are guidelines, and breaking them isn't the end of the world.

doesn't that go rather against the grain of the concept of inalienable human rights as enshrined in law across the world?

i think rights should be guidelines too, to be judged through the prism of justice, as judged by the people.

[Rhyfelwyr]

doesn't that go rather against the grain of the concept of inalienable human rights as enshrined in law across the world?

i think rights should be guidelines too, to be judged through the prism of justice, as judged by the people.

Yes, there's no such thing as inalienable human rights. But generally speaking, its good for people to have rights which are treated like guidelines. However, when they become absolute, things start to get a bit silly.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Inalienable: Inseparable, can't be given or taken away
Innate: Present from birth, natural

Yes?

[Askthepizzaguy]

We are born with innate freedoms and human dignity, and natural rights. These can be trodden upon by another individual or the state, but these things exist and can only be denied to an individual. If they can be denied to an individual, then they must have had those rights to begin with by default.

Not the most scientific argument, but I don't have time to get into a big thing right now. I have another thing down at that other thing that I have to do things in.

[a completely inoffensive name]

...

[Askthepizzaguy]

There is little to no difference between a chainsaw, and automobile, and a simple handgun. They all can result in someone's death.

I do draw the line at assault weapons which aren't used for hunting or self-defense, because they are impractical in those functions. But I think that is an acceptable compromise. I do think there is a huge difference between a handgun, a hunting rifle, and a machine gun.

[CountArach]

There are innalienable human rights, such as a right to live. There are also innate rights that are largely innalienable.

[Yoyoma1910]

Handguns are use in some forms of hunting, such as Alligator.

[Strike For The South]

Handguns are use in some forms of hunting, such as Alligator.

Yup, there're also good for killing bears.

[Askthepizzaguy]

I use handguns to type my name into the side of people's houses and cars. I think it's a form of artistic expression.

[Strike For The South]

I use handguns to type my name into the side of people's houses and cars. I think it's a form of artistic expression.

Considering alligator hunting and having to defend yourself from bears/cougars in the Texas mountains isn't all that uncommon, I fail to see your point.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Considering alligator hunting and having to defend yourself from bears/cougars in the Texas mountains isn't all that uncommon, I fail to see your point.

My point is simply.... THIS!!!!

*runs away*



I was attempting to make a joke and failed miserably, which means it's still funny, just in a more ironic way.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Gentlemen,

We have several gun threads currently running. This is not one of them.

It may seem like there exists the inalienable right for a member to bang on about guns, but it's only a privilege. Remember, guns don't derail threads, members do.

Thank you kindly.

:bow:

[Sigurd]

Inalienable: Inseparable, can't be given or taken away
Innate: Present from birth, natural

Yes?
In my language there are no distinction between the two. It is called "medfødte rettigheter" which is translated directly as: congenital rights.

You have this in your Deceleration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

We have something like this:
The constitution builds on a thought that all mankind have congenital rights that no government can interfere with. The individual shall be protected against encroachment. Encroachment can be; detention and imprisonment without law and judgment, or governments taking private possessions without payment.

[Vuk]

My dictionary says that inalienable (unalienable was a mistake on his part :P) means something that comes from birth and is "unassailable" (meaning that they cannot be attacked). Looking at the wording that the framers used (UNLAWFUL imprisonment, etc) I think they were saying that people had rights from birth which SHOULD not be infringed on. Think of it, you have the right to defend yourself from UNLAWFUL and UNREASONABLE imprisonment, punishement, etc. That does not mean that if you broke a law though, that you have the right to 'defend' yourself from being arrested. Likewise, just because you have the right to speak your mind, that is not the same thing as actively organising criminal or militant groups that will infringe on the rights of others, or give you the right to infringe on the rights of others by destroying their property in 'protest'. No one has the right to infringe on someone else's rights, but that does not mean that a murder cannot or should not be arrested or excecuted, because a murderer has no right to 'protect' himself from lawful and just arrest when he has murdered someone.

My :2cents:

[Sasaki Kojiro]

In my language there are no distinction between the two. It is called "medfødte rettigheter" which is translated directly as: congenital rights.

You have this in your Deceleration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

We have something like this:
The constitution builds on a thought that all mankind have congenital rights that no government can interfere with. The individual shall be protected against encroachment. Encroachment can be; detention and imprisonment without law and judgment, or governments taking private possessions without payment.

Well, if you have innate rights, you can lose them when you infringe upon someone else. But if you say they are inalienable then nothing you can do can separate your rights from you. The problem with that statement to me is that you end up saying that people who are in prison still have the right to liberty.

[Vuk]

Well, if you have innate rights, you can lose them when you infringe upon someone else. But if you say they are inalienable then nothing you can do can separate your rights from you. The problem with that statement to me is that you end up saying that people who are in prison still have the right to liberty.

The thing is that right you have is not: liberty. It is: Liberty as you have been lawful and not infringed on other people's rights. While it of course was not worded that way, if you pay attention to the founder's wording, they make it clear that the rights are not meant for breaking the law and infringing on other's rights. They are for the lawful. A criminal still keeps his right to: Liberty as you have been lawful and not infringed on other people's rights, but it just does not apply to him.

[Kralizec]

The thing is that right you have is not: liberty. It is: Liberty as you have been lawful and not infringed on other people's rights. While it of course was not worded that way, if you pay attention to the founder's wording, they make it clear that the rights are not meant for breaking the law and infringing on other's rights. They are for the lawful. A criminal still keeps his right to: Liberty as you have been lawful and not infringed on other people's rights, but it just does not apply to him.

So:
1) everyone has unalienable rights
2) to some the above does not apply?


As for my view:
Freedom, rights etc. are products of civilization and therefore can't be innate or unalienable.

[Furunculus]

not very logical, lol.

[Strike For The South]

If someone wants to take away your rights they can. It happens everyday. You're rights are only there if you can defend them.

The DOI is a great document but means nothing if we can't put our money where our mouth is.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

You have an innate right not to have aggression carried out against you. This right does not disappear if someone overpowers you - it is merely infringed upon.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

If someone wants to take away your rights they can. It happens everyday. You're rights are only there if you can defend them.

The DOI is a great document but means nothing if we can't put our money where our mouth is.

This is true in a sense, and it's certainly important to protect our rights. But I think you're misusing the word "rights". The slaves in the south had the right to freedom, even if they didn't possess freedom itself. Having the right to something and having it are two different things.

[Strike For The South]

This is true in a sense, and it's certainly important to protect our rights. But I think you're misusing the word "rights". The slaves in the south had the right to freedom, even if they didn't possess freedom itself. Having the right to something and having it are two different things.


You have an innate right not to have aggression carried out against you. This right does not disappear if someone overpowers you - it is merely infringed upon.

See that's where I get lost. The slaves had no rights. It doesn't matter what they deserved, it matters what the law says. If we all have these rights why make laws?

I think yall are splitting hairs saying well they have that right they just can't exercise it. They are one in the same

[Sasaki Kojiro]

See that's where I get lost. The slaves had no rights. It doesn't matter what they deserved, it matters what the law says. If we all have these rights why make laws?

I think yall are splitting hairs saying well they have that right they just can't exercise it. They are one in the same

Don't you think it's an important distinction? I mean, why did we free the slaves?

[Strike For The South]

Don't you think it's an important distinction? I mean, why did we free the slaves?

To give them rights.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

To give them rights.

Why don't we free the cows to give them rights then? Is it because they don't naturally possess rights?

[Vuk]

The philosophy stems from Christian faith Strike, that God created men equal, with no kings. They late imposed kings on themselves. Whether you believe in Christianity or not though, the philosophy is that people DO have those rights. The reason that slavery is a crime and had to be stopped is because there was something wrong with it. That is that people's rights were being infringed on. The slaves had their rights, they just were not allowed to exercise them. The reason that murder is a crime is because it infringes on a persons right to life and pursuit of happiness. The person has the right, but they can be murdered and the right will be violated. That does not mean that they did not have it, it simply mean that the criminal commited a crime by violating it. That is paramount to the entire philosophy, and if you miss that, you are missing the entire point that the founding fathers were making.

[Askthepizzaguy]

The philosophy stems from Christian faith Strike, that God created men equal, with no kings. They late imposed kings on themselves. Whether you believe in Christianity or not though, the philosophy is that people DO have those rights. The reason that slavery is a crime and had to be stopped is because there was something wrong with it. That is that people's rights were being infringed on. The slaves had their rights, they just were not allowed to exercise them. The reason that murder is a crime is because it infringes on a persons right to life and pursuit of happiness. The person has the right, but they can be murdered and the right will be violated. That does not mean that they did not have it, it simply mean that the criminal commited a crime by violating it. That is paramount to the entire philosophy, and if you miss that, you are missing the entire point that the founding fathers were making.

:yes:

That's religious philosophy I can agree with.

[Strike For The South]

Why don't we free the cows to give them rights then? Is it because they don't naturally possess rights?

Because we don't deem it necesarry to give them rights.


The philosophy stems from Christian faith Strike, that God created men equal, with no kings. They late imposed kings on themselves. Whether you believe in Christianity or not though, the philosophy is that people DO have those rights. The reason that slavery is a crime and had to be stopped is because there was something wrong with it. That is that people's rights were being infringed on. The slaves had their rights, they just were not allowed to exercise them. The reason that murder is a crime is because it infringes on a persons right to life and pursuit of happiness. The person has the right, but they can be murdered and the right will be violated. That does not mean that they did not have it, it simply mean that the criminal commited a crime by violating it. That is paramount to the entire philosophy, and if you miss that, you are missing the entire point that the founding fathers were making.

The slaves had no rights and were considered property until the 13th 14th and 15th amendment. Property has no rights. The constitution gave them rights. If you can't excersise rights you don't have them. America gives you these rights because we believe it necessary for the best governing of our country.

I belive all Americans have these rights and should but am not going to campign for the ridding of the caste system in India.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Because we don't deem it necesarry to give them rights.


That's not an answer, that's just another question.

[Askthepizzaguy]

I think we're quibbling on definition again. I think we mean the same thing but disagree on terminology. But then again, I could be wrong about that.

[Vuk]

The slaves had no rights and were considered property until the 13th 14th and 15th amendment. Property has no rights. The constitution gave them rights. If you can't excersise rights you don't have them. America gives you these rights because we believe it necessary for the best governing of our country.

I belive all Americans have these rights and should but am not going to campign for the ridding of the caste system in India.

No, they did not have LEGAL rights, but they had "certain unalienable rights" giving by God, that the government was infringing upon by not honoring. That is why the law needed to be changed so that it would not infring on their inate rights. That is the entire point Strike: People have inate, inalienable rights, and the government should respect and protect those rights, because the previous government did not. The whole point is that there is a difference between the rights a society gives you and the inate and inalienable rights you are endowed with by your Creator.

[Rhyfelwyr]

No, they did not have LEGAL rights, but they had "certain unalienable rights" giving by God, that the government was infringing upon by not honoring. That is why the law needed to be changed so that it would not infring on their inate rights. That is the entire point Strike: People have inate, inalienable rights, and the government should respect and protect those rights, because the previous government did not. The whole point is that there is a difference between the rights a society gives you and the inate and inalienable rights you are endowed with by your Creator.

I like people to have legal rights, but I don't think these innate rights exist. From a darwinist (I won't say atheist) perspective, I don't see where they come into play. Even from a Christian perspective, there aren't really such things as innate rights. Where does the Bible mention them?

[Strike For The South]

No, they did not have LEGAL rights, but they had "certain unalienable rights" giving by God, that the government was infringing upon by not honoring. That is why the law needed to be changed so that it would not infring on their inate rights. That is the entire point Strike: People have inate, inalienable rights, and the government should respect and protect those rights, because the previous government did not. The whole point is that there is a difference between the rights a society gives you and the inate and inalienable rights you are endowed with by your Creator.

Legal rights are the only rights you have. The slaves were property beforehand. How can property have rights?

The government only needs to give the rights it see fit. God doesn't get involved in politics.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Why is it morally right to give slaves rights if they are property?

Since property deserves no rights, how do you explain why it is morally correct to free slaves?

Human beings deserve human rights, and slavery is an example of infringing upon those rights. That is why slavery was abolished. If slaves had no natural rights or human rights, no one would have attempted to give them what is theirs by natural right; freedom. It may be taken away by an individual or the state, but it is an insult to the dignity of all human beings for us to be treated as cattle or garbage.

[Strike For The South]

Why is it morally right to give slaves rights if they are property?

Since property deserves no rights, how do you explain why it is morally correct to free slaves?

Human beings deserve human rights, and slavery is an example of infringing upon those rights. That is why slavery was abolished. If slaves had no natural rights or human rights, no one would have attempted to give them what is theirs by natural right; freedom. It may be taken away by an individual or the state, but it is an insult to the dignity of all human beings for us to be treated as cattle or garbage.

One could argue it wasn't morally right. They sure tired back then.

If it wasn't morally right why was it common practice?

[Rhyfelwyr]

Why is it morally right to give slaves rights if they are property?

Since property deserves no rights, how do you explain why it is morally correct to free slaves?

Because it is a nice thing to do and saves them from suffering? There's no such things as innate human rights applicable to all people in all cultures. What we can do is grant them legal rights to ensure a decent quality of life. You're not born with rights, you're given them, and they can be taken away just as easily (as in the right itself is lost, not just infringed).

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Because we don't deem it necesarry to give them rights.

Why don't we deem it necessary?




The slaves had no rights and were considered property until the 13th 14th and 15th amendment. Property has no rights. The constitution gave them rights. If you can't excersise rights you don't have them.


If you were paralyzed, would you say that you had no legs?

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Why is murder wrong, Strike?

[Rhyfelwyr]

Why is murder wrong, Strike?

Is a crime only a crime because it infringes a person's perceived rights? Or is it because it causes harm, is generally not a good thing to do, and such examples of acting without consent is bad for society?

[Strike For The South]

Why don't we deem it necessary?





If you were paralyzed, would you say that you had no legs?]
They cant verbalize grievances.

In essence. I wouldn't actually say that but you get the idea. The matter is slaves were property and by definition property can't have rights. So how can one say there rights are locked up simply waiting to get out?

Without government power, they would have no rights. Saying you are owed something is great but I don't think it's going to stop the Klan from lynching you. They certainly didn't think blacks had any rights.




Why is murder wrong, Strike?

It's not wrong in all cases. War, defense of family, when it's state sponsored. Those are good and legal murders because the state gives them weight.

Saying you have the right to anything is a very empty phrase. Ask the Dalits. Or women in Islam. Different cultures have different entitlement ideas.

Rights have changed over time.

[Reenk Roink]

I voted no. I believe in God given rights, so they are not innate.


The philosophy stems from Christian faith Strike, that God created men equal, with no kings. They late imposed kings on themselves. Whether you believe in Christianity or not though, the philosophy is that people DO have those rights. The reason that slavery is a crime and had to be stopped is because there was something wrong with it. That is that people's rights were being infringed on. The slaves had their rights, they just were not allowed to exercise them. The reason that murder is a crime is because it infringes on a persons right to life and pursuit of happiness. The person has the right, but they can be murdered and the right will be violated. That does not mean that they did not have it, it simply mean that the criminal commited a crime by violating it. That is paramount to the entire philosophy, and if you miss that, you are missing the entire point that the founding fathers were making.

No (major) religion bans slavery.

edit: I guess I should change that to no major religion originally banned slavery and no major religious text banned slavery.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

]
They cant verbalize grievances.

In essence. I wouldn't actually say that but you get the idea. The matter is slaves were property and by definition property can't have rights. So how can one say there rights are locked up simply waiting to get out?

Without government power, they would have no rights. Saying you are owed something is great but I don't think it's going to stop the Klan from lynching you. They certainly didn't think blacks had any rights.


You can want something without having it. Something can exist without you seeing it. A tree falling in a forest makes a sound even if you don't hear it. You have rights even if the law says you don't.

[Strike For The South]

You can want something without having it. Something can exist without you seeing it. A tree falling in a forest makes a sound even if you don't hear it. You have rights even if the law says you don't.

That's something our culture has drilled into you. Our rights are not the same as everyone else's and if they had discovered the new world and scrambled for Europe. We would be singing a very different tune.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

That's something our culture has drilled into you. Our rights are not the same as everyone else's and if they had discovered the new world and scrambled for Europe. We would be singing a very different tune.

Our culture has drilled it into me because, people, left to their own devices, strongly desire life, liberty, and happiness. The source of natural rights is people. Empathy is a natural emotion. We're social creatures.

Other cultures can allow for ritual sacrifice and slavery, but by and large those killed and enslaved don't desire to be. No one who writes the law would write it so that the color of their skin meant they had to be a slave.

You are arguing for oppression based on whoever is in power determining what is right. Not just arguing that this is reality--but that it is right. That's the distinction I was making. That was my analogy with the paraplegic--you are arguing that he has no legs because he can't us them, but clearly he still does.

[Strike For The South]

Our culture has drilled it into me because, people, left to their own devices, strongly desire life, liberty, and happiness. The source of natural rights is people. Empathy is a natural emotion. We're social creatures.

Other cultures can allow for ritual sacrifice and slavery, but by and large those killed and enslaved don't desire to be. No one who writes the law would write it so that the color of their skin meant they had to be a slave.

You are arguing for oppression based on whoever is in power determining what is right. Not just arguing that this is reality--but that it is right. That's the distinction I was making. That was my analogy with the paraplegic--you are arguing that he has no legs because he can't us them, but clearly he still does.

Perhaps. But Does it mean profanity all when the paraplegic can't use the legs? I mean it's great to have but if they don't do anything does it matter if he has them or not.

I agree with you to an extant, I'm just arguing practice. Also should the people who can use there go around trying to help those who can't?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Perhaps. But Does it mean profanity all when the paraplegic can't use the legs? I mean it's great to have but if they don't do anything does it matter if he has them or not.

I agree with you to an extant, I'm just arguing practice. Also should the people who can use there go around trying to help those who can't?

Well, some learn to walk again through effort. I would say it does matter, very much.

For people may be property in practice, and under the law, but they still desire freedom in a way that other property does not. That is because of an innate difference between a person and, say, a cow or a building. That innate difference is the right to liberty.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Is a crime only a crime because it infringes a person's perceived rights? Or is it because it causes harm, is generally not a good thing to do, and such examples of acting without consent is bad for society?
Murder is wrong because you are depriving someone of life (I'm ignoring killing in self defense because that's not really murder - someone has decided to act against you without your consent and you are resisting). If murder was only illegal because it would be bad for society - would it be fine in a society with say, an abundance of males like the Vikings? If most males commit murder against males, not a huge loss for society - and thus acceptable?

[Brenus]

“No one person is born with their "freedom"(however that is defined, exactly)”: I agree. Social determinism is one of the heaviest weights to start with.

There are no “natural” rights as such. All rights are determined upon cultural and social links.
You have slaves when the slaves are not seen as humans, or if you considered slaves as genetically inferior, the good old separation between Greeks and Barbarians…
If a population doesn’t share your faith, it can be enslave or killed, or used as you wanted.

The big step forwards in human rights was a UNIVERSAL definition of human rights, not based on gender, race, colour and religion. It took some time for implementation mind you, and it is still not perfect. But the principles are there…

Now what freedom or rights have a person staving in Africa? What are the right of the kids born in the favelas in Brazil?

“You have whatever rights you are willing to die for.” That is pillaging of war, not rights.
Did you face this choice? It is a nice sentence but what does it means?
Freedom or death is not a choice. Death to the oppressor is more an option.:beam:

What about people who can’t fight: The elderly, the disables?
Put 2000 men with bows in front of a platoon of modern soldiers, they have no chance. So they have no right? Or they will be dead.

[Incongruous]

I voted no. I believe in God given rights, so they are not innate.



No (major) religion bans slavery.

edit: I guess I should change that to no major religion originally banned slavery and no major religious text banned slavery.

This is wrong.

[Askthepizzaguy]

examples, sources?

[Incongruous]

examples, sources?

Have a Bible handy?
Read the Gospels.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Hmmm... it's better to come to a debate armed with specific quotations and cited sources, if you're wanting to give examples. Not everyone has the desire to read the entire gospels to understand your point.

:bow:

[Vuk]

In laymen's terms it is because when God made the New Covenant he afforded everyone the same rights in His eyes. The old customs were done away with and everyone was given a new chance. I don't have a Bible with me, so I cannot start citing sources, but that is the conclusion I (and many scholars) came to after a close examination of Bible passages pertaining to this.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Thank you for the explanation. I have my skeptic's annotated bible handy, given that this is the internet, but I hadn't the foggiest idea where to start looking. There are parts of the Bible I find very appealing, the idea of equality for all mankind is a good start.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I don't think the Bible ever says we have the right to anything. Of course, it is clear that people should treat each other well, and so that has a similar effect as giving people 'rights'. If you treat others as you would like to be treated yourself, you would hardly force them into slavery.


Murder is wrong because you are depriving someone of life (I'm ignoring killing in self defense because that's not really murder - someone has decided to act against you without your consent and you are resisting). If murder was only illegal because it would be bad for society - would it be fine in a society with say, an abundance of males like the Vikings? If most males commit murder against males, not a huge loss for society - and thus acceptable?

I didn't say it is only wrong because of the effect on society, I also said it is wrong because it causes harm to an individual.

[Vuk]

I don't think the Bible ever says we have the right to anything. Of course, it is clear that people should treat each other well, and so that has a similar effect as giving people 'rights'. If you treat others as you would like to be treated yourself, you would hardly force them into slavery.



I didn't say it is only wrong because of the effect on society, I also said it is wrong because it causes harm to an individual.

No, "rights", etc is the language of the founding fathers and their philosophy (which is not to say that others have not used the wording). They based their philosophy on their studies of the Bible however. If you read the letters they wrote to each other, they always make their case by saying "In the Book of Matthew, it says...". The wording and the beliefs are theirs, but they are beliefs they got from reading the Bible and that they at least thought were strongly rooted in God's teachings. You can argue whether they were right or not (I think that were personally), but if you read their own writings, it is pretty hard to argue where their ideas came from.



EDIT: I forgot half of my post. :P Spring break starts today, so my head is in the clouds. :P
About rights in general Rhyfewyr, why would someone seek to save or liberate someone when it would not benefit them at all? Why would someone risk their life to save someone they do not know when it cannot help them in anyway? It is because they have a firm belief that humans do have inborn, inallienable rights. If you are right that rights only exist as people percieve them, then there definately are inborn rights. People's greed, and desire to make themselves richer and more powerful than others has led them to ignore and abuse others rights for centuries, that does not mean that what they did was not wrong then though, and that those people did not have rights. You are confusing two very seperate concepts: The concept of inate, inalienable rights (abstract), and societal priviledge (concrete). I think this would have made an excellent point for our discussion of faith with ATPG. :beam: Many people have absolute, unwavering faith that people do have these inate, and unwavering rights. Since they are abstract, and not concrete, they cannot be proven, and therefore faith (that horrible monster that it is ~;) ) is needed. You cannot prove something abstract that is taken on faith wrong (such as Christianity), so you cannot prove someone wrong that people have these rights. (Nor can it be proven, it must be taken on faith) Arguing therefore is pretty pointless. As for my foundation that gives me faith in these unalianable rights (sic), it is that of the Christian faith, so I have what I consider good reasoning and evidence to support my faith, even if I cannot prove it correct. You may think I am wrong, but as you cannot attack faith directly, you would be better off arguing with its underpinnings. (is it really in line with Christian faith, is there really good reason to have faith in Christianity, etc) :bow:

[Rhyfelwyr]

No, "rights", etc is the language of the founding fathers and their philosophy (which is not to say that others have not used the wording). They based their philosophy on their studies of the Bible however. If you read the letters they wrote to each other, they always make their case by saying "In the Book of Matthew, it says...". The wording and the beliefs are theirs, but they are beliefs they got from reading the Bible and that they at least thought were strongly rooted in God's teachings. You can argue whether they were right or not (I think that were personally), but if you read their own writings, it is pretty hard to argue where their ideas came from.

I've never read these letters, but what verses did they use to back up their arguments? Obviously there are hundreds on how we should treat others well, but I can't think of any that say we deserve to be treated like that.

[Vuk]

I've never read these letters, but what verses did they use to back up their arguments? Obviously there are hundreds on how we should treat others well, but I can't think of any that say we deserve to be treated like that.

We looked at a lot of the correspondence (of course not all, because they sent hundred of letters each over a very long period of time) of the founding fathers in one of my history classes a few years ago. As I said, the language is their own, but it is what they infered from reading the scriptures, and I think that they were very right and that their philosophy is very much in line with God's will. I cannot be sure, but it certainly seems it to me.
I editted my post above to add things I forgot before you posted this, but you probably did not see it. Please read it, as it is a very important point I think.

[Rhyfelwyr]

EDIT: I forgot half of my post. :P Spring break starts today, so my head is in the clouds. :P
About rights in general Rhyfewyr, why would someone seek to save or liberate someone when it would not benefit them at all? Why would someone risk their life to save someone they do not know when it cannot help them in anyway? It is because they have a firm belief that humans do have inborn, inallienable rights. If you are right that rights only exist as people percieve them, then there definately are inborn rights. People's greed, and desire to make themselves richer and more powerful than others has led them to ignore and abuse others rights for centuries, that does not mean that what they did was not wrong then though, and that those people did not have rights. You are confusing two very seperate concepts: The concept of inate, inalienable rights (abstract), and societal priviledge (concrete). I think this would have made an excellent point for our discussion of faith with ATPG. :beam: Many people have absolute, unwavering faith that people do have these inate, and unwavering rights. Since they are abstract, and not concrete, they cannot be proven, and therefore faith (that horrible monster that it is ~;) ) is needed. You cannot prove something abstract that is taken on faith wrong (such as Christianity), so you cannot prove someone wrong that people have these rights. (Nor can it be proven, it must be taken on faith) Arguing therefore is pretty pointless. As for my foundation that gives me faith in these unalianable rights (sic), it is that of the Christian faith, so I have what I consider good reasoning and evidence to support my faith, even if I cannot prove it correct. You may think I am wrong, but as you cannot attack faith directly, you would be better off arguing with its underpinnings. (is it really in line with Christian faith, is there really good reason to have faith in Christianity, etc) :bow:

If you have faith in these innate rights, then I won't argue with you, since I'm sure there's reasoning behind it. However, I do not have faith in their existence, because I feel no need to place my faith in them. As for saving people when it does not benefit yourself, I think people would not do it to protect a person's rights, but simply because it is a good thing to do, and prevents suffering.

[Reenk Roink]

Well forget the Skeptics Annotated Bible - an extremely amateurish and polemical attempt at scriptural exegesis which only succeeds in building up weak strawmen and then knocking them down with no direct reference to another moral code (I presume they are using that Universal Declaration of Human Rights).

Bopa: 1 Peter 2:18 and Ephesians 6:5-8 actually indirectly show tacit support (or at least no opposition if you wish to read it that way) for the institution of slavery. I don't know of any verse in the New Testament that directly opposes the institution of slavery. If you have one in mind though, post it, it's been a while since reading the Bible.

I do recognize that the New Testament itself and the teachings of various churches tell people to treat their slaves well, and teach that a slave and a master are morally equal.

It is a historical fact that slavery coexisted with major organized religions (Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam) until the early modern era and persisted in some places even after.

[Meneldil]

Rights are granted by society. That's sad to say, but as long as we don't live as individualistic atoms, we don't have any right other than the ones granted by the State/the Tribe/the City/whatever.

Human Rights declarations, the DOI, the Habeas Corpus, all these things are:
1 - "Gifts" from the government in the first place
2 - Effective only as long as the government wants them to be

The other way to have right is to fight for them (against society) to take rights by force, or to live completely outside of society and to make your own rights (which becomes increasingly difficult nowadays).

There's no such thing as innate rights, only people agreeing on what is good ans what is not.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

I didn't say it is only wrong because of the effect on society, I also said it is wrong because it causes harm to an individual.
Harm to an individual is measured largely in the extent to which someone has violated their consent.


Rights are granted by society. That's sad to say, but as long as we don't live as individualistic atoms, we don't have any right other than the ones granted by the State/the Tribe/the City/whatever.
So to be honest, all of us only get by on privileges, not rights.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Harm to an individual is measured largely in the extent to which someone has violated their consent.

Consent is not the same as rights.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

It is illegal for you to punch someone in the stomach on the street out of the blue. As a society we have decided you have a "right" not to be punched in the stomach out of the blue - that would be assault, I believe. Now, if you asked someone to punch you in the gut, in front of multiple witnesses, and then they followed suit, would it still be against the law?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Rights are granted by society. That's sad to say, but as long as we don't live as individualistic atoms, we don't have any right other than the ones granted by the State/the Tribe/the City/whatever.



Let's say that you love ice cream. One day the government makes it illegal to love ice cream. Do you now hate ice cream?

You are attributing a power to government that it does not have. You are arguing "might makes right", that whoever has the power to do something is right in doing it. If I can kill you with my bare hands, it is right for me to do so.

[Vuk]

Let's say that you love ice cream. One day the government makes it illegal to love ice cream. Do you now hate ice cream?

You are attributing a power to government that it does not have. You are arguing "might makes right", that whoever has the power to do something is right in doing it. If I can kill you with my bare hands, it is right for me to do so.

Quite so. The government cannot take away your rights, they can only stop you from exercising them. Likewise the goverment cannot take away your fondness of icecream, only stop you from eating it. Just because the government abuses people and ignores their rights does not mean that they do not have their rights.

EDIT: as I said before, Christian faith is pivotal to the philosophy. If God gives you something, only God can take it away. The government has no power to take away rights that God gave you.

[Rhyfelwyr]

It is illegal for you to punch someone in the stomach on the street out of the blue. As a society we have decided you have a "right" not to be punched in the stomach out of the blue - that would be assault, I believe. Now, if you asked someone to punch you in the gut, in front of multiple witnesses, and then they followed suit, would it still be against the law?

Crucially, it is society that gives us that right, and so it cannot be innate. In your example, I know it would still be against the law to punch someone, but isn't that just because most states tend to be a bit protective, compromising total freedom for security?

Legal rights tend to be based along lines of consent, but that does not mean those right are innate. Also, national laws are not always based solely on the laws of consent.

[seireikhaan]

Let's say that you love ice cream. One day the government makes it illegal to love ice cream. Do you now hate ice cream?

You are attributing a power to government that it does not have. You are arguing "might makes right", that whoever has the power to do something is right in doing it. If I can kill you with my bare hands, it is right for me to do so.
Liking ice cream is not a right; its just something you subconciously think. A right is something that can be exercised, or not exercised. For example, in the United States, I am given the right to own a gun; that does not mean, however, that I must own a gun. To say you have the right to think is like saying "you have the right to breath". You don't, simply because breathing is something that must be done to survive. Thought is a similarly basic, instinctual function that everyone, at some level does. It cannot be refrained from.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Liking ice cream is not a right; its just something you subconciously think. A right is something that can be exercised, or not exercised. For example, in the United States, I am given the right to own a gun; that does not mean, however, that I must own a gun. To say you have the right to think is like saying "you have the right to breath". You don't, simply because breathing is something that must be done to survive. Thought is a similarly basic, instinctual function that everyone, at some level does. It cannot be refrained from.

The right to have likes and dislikes, the right to have beliefs, the right to be you, none of these can be taken away by the government. You don't have to like ice cream, but you have the right to. You don't have to like ice cream to survive. It's not a basic instinctual function, and it can be refrained from.

You are arguing that "free thought" is not a right, but that "free speech" is. But the right to free speech comes from the right to free thought. You can't speak freely if you can't think freely. And since the government can't give you the right to think freely, they can't give you the right to speak freely--it comes from within, it is innate.

[Samurai Waki]

No. People do not have any innate rights, or I should say people have the right to do whatever they want. Its just the human condition that we set up basic guidelines for people to live by, I of course recognized that this necessary to protect us from ourselves, but it by no means defines us as a species.

"Do what thou wilt, shall be the whole of the law."

~Aleister Crowley

[Rhyfelwyr]

You are arguing that "free thought" is not a right, but that "free speech" is. But the right to free speech comes from the right to free thought. You can't speak freely if you can't think freely. And since the government can't give you the right to think freely, they can't give you the right to speak freely--it comes from within, it is innate.

But aren't rights concerned with how people interact with one another? They aren't biologically implanted in us, otherwise all people would never infringe anothers rights (because if they did, it would be pointless to evolve to have/be created with rights anyway).

[Sasaki Kojiro]

But aren't rights concerned with how people interact with one another? They aren't biologically implanted in us, otherwise all people would never infringe anothers rights (because if they did, it would be pointless to evolve to have/be created with rights anyway).

Why would people never infringe another's rights? The people arguing that rights come from laws are not saying that people don't break the law.

[seireikhaan]

The right to have likes and dislikes, the right to have beliefs, the right to be you, none of these can be taken away by the government. You don't have to like ice cream, but you have the right to. You don't have to like ice cream to survive. It's not a basic instinctual function, and it can be refrained from.
Likes and dislikes, beliefs, etc... These are not a right; again, a right must be something that can be willfully abstained from; one cannon abstain from thought or preference, it happens regardless of political circumstances. These are basic human functions. Your biology will determine whether or not you find ice cream to be an appealing food/thingy.


You are arguing that "free thought" is not a right, but that "free speech" is. But the right to free speech comes from the right to free thought. You can't speak freely if you can't think freely. And since the government can't give you the right to think freely, they can't give you the right to speak freely--it comes from within, it is innate.
I do not argue that "free speech" is necessarily a right. It is only a right if society grants it. Plenty of functioning societies have existed throughout history with all sorts of restrictions on speech. In other words, people will think what they will; what they are allowed to do with that thought depends.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Why would people never infringe another's rights? The people arguing that rights come from laws are not saying that people don't break the law.

Laws are unnatural and are always changing, by the law we only have rights so far as they can be upheld. If innate rights were built into our genes/soul/whatever, it seems pointless for a social creature to develop such a system when so many infringe upon it regardless.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Likes and dislikes, beliefs, etc... These are not a right; again, a right must be something that can be willfully abstained from; one cannon abstain from thought or preference, it happens regardless of political circumstances. These are basic human functions. Your biology will determine whether or not you find ice cream to be an appealing food/thingy.

You can choose to believe in god, or you can willfully abstain from making that choice. That choice is your right. It is not a basic human function to believe in god. Saying that it is a basic human feature is saying that it is innate.



I do not argue that "free speech" is necessarily a right. It is only a right if society grants it. Plenty of functioning societies have existed throughout history with all sorts of restrictions on speech. In other words, people will think what they will; what they are allowed to do with that thought depends.

Society cannot "grant" the right to free speech, no more than they can grant the right to fly and the right to be immortal. They don't have the power to give, only to suppress. It is possible to write laws that contradict themselves and contradict the laws of nature. Such laws would be meaningless.

You seem to be arguing against the existence of morality, and possibly abstraction in general. But what isn't abstract? Is your computer a solid, real object? Prove it...

Essentially khaan, people have an innate moral sense, and from that sense the natural rights are naturally derived. You have that sense too, but you adopt a view or rights that denies that sense. A very multicultural view. Which set of laws do you think is better, saudi arabia's or the US's? You can't distinguish between the two without a believe in natural rights. But if you were forced to choose which country to live in it would be an easy choice for you. This is the absurdity of your position, you do not believe in it, any more than descartes believed the world around him was an illusion.


Laws are unnatural and are always changing, by the law we only have rights so far as they can be upheld. If innate rights were built into our genes/soul/whatever, it seems pointless for a social creature to develop such a system when so many infringe upon it regardless.

Evolution doesn't have a specific point.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Quite so. The government cannot take away your rights, they can only stop you from exercising them. Likewise the goverment cannot take away your fondness of icecream, only stop you from eating it. Just because the government abuses people and ignores their rights does not mean that they do not have their rights.

EDIT: as I said before, Christian faith is pivotal to the philosophy. If God gives you something, only God can take it away. The government has no power to take away rights that God gave you.

Why did you have to put in that edit that ruin it for me.

Faith is not pivotal, it is just how the Founding Fathers came to that conclusion. Technically, if it is god that grants and takes rights, then they still are not rights but privileges, so i never got that argument.

We have rights because it is human nature to be selfish. We want things that no one else can take from us. Therefore these rights we claim to have are natural for us to have. It is similar to the concept that greed is good in capitalism. You think that selfishness and greed are evil, but actually and quite ironically are the two forces that make the world better.

Everyones greed works against each other to create a system where people can buy affordable products because all the business people are trying to one up each other and win over customers so they can get more money.

Everyone's selfishness works against each other to form these rights that no one else can take from us, which has proved to increase the quality and enjoyment of our life.

This is why such ideas of everyone acting nice and not using guns or everything being owned by the state and having everyone given equal shares of everything are failures, they go against human nature. An intelligent society does not work to make everyone perfect in nature by removing the bad, an intelligent society works to manipulate the bad qualities so that they all cancel each other out, thus leaving behind only the good.

Just my thoughts.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I think some people are just taking the practical, cynical view to far, warping their definition of "right" to do so.

A right is something to which you have a just claim. What constitutes a "just claim" must necessarily be universal, because otherwise it would be open to contradiction.

[seireikhaan]

You can choose to believe in god, or you can willfully abstain from making that choice. That choice is your right. It is not a basic human function to believe in god. Saying that it is a basic human feature is saying that it is innate.
The point is that, regardless of the choice, you are believing in one way or another. It matters not which method they choose, but it is undeniable that people always have a belief of some kind. Even atheists hold beliefs.


Society cannot "grant" the right to free speech, no more than they can grant the right to fly and the right to be immortal. They don't have the power to give, only to suppress. It is possible to write laws that contradict themselves and contradict the laws of nature. Such laws would be meaningless.
Indeed, a lay stating you have the right to be immortal would be meaningless. However, that is besides the point. Just because I am able to do something does not mean I am entitled to do it. You say that you have the right to free speech, essentially because society cannot give that right, only take it away. Tell me, am I allowed to strangle an infant with my bare hands just because I can?


You seem to be arguing against the existence of morality, and possibly abstraction in general. But what isn't abstract? Is your computer a solid, real object? Prove it...
I can kick a computer. I cannot kick morality.


Essentially khaan, people have an innate moral sense, and from that sense the natural rights are naturally derived. You have that sense too, but you adopt a view or rights that denies that sense. A very multicultural view. Which set of laws do you think is better, saudi arabia's or the US's? You can't distinguish between the two without a believe in natural rights. But if you were forced to choose which country to live in it would be an easy choice for you. This is the absurdity of your position, you do not believe in it, any more than descartes believed the world around him was an illusion.
I would feel uncomfortable in Saudi Arabia not because I have an innate sense of morality. I would be uncomfortable because of my socialization in the midwest United States. It has taught me certain values, values that are, at times, in conflict with the values taught in Saudi Arabia. If this was about an innate, universal sense of morality, the Saudis would have revolted and/or changed their laws long, long ago.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

The point is that, regardless of the choice, you are believing in one way or another. It matters not which method they choose, but it is undeniable that people always have a belief of some kind. Even atheists hold beliefs.

It is possible to simply lack belief.



Indeed, a lay stating you have the right to be immortal would be meaningless. However, that is besides the point. Just because I am able to do something does not mean I am entitled to do it. You say that you have the right to free speech, essentially because society cannot give that right, only take it away. Tell me, am I allowed to strangle an infant with my bare hands just because I can?

The infant has a natural right to life...are you asking about what happens when one persons rights interfere with anothers?


I can kick a computer. I cannot kick morality.

You can't prove that you can kick your computer. What if you only think you can kick your computer? What if it's all in your mind?



I would feel uncomfortable in Saudi Arabia not because I have an innate sense of morality. I would be uncomfortable because of my socialization in the midwest United States. It has taught me certain values, values that are, at times, in conflict with the values taught in Saudi Arabia. If this was about an innate, universal sense of morality, the Saudis would have revolted and/or changed their laws long, long ago.

Why were you socialized? Because people are innately prone to socialization. We are also innately prone to empathy. Empathy is the basis of morals (do unto others...). We also have fears, which is why the saudi's haven't revolted.


My belief is that rights are things which you have a just claim to, and that people, by virtue of being human, have a just claim to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You say that I believe this only because of socialization. But I think there is a natural tendency to believe it...protecting one's life is a basic instinct, and a very strong one.

I do see your point, on the surface it seems that we should all get along if we all have an inner moral compass. But just because you know which way is north doesn't mean you have to go north, and there are many other conflicting desires within us. But their existence doesn't disprove the moral compass.

[Craterus]

I do see your point, on the surface it seems that we should all get along if we all have an inner moral compass. But just because you know which way is north doesn't mean you have to go north, and there are many other conflicting desires within us. But their existence doesn't disprove the moral compass.

But sadly the fact that people can't agree on what right and wrong actually is calls this whole innate moral compass idea into disrepute.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

But sadly the fact that people can't agree on what right and wrong actually is calls this whole innate moral compass idea into disrepute.

There are always exceptions...but, nearly universally, people believe that they themselves have the right to life and liberty. On the other hand, socialization can be a powerful force...hmm.

I would say that the existence of universal just claims doesn't depend on everyone knowing them.

[seireikhaan]

It is possible to simply lack belief.
Elaborate on this, please.

The infant has a natural right to life...are you asking about what happens when one persons rights interfere with anothers?
No, its the implication of your statement about having the right to say what you want just because people want it themselves. Many people think abortion should be allowed and would want the option of it. Further, whether the unborn embryo/zygote/fetus is a person, and therefore may or may not have "rights". Does this mean abortion is an inherent right?

You can't prove that you can kick your computer. What if you only think you can kick your computer? What if it's all in your mind?
I kick, therefore it is. :smartass2:

Why were you socialized? Because people are innately prone to socialization. We are also innately prone to empathy. Empathy is the basis of morals (do unto others...). We also have fears, which is why the saudi's haven't revolted.
Socialization is inevitable because children are so effective at absorbing information at young ages. The only way to not be socialized would be to be left in total and utter isolation from birth- and that is impossible. Further, to say empathy is the basis of morals is not correct. Mosaic law is not concerned with empathy; they are laws laid down by Yahweh, given to a prophet for humans to obey. Islam's morals are similarly laid down. To take it even further, the whole point goal of Christianity and Islam is to reach heaven- a personal and selfish goal. I'm not sure about Judaism, but I believe there is/are element(s) to it as well. In Hinduism, the goal of following Hindu ethics is to obtain a higher status upon being reincarnated. Buddhism, the goal is to obtain Nirvana. In various polytheistic religions, the goal was to appease the gods so that they would bring personal favor. And separating ethics from religion is impossible in most cultures, as the religions brought forth their own ethics which infused with society. If the goal of the source of ethics is personal enrichment, how can the ethics be based in empathy?


My belief is that rights are things which you have a just claim to, and that people, by virtue of being human, have a just claim to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You say that I believe this only because of socialization. But I think there is a natural tendency to believe it...protecting one's life is a basic instinct, and a very strong one.
Humans have natural instincts. So do animals. Protecting one's own life is a tendency in most of the animal kingdom, with rare exceptions of parent animals perishing for the sake of offspring. The pursuit of life is something that is hardly unique to the human condition.


I do see your point, on the surface it seems that we should all get along if we all have an inner moral compass. But just because you know which way is north doesn't mean you have to go north, and there are many other conflicting desires within us. But their existence doesn't disprove the moral compass.
Again, I do not deny humans have some unique characteristics which give us a capacity unlike any other. The fact that we can have so much disagreement on what these "natural" claims would seem to me to indicate that there are no true "natural" claims.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Rights are a combination of the laws that govern you plus the Religion that you subscribe to. None of them are inate.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

On reflection, I would have to agree with you khaan. I recall stories of feral children raised by wolves and such, which from what I remember make it clear that our sense of morality comes form socialization. Although I suppose one could say that we have the innate capacity to become moral.

[ICantSpellDawg]

On reflection, I would have to agree with you khaan. I recall stories of feral children raised by wolves and such, which from what I remember make it clear that our sense of morality comes form socialization. Although I suppose one could say that we have the innate capacity to become moral.


So do dogs (http://atheism.about.com/b/2008/09/24/evolving-dog-morality-and-behavior.htm), it seems. What does morality mean now?

Quite a bit from a religious perspective, not much from a humanist one. Learned behaviour does not equate classical understandings of morality. Dogs learn that one action is offensive to sensibility, not offensive to a transcendent right/wrong split. I believe that our own understanding of morality comes only from our limited life training. Everything that seems at odds with our learned behaviour and rational abilities must be immoral. People in urban areas LEARN that bigotry based on ethnicity or sexuality is wrong, therefore it is wrong. People elsewhere learn that sexual acts that deviate from percieved acccepted norms are wrong, therefore wrong.

Who is right? Most likely your answer will come from your beleifs and upbringing.

Wouldn't it make more sense that neither matters universally? Belief in life as sacred is merely a learned concept that could just as easily be enforced the other way? Sense and reality illustrate this as true, but we deny it - instead focusing on the delusion that right or wrong exists based on "our inate feelings".

BS.

Morality doesn't come from within, but rather external forces dictate what our cores learn to tell us. You choose "empirical" arbitrariness based on the unfinished bridge built on by people like JS Mill, Neitsche, De Sade and Sartre. I choose a metaphysical belief system re-enforced by people like Aquinus, Augustine, Mother Theresa and Jesus.

Pick your poison

[Brenus]

“Tell me, am I allowed to strangle an infant with my bare hands just because I can” If you are a bushman in the Kalahari Desert and the drought is now too long and it will insure the survival of the clan (and within the others measure like kill the elders who have no chance to go through as well), yes you are.

“Does this mean abortion is an inherent right”: And the pendulum question is “Does the free disposal of your body a right”.
Is a woman obliged to give unwanted life, and therefore obliged to take care of the unwanted life a care for all her life… So where HER right of pursuing happiness on HER own terms is, not imposed by others beliefs in this?
If you believe in individual right and choice, she can do what she want with a body.
Then come what of the individual right of the father to have a baby. Well, because rights are not natural, none.
You have no RIGHT to have babies. You have RIGHT not to have babies.

Rights and laws are made to in fact stop us to be act under natural law. You shall not kill, you shall not steal, you shall not want you neighbours’ wife are in fact against natural laws/instinct…
The fact we are Sapiens, the fact that we think allowed as to recognised that some natural laws are not the best thing for being a human.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

You know, I still disagree that the rights come from the laws. That leads to "one day a right, next day not a right" silliness.

Our concept of morals comes from society it's true, but I'm unconvinced that societal pressure could make more than a small percentage of people not desire life, liberty, and happiness for themselves. To me, that means they have a just claim to those things, and therefore a right to them.

Taking a position otherwise, the multicultural kind of "if their society doesn't grant them those things, then they don't have a just claim to them", seems to me to be an overly skeptical cop out. Sure, we can't claim to have any proof of what's moral. But the list of things we can prove is minuscule. You do the best you can with your power of reasoning, and you have to argue it on that basis. You have to try and answer the question "why shouldn't people in all societies have the right to life?" to the best of your ability.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

“Tell me, am I allowed to strangle an infant with my bare hands just because I can” If you are a bushman in the Kalahari Desert and the drought is now too long and it will insure the survival of the clan (and within the others measure like kill the elders who have no chance to go through as well), yes you are.

So the ends do justify the means? This opens a whole lot of other issues up in terms of ethics.

[seireikhaan]

You know, I still disagree that the rights come from the laws. That leads to "one day a right, next day not a right" silliness.

Our concept of morals comes from society it's true, but I'm unconvinced that societal pressure could make more than a small percentage of people not desire life, liberty, and happiness for themselves. To me, that means they have a just claim to those things, and therefore a right to them.

Taking a position otherwise, the multicultural kind of "if their society doesn't grant them those things, then they don't have a just claim to them", seems to me to be an overly skeptical cop out. Sure, we can't claim to have any proof of what's moral. But the list of things we can prove is minuscule. You do the best you can with your power of reasoning, and you have to argue it on that basis. You have to try and answer the question "why shouldn't people in all societies have the right to life?" to the best of your ability.
I believe the problem we're running into here is what the proper definition of a right really is. In my view, a right is an entitlement- something you are free to either exercise, or to refuse. In my view, society grants itself whatever privileges it so desires. Your dismissal of "one day a right, next day not" as silliness is inadequate. Look at the United States. One day, blacks had zero rights- they were property. Next day, they were free from the institution. Of course, legal loopholes persisted for a hundred years, but the point remains valid- a person's rights were different one day then they were the week before. That's hard fact.

Now, as to your second position, I offer this: life, liberty, and happiness are ideas. Life, as I pointed out previously, is not something humans are alone in their pursuit of. Even a cow wants to live at an instinctual level. Certainly, I cannot imagine most American(men :smartass2:) would be apt to believe that cattle have any rights besides the right to remaining ridiculously tasty. Liberty and Happiness are both relative terms. Is the North Korean factory worker, having been bombarded their entire life about how glorious their society is, and in having no contact with the outside world, being totally content with life, not actually "happy"? And what on earth is liberty? Its just as hard to quantify. Is the nomadic camel herder in sub-Saharan Africa the most truly prosperous man in the world, because he has no binds on his life? Further, to even attempt to put a bind on what "liberty" is makes an automatic assumption that one has defined it. Do I have the right to shoot a man just because I'm mad? No? Why? Because I'm "infringing on his rights?" Right there, you've already enforced an idea of what liberty is supposed to be, and thus, you are enforcing a codified system on which people are restricted. Why are they restricted? Why, well because you said so. And once more, we are back to arbitrary justice, just as it always has been.

[Vuk]

You know, I still disagree that the rights come from the laws. That leads to "one day a right, next day not a right" silliness.

And by that definition, in his time, by his laws, Hitler had a right to do what he did to the Jews in the holocaust. Sorry, I do not buy that. Hitler violated their rights when he did, and was not exercising his own right.

[Brenus]

“So the ends do justify the means? This opens a whole lot of other issues up in terms of ethics.”
Yes in term of nature and survival. So there are no “natural” rights.
But I am not one of “how nice mother nature is”. I think that the main part to be a human is to be able to think, to be a Sapiens…
So I won’t condemn a Bushman because he killed a new born during a draught. He analyse a situation, took a decision, not based n nature or rights but on a reality check and save the clan.

Ethic is always an issue. I worked with people allegedly full of ethic. But it is a very elastic concept, a pure exemplar of social Darwinism. It evolves with the situation.
Humanitarian Wars, Right of Intervention, good and bad victims, peaceful re-integration and ethnic cleansing, lies which could have been true, manipulation of media, Protected Area, all these concepts changed meaning depending on who did what and when things happened.

There are no innate Rights. The real beauty of Human Rights is in the fact they are NOT natural.
We, humans, imagined them against all natural instincts.
And they make as human.:beam:

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I believe the problem we're running into here is what the proper definition of a right really is. In my view, a right is an entitlement- something you are free to either exercise, or to refuse. In my view, society grants itself whatever privileges it so desires. Your dismissal of "one day a right, next day not" as silliness is inadequate. Look at the United States. One day, blacks had zero rights- they were property. Next day, they were free from the institution. Of course, legal loopholes persisted for a hundred years, but the point remains valid- a person's rights were different one day then they were the week before. That's hard fact.

The tricky bit about this though, is that the impetus to free the slaves came from the belief in natural rights. It's a bit of a chicken and egg problem. I'm trying to pin it down exactly, but your position seems to be comparable to saying that a tree that falls in a forest makes no sound if there is no one to hear it (of course that's an age old argument...).

Best comparison I can come up with is the definition of words. I would say that words mean what we think they mean, that they depend on usage. If we use "Justice" in a certain way then that is what it means, regardless of what it says in the dictionary, which could change one day from the next. Words have a correct definition that goes above and beyond the dictionary. In the same way, if people have a just claim to something one day, then it can't change the next based on a new law (or a new dictionary definition of "just") unless people as a whole changed.


Now, as to your second position, I offer this: life, liberty, and happiness are ideas. Life, as I pointed out previously, is not something humans are alone in their pursuit of. Even a cow wants to live at an instinctual level. Certainly, I cannot imagine most American(men :smartass2:) would be apt to believe that cattle have any rights besides the right to remaining ridiculously tasty. Liberty and Happiness are both relative terms. Is the North Korean factory worker, having been bombarded their entire life about how glorious their society is, and in having no contact with the outside world, being totally content with life, not actually "happy"? And what on earth is liberty? Its just as hard to quantify. Is the nomadic camel herder in sub-Saharan Africa the most truly prosperous man in the world, because he has no binds on his life? Further, to even attempt to put a bind on what "liberty" is makes an automatic assumption that one has defined it. Do I have the right to shoot a man just because I'm mad? No? Why? Because I'm "infringing on his rights?" Right there, you've already enforced an idea of what liberty is supposed to be, and thus, you are enforcing a codified system on which people are restricted. Why are they restricted? Why, well because you said so. And once more, we are back to arbitrary justice, just as it always has been.

Ah, but of course we can't be certain. It's naturally a complicated subject--but why wash your hands of the matter and give the deciding authority to society? We can't prove that the world around us exists, but we assume it does because that's the best we can do with our reasoning. Almost all abstract concepts are hard to pin down.

[Meneldil]

Let's say that you love ice cream. One day the government makes it illegal to love ice cream. Do you now hate ice cream?

You are attributing a power to government that it does not have. You are arguing "might makes right", that whoever has the power to do something is right in doing it. If I can kill you with my bare hands, it is right for me to do so.

That's not really what I'm arguing there. I'm arguing that there's no rights outside of society. Society is precisely here to prevent "might makes right" behaviors.

I think I'd agree with what Alexander the Pretty Good said: we don't have rights, but privileges, at least as long as we don't have to fight for them.
If someday, the state/leader/whatev decides that loving ice cream is illegal, then you have to choices:
- you accept to lose a privilege
- you fight for your right to love ice cream.

Edit: Oh well, I guess if we have rights only when we fight for them, then yes, might makes right, though not on the individual level.

[seireikhaan]

The tricky bit about this though, is that the impetus to free the slaves came from the belief in natural rights. It's a bit of a chicken and egg problem. I'm trying to pin it down exactly, but your position seems to be comparable to saying that a tree that falls in a forest makes no sound if there is no one to hear it (of course that's an age old argument...).

Best comparison I can come up with is the definition of words. I would say that words mean what we think they mean, that they depend on usage. If we use "Justice" in a certain way then that is what it means, regardless of what it says in the dictionary, which could change one day from the next. Words have a correct definition that goes above and beyond the dictionary. In the same way, if people have a just claim to something one day, then it can't change the next based on a new law (or a new dictionary definition of "just") unless people as a whole changed.
The impetus came from an assortment of reasons. Certainly, there were plenty who felt it was morally abhorrent for one human to own another. However, people's definitions of what "natural rights" has changed. That is why legal rights have continued to change over the course of history. At one point in history, people had no qualms about six year old boys climbing into coal mine shafts on a routine basis to squeeze into places full grown men could not fit. Now, most would consider the practice barbaric. My point is this; there are no "natural rights" if society is continually changing what the definition of natural rights is. To imply that there is such a thing as "natural" rights implies that they are universal and unchangeable by mankind. At least, that is how I see it. Now, I do believe people will continue to fight for more rights as societies progress. This does not derive itself from any kind of "natural rights", however, merely from a combination of human selfishness, guilt, and rationalizations.



Ah, but of course we can't be certain. It's naturally a complicated subject--but why wash your hands of the matter and give the deciding authority to society? We can't prove that the world around us exists, but we assume it does because that's the best we can do with our reasoning. Almost all abstract concepts are hard to pin down.
On the contrary, I'm not saying that humanity should give up on deciphering human rights- it is a beneficial illusion, if you ask me. Generally, more people benefit from more civil rights, from my perspective, which leads to a more stable society. I merely disagree of the source of such rights and how they should be implemented.

[Askthepizzaguy]

The impetus came from an assortment of reasons. Certainly, there were plenty who felt it was morally abhorrent for one human to own another. However, people's definitions of what "natural rights" has changed. That is why legal rights have continued to change over the course of history. At one point in history, people had no qualms about six year old boys climbing into coal mine shafts on a routine basis to squeeze into places full grown men could not fit. Now, most would consider the practice barbaric. My point is this; there are no "natural rights" if society is continually changing what the definition of natural rights is.


Well......

Our understanding of science changes all the time, but does the fundamental nature of physics change? I would argue that our understanding of rights and morality may change, but the rightness or wrongness of an action never changes. Murdering the innocent and enslaving them is wrong in any era, whether or not human beings were clever enough to understand that. I find it to be a logical certainty that some things are inherently wrong, independent of our judgment.

Almost... almost... like I believe that the universe has morality encoded in cause and effect, and logic allows our understanding of that morality. Sort of like.... God.

Ooooh spooky, I almost believe in God, just different from other peoples'. :shocked:

I'd better leave before I convert away from non-theism.

[seireikhaan]

Our understanding of science changes all the time, but does the fundamental nature of physics change? I would argue that our understanding of rights and morality may change, but the rightness or wrongness of an action never changes. Murdering the innocent and enslaving them is wrong in any era, whether or not human beings were clever enough to understand that. I find it to be a logical certainty that some things are inherently wrong, independent of our judgment.
Again, depends on who you ask and when. Ask a Roman whether they had the right to burn Carthage to the ground. Then ask a Carthaginian the question. Then ask the Carthaginian whether they have the right to burn Rome to the ground. There's so much circular logic that can be induced in a thousand different ways to circumvent any sort of ethical standards that it reduces the whole idea to impotence anyways.


Almost... almost... like I believe that the universe has morality encoded in cause and effect, and logic allows our understanding of that morality. Sort of like.... God.

Ooooh spooky, I almost believe in God, just different from other peoples'. :shocked:

I'd better leave before I convert away from non-theism.
Oh dear, what's all this now? :laugh4:

[Askthepizzaguy]

Again, depends on who you ask and when. Ask a Roman whether they had the right to burn Carthage to the ground. Then ask a Carthaginian the question. Then ask the Carthaginian whether they have the right to burn Rome to the ground. There's so much circular logic that can be induced in a thousand different ways to circumvent any sort of ethical standards that it reduces the whole idea to impotence anyways.

Ooops, I think we missed each other's points.

What I meant was, simply... people are idiots, and we will never understand what is moral to a 100% degree. Otherwise we would be godlike and perfect.

However, just because we do not understand morality completely, like physics, that does not mean it does not exist as a phenomenon that man did not create.


Oh dear, what's all this now? :laugh4:

Oh dear.... :shame:

Those are.... my actual... "religious" beliefs. :oops:
Silly huh? I... try to understand the universe independently from organized religion, and I was silly enough to share my... deep beliefs here.

:shame:

[Sasaki Kojiro]

The impetus came from an assortment of reasons. Certainly, there were plenty who felt it was morally abhorrent for one human to own another. However, people's definitions of what "natural rights" has changed. That is why legal rights have continued to change over the course of history. At one point in history, people had no qualms about six year old boys climbing into coal mine shafts on a routine basis to squeeze into places full grown men could not fit. Now, most would consider the practice barbaric. My point is this; there are no "natural rights" if society is continually changing what the definition of natural rights is. To imply that there is such a thing as "natural" rights implies that they are universal and unchangeable by mankind. At least, that is how I see it. Now, I do believe people will continue to fight for more rights as societies progress. This does not derive itself from any kind of "natural rights", however, merely from a combination of human selfishness, guilt, and rationalizations.

I wouldn't disagree with you when you put it this way. But I think of it more like pizza said: It is our own understanding and reasoning that reveals the natural rights to us. Unless societies are never wrong, then there must be a "rightness" that exists separately from society.

I do agree that "natural rights" is a poor way of putting it. By nature we are forced into signing the existing social contract--no matter how limiting it is on us. The same could possibly be said of "innate" rights although that might be semantics. What I'm really arguing for are universal rights--or terrestrial I suppose--that can be arrived at by reasoning.




On the contrary, I'm not saying that humanity should give up on deciphering human rights- it is a beneficial illusion, if you ask me. Generally, more people benefit from more civil rights, from my perspective, which leads to a more stable society. I merely disagree of the source of such rights and how they should be implemented.


When does an illusion stop being an illusion? Abstract concepts can have concrete effects. I could say our existence is a beneficial illusion...

[seireikhaan]

Oh dear.... :shame:

Those are.... my actual... "religious" beliefs. :oops:
Silly huh? I... try to understand the universe independently from organized religion, and I was silly enough to share my... deep beliefs here.

:shame:
Aww, c'mon, I wasn't seriously trying to deride your beliefs. ~:grouphug: By all means, share. :yes:











]I wouldn't disagree with you when you put it this way. But I think of it more like pizza said: It is our own understanding and reasoning that reveals the natural rights to us. Unless societies are never wrong, then there must be a "rightness" that exists separately from society.

I do agree that "natural rights" is a poor way of putting it. By nature we are forced into signing the existing social contract--no matter how limiting it is on us. The same could possibly be said of "innate" rights although that might be semantics. What I'm really arguing for are universal rights--or terrestrial I suppose--that can be arrived at by reasoning.
I would disagree with the premise- I feel there is no innate "rightness" that has ever existed. We can rationalize our selfishness and guilt to promote whatever we want to support, merely by hopping the carousel at the right moment. Generally, the largest number of people with similar beliefs will come out on top. As such, I really can do little else but reject the notion that there is some unseen universal standard of which to strive for.


When does an illusion stop being an illusion? Abstract concepts can have concrete effects. I could say our existence is a beneficial illusion...
An illusion is what it is. We can do our best to imitate it. Yet, ultimately, like the morning after a shaking dream, we can never quite come to grasping its entirety...

[Askthepizzaguy]

I feel there is no innate "rightness" that has ever existed.

NOW We have a debate, my friend!

What is the logical result of murdering as many people as possible? Isn't there a negative, an absolutely real negative, which far outweighs all positives?

You can create thought experiments where "what if we had to stop THE OUTBREAK that would destroy mankind" but I'm talking about 99% of the circumstances, the realistic ones that don't include bizarre extraneous extenuating circumstances.

Murder, in the most neutral and physical sense, is negative for mankind, as a philosophy, as a policy, as an action. our OPINION of it may change, but it remains logically negative for mankind, and not because I think so.

It's just a matter of cause and effect. What is the effect of this action? what are its consequences? Do people die needlessly? Death and destruction, for no purpose... what is the value of that?

In the most basic sense, morality is encoded into cause and effect; it's hardwired into the universe and exists as a pure fact of our reality, like gravity or electromagnetism or what have you. It's not something we can change.

Regardless of our opinions, for example, the laws of mathematics don't change in 99.9999% of all circumstances (except maybe near a black hole or something, and even then... there's math to be had) and that is because the fundamental nature of reality has a predictable constant phenomenon at work which we can interpret using observation and logic.

In my opinion, that's a better theory than "because I said so" or "because deity said so"...

But, I could be wrong, and that is why it's not exactly a form of faith, just a hypothesis. A silly one I admit.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I would disagree with the premise- I feel there is no innate "rightness" that has ever existed. We can rationalize our selfishness and guilt to promote whatever we want to support, merely by hopping the carousel at the right moment. Generally, the largest number of people with similar beliefs will come out on top. As such, I really can do little else but reject the notion that there is some unseen universal standard of which to strive for.


An illusion is what it is. We can do our best to imitate it. Yet, ultimately, like the morning after a shaking dream, we can never quite come to grasping its entirety...

I do feel that this is a more realistic way of looking at it. There are tons of those hypothetical ethical scenarios that contain just the rationalizations you talk about, like the "You can either save your loved one, or two people you don't know" type scenarios. This is actually a good argument against innate rights--since humans will naturally value the lives of their loved ones over strangers (even the freedom of a loved one over the lives of strangers), then humans are inherently predisposed to infringe other peoples supposed rights.

I'd like to defend the idea but I don't seem to be able to. Maybe I'll try a new angle on it...I'd certainly like it to be true.

[seireikhaan]

I do feel that this is a more realistic way of looking at it. There are tons of those hypothetical ethical scenarios that contain just the rationalizations you talk about, like the "You can either save your loved one, or two people you don't know" type scenarios. This is actually a good argument against innate rights--since humans will naturally value the lives of their loved ones over strangers (even the freedom of a loved one over the lives of strangers), then humans are inherently predisposed to infringe other peoples supposed rights.

I'd like to defend the idea but I don't seem to be able to. Maybe I'll try a new angle on it...I'd certainly like it to be true.
Its been an interesting debate, Sasaki. :yes: Its a pity we can't have more like this in the backroom where people are examining and seeking truth than spouting their own opinions in anger at others to relieve stress. I hope for more engagements like this.

Pizzaguy; Tomorrow or Tuesday, I'm tired and have to be up early tomorrow morning.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Its been an interesting debate, Sasaki. :yes: Its a pity we can't have more like this in the backroom where people are examining and seeking truth than spouting their own opinions in anger at others to relieve stress. I hope for more engagements like this.


I enjoyed it as well ~:cheers:

If you "lose" a debate you're wrong once, if you "win" by stubborn clinging to prior beliefs then you're wrong for the rest of your life. Should be a simple choice :sweatdrop:

Not that I've given up on the innate rights idea completely... ~D

[Askthepizzaguy]

I enjoyed it as well ~:cheers:

If you "lose" a debate you're wrong once, if you "win" by stubborn clinging to prior beliefs then you're wrong for the rest of your life. Should be a simple choice :sweatdrop:

Not that I've given up on the innate rights idea completely... ~D

The idea of innate rights is the only thing which explains why slavery is wrong, even if the slaves were obtained "legally".

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Sasaki, 'khaan:

Your debate has NOT gone unnoticed. It is, indeed, one of the better examples provided here. You both defend/cling to your points just enough to make your arguments passionate, yet both of you have freely acknowledged good points/counters made by the other. Good stuff sirs!

[Askthepizzaguy]

What am I, comic relief? :jester:

Oh wait, yes I am. Nevermind!

[Craterus]

It's just a matter of cause and effect. What is the effect of this action? what are its consequences? Do people die needlessly? Death and destruction, for no purpose... what is the value of that?

There's no reason why right/good has to derive from achieving some purpose... ~:rolleyes:

[Askthepizzaguy]

There's no reason why right/good has to derive from achieving some purpose... ~:rolleyes:

happy 9,000, by the way.

That is true, but some actions result in disastrous consequences, and that is not the same as motive, purpose, or intent. It is merely the result. The results are good or bad.

One little thing; I dislike the roll-eyes smiley when it is used in that manner. It seems... slightly condescending.

:bow:

[seireikhaan]

Sasaki, 'khaan:

Your debate has NOT gone unnoticed. It is, indeed, one of the better examples provided here. You both defend/cling to your points just enough to make your arguments passionate, yet both of you have freely acknowledged good points/counters made by the other. Good stuff sirs!
:quiet: Don't tell anyone, Seamus, but:

Its a secret Gameroom plot to overthrow the backroom with a combination of trench coats, reasoning, humility, and, of course, octosquids. Sorry we couldn't tell you sooner, but you're on the "other" side now.
:creep:

[Craterus]

One little thing; I dislike the roll-eyes smiley when it is used in that manner. It seems... slightly condescending.

:bow:

Nothing meant by it whatsoever, it was more a lamentation at my brief posts when others have the time and patience to communicate their ideas with much greater depth.

:bow:

[Askthepizzaguy]

Nothing meant by it whatsoever, it was more a lamentation at my brief posts when others have the time and patience to communicate their ideas with much greater depth.

:bow:
Ah! A mis-communication. No hard done then. :bow: