ARE WE ENDOWED WITH CERTAIN UNALIENABLE RIGHTS?

truth
Yes, indeed, Ican!

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Your method of pegging a right to the whole of society conflicts with what some would assert as their right. The right to have more rights than others, the right to be better.. etc.

Some may claim the right to have more rights than others. But it would be self-destructive to do so. The moment they claim any right including this one, they automatically claim it for all others. All others would thereby have the right to secure their right to equal rights by depriving the original declarer of securing his right to extra rights by, say, desecuring his right to self-defense. Hopefully, for one's own sake (i.e., one's sense of his own self-interest), no one will make that mistake.

What about the right to be better? I think securing that right would be a mistake for us because of the negative implications of the conflicts that would necessarily ensue. However, securing the right of each of us to, say, "honorably prosper" creates no such conflict when we honorably prosper unequally, due to unequal talents or unequal circumstances.

Craven de Kere wrote:

Can you explain why you think any self-declared right automatically extends to all? Because some rights are mutually exclusive with the rights of others.

EXCELLENT QUESTION!

Consider the logical implications of not having that rule. Any declaration of rights different from those in all our mutual self-interests would either not be secureable, or if they were secureable they would violate other's rights that were secured. I think the logical implications of that are obvious.

So this rule is implied by the logically implied negative consequences of not having that rule.

NOW it might be more productive to explore how all those rights that are in all our mutual self-interests are more easily secured by my proposed system of thinking.

0 Replies

Re: truth

JLNobody wrote:

Ican, apologies if I read too much between your lines. I may very well have used you as a straw man in order to contextualize the points I wanted to make.

You did read too much between the lines. But I'm glad you did, because you made your point better than I have been able to make the same point.

0 Replies

Re: truth

JLNobody wrote:

I only experience "roundness" when riding over a small hill. Make sense?

And when flying at 40,000 feet or more feet above the ground. O yes, better do it in a functioning aircraft. Laughing

0 Replies

truth
Ican, let me pick a bit, mainly for purposes of discussion. One may say that perspective is everything. For example, within a range of, say, ten square miles (it could be much larger, of course), my world is experienced and effectively responded to as flat. In an aircraft orbiting the earth, it is experienced and effectively responded to as a globe. One might say that the ten-square (micro) scale is a delusion, much like a mirage, whereas the earth-orbiting (macro) scale is realistic. But why should one scale be more priviledged that the other? My experienced micro scale is responded to realistically, and while it does have some properties of a mirage--i.e., it's appearance is relative to me, my size and optical properties, I respond to it far more realistically than I would trying to drink from a mirage. At other times--and for me this may never happen in my entire life--I would, say as an astronaut, find the macro scale (perspective) relevant. If I thought the world would be seen as flat from the height of an spacecraft or I thought, as a hypothetical denizen of space, that the environment is experienced on earth as round, I would be wrong in both instances. All is relative; perspectivism reigns.

0 Replies

kuvasz wrote:

no one has answered what the purpose of rights is, how rights apply not merely to actions but also to human consciousness, and for what reason individual rights derived from social convention even exist.

if all rights arise from social aspects, what is the purpose of rights for the individual?

for the individual, what do rights do?

why is it important to humans for them to have rights?

how does one arrive at the values humans place upon rights?

what are the basic premises made about humans that they deem it important to have rights?

no one has mentioned the fundamental premises society makes about humans from which even social conventions admit human rights.

I gave my proposed answer earlier. Maybe you missed it.

WE, EACH AND EVERYONE OF US, SHALL GRANT EQUAL RIGHTS TO EACH AND EVERYONE OF US TO ENABLE OUR POSTERITY TO SURVIVE UNTIL THE TERMINATION OF OUR UNIVERSE.

Our failure to thus far make such a grant has severely stifled our evolution and prevented it from reaching that level where we are able to honorably (i.e., in complete accord with such grant) accomplish that which must be accomplished for our posterity to survive that long.

What must we accomplish? Perhaps we must find a way to deflect bolide and stop them from messing up our yards. Laughing

kuvasz wrote:

what is it that society defines a human such that the human is afforded rights not granted any other animal?

We can learn how to deflect bolide and other animals cannot.

kuvasz wrote:

why do dogs not have the same rights as humans? what is inherent in the human that is not inherent in the dog that society tells us that dogs have the right only to be treated humanly?

not ableta learna howta stoppa da bolide, thena noa equala rights. Laughing

kuvasz wrote:

what is the quantum difference human society recognizes that separates man from beast?

Humans can declare AND secure the rights they declare. Animals cannot do that.

kuvasz wrote:

tell me this and you have told me from where rights come.

They come from me, you and all other humans who think so.

0 Replies

Re: truth

JLNobody wrote:

Ican, let me pick a bit, mainly for purposes of discussion. One may say that perspective is everything. ...
If I thought the world would be seen as flat from the height of an spacecraft or I thought, as a hypothetical denizen of space, that the environment is experienced on earth as round, I would be wrong in both instances. All is relative; perspectivism reigns.

I find your "picks" helpful to me. Pick away!

I haven't yet satisfied your request for proving a negative. So I'll do that first.

PROPOSITION

The earth is NOT FLAT.

PROOF (probably)

When you fly at 40,000 feet and look outside the pilot's windscreen, you shall observe that the earth is NOT FLAT and is spherical.

REBUTTAL
But, if I cannot or will not fly at 40,000 feet your proof goes down the toilet.

Rebuttal TO THE REBUTTAL
See Astronomy Magazine, September 2003, pages 18 (a photo of earth from space showing the Africa side, but not the Asian and Western Hemisphere sides), and 54(photo A) from space for compelling evidence that the earth is NOT FLAT and is spherical.

REBUTTAL TO THE Rebuttal TO THE REBUTTAL
You haven't proved those photos are NOT pictures of mirages.

Rebuttal TO THE REBUTTAL TO THE Rebuttal TO THE REBUTTAL
That will be left as an exercise for the student. Laughing

FINALLY
"All is relative; perspectivism reigns".

PROVE IT Exclamation

:wink:
The alleged fact that perspective changes one's perspective does not imply reality is a function of perspective. It implies only that we must be careful about what we infer from our perspective. Smile

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Tartarin wrote:
1. Not believing in god is NOT a religion. Obviously.

Yes it is! Obviously.

Theism consists of diverse systems of belief based on faith that God exists.

Atheism consists of diverse systems of belief based on faith that God does not exist.

Bzzzt. Thanks for playing, but you're absolutely wrong. Atheism is the *LACK* of belief in deities.

Quote:

Radical Agnosticism consists of diverse systems of belief based on faith that we probably cannot know whether or not God exists.

Agnosticism and belief are oxymorons. Agnosticism has nothing to do with belief, it has to do with knowledge. A gnostic thinks it is possible to know about the existence or characteristics of a god. An agnostic thinks it is impossible. Every person on the planet is both a theist/atheist and a gnostic/agnostic.

Quote:

How about the rebuttal: "Can't prove a negative". That of course is rubbish. Scientists have and do prove negatives as a matter of course. They prove various theories are false that way. Sometimes they prove a positive by showing its negative implies a contradiction. Sometimes they prove a negative by showing its positive implies a contradiction.

That refers only to universal negatives, of course. While it's easy to prove that you don't have a gnome sitting on your shoulder, you cannot prove that there are no such things as gnomes, period. You can't prove there are no such things as unicorns. You can't prove there are no such things as gods. Of course, you don't have to, it rests solely on the shoulders of the positive claimant to demonstrate a single occurrence of said entity in order to falsify the claim. Someone thinks there are gods? Produce one.

0 Replies

Re: truth

ican711nm wrote:

JLNobody wrote:
I only experience "roundness" when riding over a small hill. Make sense?

And when flying at 40,000 feet or more feet above the ground. O yes, better do it in a functioning aircraft.

You can always 'experience' roundness the way the ancient Greeks did it, they observed that during lunar eclipses, the shadow cast upon the moon was round, thus proving a spherical earth.

0 Replies

Cephus wrote:

Bzzzt. Thanks for playing, but you're absolutely wrong. Atheism is the *LACK* of belief in deities.

Oh, then theism is merely the *INVERSE* of believing God does not exist and is therefore not religion. Shocked

Yeah, right. :wink: Word smithing is just another form of sophistry. It isn't helpful to go there.

ican711nm wrote:

Radical Agnosticism consists of diverse systems of belief based on faith that we probably cannot know whether or not God exists.

Cephus wrote:

Agnosticism and belief are oxymorons. Agnosticism has nothing to do with belief, it has to do with knowledge. A gnostic thinks it is possible to know about the existence or characteristics of a god. An agnostic thinks it is impossible. Every person on the planet is both a theist/atheist and a gnostic/agnostic.

An agnostic thinks it is IMPOSSIBLE to know the existence or characteristics of a god Question

? Come on now. Thnking something possible or impossible without knowing it for certain one way or the other constitutes a system of believe based on faith.

However, in fairness, I think you have defined a Radical Agnostic and not an Agnostic. Here's a definition of Agnostic from Merriam-Webster
www.m-w.com

Main Entry: 1ag·nos·tic
...
Date: 1869
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably is unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
...

Cephus wrote:

While it's easy to prove that you don't have a gnome sitting on your shoulder, you cannot prove that there are no such things as gnomes, period. You can't prove there are no such things as unicorns. You can't prove there are no such things as gods. Of course, you don't have to, it rests solely on the shoulders of the positive claimant to demonstrate a single occurrence of said entity in order to falsify the claim. Someone thinks there are gods? Produce one.

Oh, isn't that a nice self-serving comfy intellectual position Question

Neither you, I, or anyone else can prove to a certainty any damn thing, positive or negative. To prove anything we must make at least one non-provable assumption.

So I say to you, prove (to a certainty) that humans DID evolve only by undirected chance and natural selection. Prove that there was NO intelligence involved that influenced that evolution. Prove that living organisms at a higher level of intellence than human intelligence did NOT influence our evolution. Prove that humans DID evolve.

Take your choice. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Probably the most fundamental unanswered question here would be, if god existed, would he have created Ican? But Ican is here! Therefore...

0 Replies

truth
Ican, very good answer(s), but I'm troubled with your example of a proven negative. I just can't put my finger on what it is that troubles me (and it's not just that it rebuts my thesis). If you said as an example of a provable negative, "There are no flat worlds" I would jump at you with "We have not examined the entire universe to know that. And if we had explored the universe, we may have missed the exception". But that would be a weasling action on my part. It seems, perhaps, that your example is too trivial, like asserting the obvious fact that there's no monkey on my back. The general assertion (there are no flat worlds) is more interesting than the particular one (this world is not flat). But I can't say in any rigorous way why "The earth is not flat" is not as philosophically interesting as "There are no flat worlds." You may have me there. I'll leave it to someone else to explore that problem.
Regarding your thesis that atheism is a belief system, I've argued elsewhere that I am a "passive" atheist who simply turns away from theism as making no sense. That's not an "active" atheism, a belief system in the sense of evangelical atheist, Madeline O'hara's belief in a no-god which she virtually worshipped .

0 Replies

Tartarin wrote:

Probably the most fundamental unanswered question here would be, if god existed, would he have created Ican? But Ican is here! Therefore...

Truth is, I have it on good authority that God did not create me whether God exists or not.

My Daddy and my Mommy did it with a little help from some stuff laying around.

I hope I have relieved you of some of your apprehensions. :wink:

0 Replies

Ican wrote

"WE, EACH AND EVERYONE OF US, SHALL GRANT EQUAL RIGHTS TO EACH AND EVERYONE OF US TO ENABLE OUR POSTERITY TO SURVIVE UNTIL THE TERMINATION OF OUR UNIVERSE"

You need to review the remark above you made in light of your belief that God gave us rights. You have used the argument frankapisa has used when he defends a secular approach that presumes that there are no inherent, god-given rights and that all rights are derived from social conventions or social contracts.

Your comment that rights are derived from mutual agreement undermines your statement that rights are inalienable and inherent because inherent and inalienable rights are not defined as such if they are mutually granted.

In response to my query

"Tell me this and you have told me from where rights come."

You replied

"They come from me, you and all other humans who think so."

That admits only a social aspect to it, and in no way supports anything "inalienable" or "inherent" in rights. In fact, it is exactly frankapisa's argument.

You have just admitted the validity of the premise of the other side's logic.

But in fact, your superficial premise is that rights are used to secure life and social stability. Well, even wolf packs have rules (and hierarchical rights) for its individuals so to secure their pack's survival.

In no response you have made have you told us why human life is valuable, and more valuable than beasts and more at point, in response to my question

"What is the quantum difference human society recognizes that separates man from beast?"

You tell us that

"Humans can declare AND secure the rights they declare. Animals cannot do that."

And it is here you miss the point. All humans cannot do what you require for rights to occur, and you disregard the fact that even healthy human babies neither can declare nor secure their own rights themselves (and by your logic have none). If rights are granted to infants, they certainly are not inherent by your position.

Understand that your statement and the secular argument of frankapisa's strongly imply that language and abstract reason are the basis for both of your wellsprings of rights.

Moving back to first causes, your statement unwittingly shows that your position is that the basis for rights is actually a product of language and reason, viz., the ability of a human to perceive itself in contrast to its environment, create thru reason and symbolism the idea of and declaration of its rights,

but as yet you have not discussed from where language and reason come, and what is it about a human that causes a human to, as you state

"declare AND secure the rights they declare"

According to your logic, it is obvious that if a dog could talk the dog would a priori have what we would call "human rights," because the dog would be able to declare its rights and secure them by biting someone if these rights are impinged upon.

So what does a talking dog have that a normal dog doesn't? Besides of course, according to your logic, human rights?

Your side in this discussion holds that humans are made in God's image and thus are vested with "inherent" rights. If a dog could talk, and have rights as defined by the requirements you set for them above, then God looks like a dog?

Of course God would, because the defining similar features of God in relation to a talking, reasoning dog (as it is with humans) would not be a fur coat and fuzzy tail, but would be language, reason, self awareness and consciousness and these are the properties of humans which are not found in other animals, and are the things from which rights arise, fuzzy tail or not.

The concept and symbolism of rights arise from the process of self-awareness and consciousness. Humans just happen to have self-awareness and self-consciousness.

The property of self-awareness and consciousness are biologically inherent in humans. And since self-awareness and consciousness predetermine rights, rights as a concept are biologically inherent in the human species because of the innate potential to perceive them. this is why society protects infants. it is the potential for self-awareness and consciousness inherent in the infant that is recognized as worthy of it having rights.

This is the Third Way, that rights arise, not from God or society, but from nature.

0 Replies

Re: truth

ican711nm wrote:

JLNobody wrote:
I only experience "roundness" when riding over a small hill. Make sense?

And when flying at 40,000 feet or more feet above the ground. O yes, better do it in a functioning aircraft.

You've mentioned this in other places, but I think you are mistaken here also.

I do not think you can see the curvature of the Earth from an airplane - just as I am sure Columbus could not see the curvature of the earth by watching sailing ships come in from the horizon.

0 Replies

Re: truth

JLNobody wrote:

I'm troubled with your example of a proven negative. I just can't put my finger on what it is that troubles me.

I have some time now to pursue this further.

I have claimed that I cannot prove anything to a certainty, not any thing at all, without making at least one assumption that I cannot prove to a certainty.

My first assumption is: I exist and am not merely a construction of my consciousness.
My second assumption is: Whatever I perceive through my senses is a part of reality.

I cannot prove either of these assumptions are true to a certainty. However, I think I can make some probability arguments that I think are sufficient for me to judge these assumptions valid, and therefore, are worth gambling on..

Let's experiment.
PROPOSITION 1
The universe is finite and NOT infinite.
PROPOSITION 2
The universe is infinite and NOT finite.

I can give what I think is a pretty solid argument that PROPOSITION 1 is more probably true than false. However, many here on able2know have disagreed with my argument.

I cannot give what I think is an adequate argument that PROPOSITION 2 is more probably true than is PROPOSITION 1.

Ok, let's jump to the big enchilada: I cannot prove with certainty whether God exists or doesn't exist. Worse, I cannot prove with certainty that any given definition of God I've encountered or invented myself is a valid definition.

For now, I guess that God and the universe are one and the same thing. But even here I do not have sufficient valid data to even warrant my guess. I just guess it anyway. Of course, I could just as easily guess that God is NOT the universe. But I don't want to.

JLNobody wrote:

Regarding your thesis that atheism is a belief system, I've argued elsewhere that I am a "passive" atheist who simply turns away from theism as making no sense. That's not an "active" atheism, a belief system in the sense of evangelical atheist...

I agree.

HOWEVER,

JLNobody wrote:

evangelical atheist Madeline O'hara's belief in a no-god which she virtually worshipped

is a religion; is a system of belief based on faith.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Cephus wrote:
Agnosticism and belief are oxymorons. Agnosticism has nothing to do with belief, it has to do with knowledge. A gnostic thinks it is possible to know about the existence or characteristics of a god. An agnostic thinks it is impossible. Every person on the planet is both a theist/atheist and a gnostic/agnostic.

An agnostic thinks it is IMPOSSIBLE to know the existence or characteristics of a god ? Come on now. Thnking something possible or impossible without knowing it for certain one way or the other constitutes a system of believe based on faith.

Wrong on two counts, Ican-- and I have gone over this with you on several occasions. By now, you should be getting it.

What an agnostic thinks or guesses or estimates -- is what he/she thinks, guesses, or estimates.

That is not a belief.

A belief is stated as a belief -- it is a guess or estimate in disguise.

ALL beliefs are guesses; not all guesses are beliefs.

In any case, I am an agnostic, and I do not think it is impossible to know if God exists. It is my guess or estimate that nobody I've ever talked to or read -- knows if God exists. And I think it unlikely that anyone will know if God exists -- unless there actually is a God -- and the God decides for one reason or another to make Its presence KNOWN in an unambiguous way -- which should be a snap for a God.

I am as close to positive as I am about anything that if there is no God -- that will never be known.

I do not think it is necessary to agnosticism to suppose it is impossible to know if God exists -- and the "...is probably unknowable..." from the dictionary definition does a good job of capturing the spirit of things in my opinion.

Please tell me you are not going to do another thread about agnosticism being a religion, Ican. The last one was so bad, I was embarrassed for you.

Cephus

I was about to respond to the posting where you wrote:

Quote:

Agnosticism and belief are oxymorons. Agnosticism has nothing to do with belief, it has to do with knowledge. A gnostic thinks it is possible to know about the existence or characteristics of a god. An agnostic thinks it is impossible. Every person on the planet is both a theist/atheist and a gnostic/agnostic.

The first three sentences were terrific -- and said what I would have said. The fourth sentence was incorrect - or more properly, overstated the case. I like the way Ican's dictionary says it: "it is probably unknowable." Much more agnostic sounding.

I'm not sure I agree with that fifth sentence at all, but I really don't want to get diverted right now. Perhaps we can discuss that in the future. I do THINK all humans are agnostics - just that some are acknowledged agnostics and some are not. (I get a lot of heat when I mention that!)

0 Replies

Frank said "

Quote:

I do THINK all humans are agnostics - just that some are acknowledged agnostics and some are not

."
thats the most interesting statements i have read in a very long time. i will need some time to ponder.

0 Replies

kuvasz wrote:

You need to review the remark above you made in light of your belief that God gave us rights.

THANK YOU FOR POINTING OUT YOUR MISCONCEPTION OF MY BELIEFS

You are an unfortunate victim of Frank's libels of my behavior, of my arguments, of my beliefs, and of my intentions. His predictions of what I will do here are foolish in light of what I already wrote about what I intend to do in another forum of able2know, in which Frank is participating.

Over two years ago I changed my mind and concluded that I do not possess sufficient valid data to warrant even a guess what a valid definition of God is, much less whether God exists or not. I've posted this reminder to Frank many times since then. He refuses to believe me. That's his problem! Please do not make it yours.

Please look back in this forum to an early page where you will find after my copy of the Declaration of Indepence, my rewrite of the relevant paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence. I do not mention God there in any way.

Please also read my previous post to JLNobody.

Because of my disclosure here you may wish to modify your post. I think that some of your assertions are valid regardless of your misunderstanding.

kuvasz wrote:

Your comment that rights are derived from mutual agreement undermines your statement that rights are inalienable and inherent because inherent and inalienable rights are not defined as such if they are mutually granted.

I claim that logically once rights are declared/acknowledged they are inalienable for the declarer and all others who make that same declaration. Mutual aknowledgement of our rights is a logical necessity if the rights are in fact inalienable.

kuvasz wrote:

“Tell me this and you have told me from where rights come.”

You replied…

“They come from me, you and all other humans who think so.”

That admits only a social aspect to it, and in no way supports anything “inalienable” or “inherent” in rights. In fact, it is exactly frankapisa’s argument.

You have just admitted the validity of the premise of the other side’s logic.

No I haven't.

Let me say it another way. Frank insists that it is necessary that rights be <demanded> in order for them to exist. I insist that all that is necessary for rights to exist is for them to be <acknowledged> to be inherent in the acknowledger. Once they are so acknowledged they become inalienable. Mutual agreement, however IS necessary to get them <secured>.

kuvasz wrote:

“What is the quantum difference human society recognizes that separates man from beast?”

You tell us that…

“Humans can declare AND secure the rights they declare. Animals cannot do that.”

And it is here you miss the point. All humans cannot do what you require for rights to occur, and you disregard the fact that even healthy human babies neither can declare nor secure their own rights themselves (and by your logic have none). If rights are granted to infants, they certainly are not inherent by your position.

Your comment regarding babies is correct. Until children become adults, their parents must acknowledge their children's rights for them.

kuvasz wrote:

“…declare AND secure the rights they declare”

According to your logic, it is obvious that if a dog could talk the dog would a priori have what we would call “human rights,” because the dog would be able to declare its rights and secure them by biting someone if these rights are impinged upon.

Some dog's can talk to some extent. They do that by barking a count.

However, no dogs have enough intelligence to acknowledge their rights, assuming they have any inherent rights AND assuming they know there are such things as inherent rights.

kuvasz wrote:

So what does a talking dog have that a normal dog doesn’t? Besides of course, according to your logic, human rights?

Nothing that is relevant to this discussion.

kuvasz wrote:

Your side in this discussion holds that humans are made in God’s image and thus are vested with “inherent” rights.

Whose side Question

Certainly that is not what I hold to be true. Again, I think you are misled by Frank's libel of me.

kuvasz wrote:

The property of self-awareness and consciousness are biologically inherent in humans. And since self-awareness and consciousness predetermine rights, rights as a concept are biologically inherent in the human species because of the innate potential to perceive them. this is why society protects infants. it is the potential for self-awareness and consciousness inherent in the infant that is recognized as worthy of it having rights.

I agree that is the way rights arise. Your statement is more rigorous than my statement (“Humans can declare AND secure the rights they declare. Animals cannot do that.”) , but I contend that both statements mean the same thing.

0 Replies

We should not get hung up on the term "inalienable." Jefferson used it in the same sense that John Locke used it, and Locke used it in a very specific manner. For Locke, all men are endowed by God with the inherent rights of life, liberty, and property. And, in a state of nature, men also have the right to enforce those rights -- in effect to render judgments against those who transgress those rights. When men enter into a social contract, they give up their right to render judgments to the sovereign, but they retain their basic rights of life, liberty, and property. In this sense, Locke was attempting to refute Hobbes (and others) who insisted that men, upon entering into the social contract, gave up all of their rights to the sovereign. So "inalienable" simply means "incapable of being alienated by means of the social contract."

So, for example, Cephus writes:

Quote:

So where's the right to property again? It seems that not many people agree with your so-called inalienable rights. In fact, rights that can be taken away are, by definition, NOT INALIENABLE!

Cephus is right on a strictly literal basis, but mistaken in the context of the original quotation. Even Locke did not think that a person with inalienable rights was immune from punishment. Indeed, by means of the social contract the sovereign was empowered to exact those punishments, including the death penalty, that had previously been left up to each individual. As Locke stated: "Each transgression may be punished to that degree, and with so much severity, as will suffice to make it an ill bargain to the offender, give him cause to repent, and terrify others from doing the like."

So there's no point in debating the true import of "inalienable" unless one were debating the term in the context of the social contract. For our purposes, then, a better definition of "inalienable" would be "inherent."

ican711nm wrote:

WE, EACH AND EVERYONE OF US, SHALL GRANT EQUAL RIGHTS TO EACH AND EVERYONE OF US TO ENABLE OUR POSTERITY TO SURVIVE UNTIL THE TERMINATION OF OUR UNIVERSE.

This statement, I think, neatly encapsulates the depths of confusion into which ican has descended. If it is true that everyone grants rights to everyone else, then I don't see how it's possible for those rights to be, in any sense, absolute and non-contingent. Far from being inherent, such rights are clearly societal. Or, as ican sums up:

Quote:

They come from me, you and all other humans who think so.

This returns us to the prudential calculus that ican has been injecting, at odd intervals, throughout this thread. Thus, in another post:

Quote:

Any declaration of rights different from those in all our mutual self-interests would either not be secureable, or if they were secureable they would violate other's rights that were secured. I think the logical implications of that are obvious.

So the only rights we have are those that accord with our self-interest. But in ican's hands this argument has ended up being the equivalent of a philosophical whack-a-mole game: the prudential calculus (the "enlightened mutual self-interest) appears briefly, only to disappear again the moment that ican wants to state that rights are, after all, inherent and inalienable.

Rather than continue to play hide-and-seek with ican's protean theory, let me ask some specific questions:

1. If some basic core rights are inherent, what is the foundation for those rights?
2. If those rights are inherent because they are God-given, what evidence do you rely upon to make that claim?
3. If those rights are inherent but not God-given, how did humans end up with those rights?
4. If those rights are inherent because they are based upon mutual enlightened self-interest, when did humans first realize their mutual self-interests coincided and how did they agree to recognize this as the basis for their respective rights?
5. If those rights are based on mutual enlightened self-interest, is it possible for that self-interest, and the rights based thereon, to change?

That's all I have for now. I look forward to the answers.

0 Replies

ARE WE ENDOWED WITH CERTAIN UNALIENABLE RIGHTS?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know