ARE WE ENDOWED WITH CERTAIN UNALIENABLE RIGHTS?

Frank Apisa wrote:

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.

You were embarrassed for me Question

Many pages ago in the forum on the universe, I told you what I was going to do. You chose not to believe me. That's your problem; you'll not make it mine.

WHAT NEXT
For those who are sincerely interested in what I truly intend to do next, I'll tell you now! Very Happy

I'm going to invite discussion on <securing> rights. In particular, the adequacy of our government's "support" of Our Constitution As Amended for securing our rights. I'll present the title question when I'm ready.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

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.

That makes no sense. I asked WHY you think the right is automatically extended to others and your explanation includes that as if it were a given.

ican711nm wrote:

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.

Now you are in the realm of ability, not right.

ican711nm wrote:

Hopefully, for one's own sake (i.e., one's sense of his own self-interest), no one will make that mistake.

I made no defense of such foolishness. I asked what makes you think the equality of rights, though a noble ideal, is a given. How do you arrive at the automation that you posit when it comes under question?

See, I do not hold any rights to be inherent or automatically extended to all. We strive toward the ideals and there is nothing to suggest that this is inalienable.

If it were so we'd spend less effort in making it so. If it were inalienable when someone uses flowerly language and describes it as such we'd respond with a "no duh".

That we consider the words noble is indicative of it not being inalienable and our desire for it to be so. Our efforts are indicative of the same.

ican711nm wrote:

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.

I never said it was wise. I said it was a direct contradiction of what you are maintaining in this thread. Which it is. There are rights that are obviously mutually exclusive and your right automation does nothing to address this most basic element of rights and why they are alienable.

The fact that they conflict. They do not coalesce, they conflict.

ican711nm wrote:

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.

Ok, but that has nothing to do with my qualms. Which are, again, that rights are not inalienable We need to work to define and secure them and that there is no automatic equalizer and we have to work at that as well.

And to further clarify I mentioned conflicting rights and even the mutually exclusive which contradicts your notion of a right automatically extending itself to all.

ican711nm wrote:

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.

I did not ask about the adviseability of the rule. I support it. I asked what makes you think it exists. Because it doesn't.

ican711nm wrote:

Any declaration of rights different from those in all our mutual self-interests would either not be secureable

That is patently false.

ican711nm wrote:

or if they were secureable they would violate other's rights that were secured. I think the logical implications of that are obvious.

No duh. And since mutual self-interest is not anywhere near a given and since divisive self-interest is I can't help but wonder if you are trying to descibe Utopia as opposed to discussing the reality we live in.

ican711nm wrote:

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

Negative consequences are no basis for existence. They are the basis for advisability.

I never questioned the advisability, I questioned the existence. Your argument here is along the basis of saying "It'd be nice to have automobiles that run on waste so they therefore automatically exist."

ican711nm wrote:

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.

Yeah, the first step is to realize that these are not automatic, that rights are alienable and that we need to work at making them real and not pretend that they are automatically so.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

... let me ask some specific questions:

1. If some basic core rights are inherent, what is the foundation for those rights?

I agree with kuvasz:
"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."

Quote:

2. If those rights are inherent because they are God-given, what evidence do you rely upon to make that claim?

I don't make that claim.

Quote:

3. If those rights are inherent but not God-given, how did humans end up with those rights?

By virtue of they're being human. See answer to question 1.

Quote:

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?

They are not inherent because they are based upon mutual enligtenment. They are inherent for the reasons given in answer to question 1. The mutual <acknowledgement> of those inherent rights is based on mutual enlightened self-interest.

Quote:

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?

They are not based on mutual enlightened self-interest. Only their mutual acknowledgment is so based. I think that it shall ALWAYS be in our enlightened mutual self-interest to mutually acknowledge our inherent rights.

0 Replies

Ican states now on this page, page 12 that...

"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."

I will let pass without comment the contradictions this poses with his statements made on page 5 that

"Yes, I've got my rights whether I demand them or not."

And that .

"I understand that it is you who cling compulsively to that which makes no sense; not me. It is your lack of ability to recognize that a person does not require any one's permission or indulgence to have a right. What rights they have, they have without anyone else having a thing to say about it.

And on page 7 where he states that

"I say a right exists prior to its demand and securing."

So, according to his thesis on page 12, but not pages 5 and 7, that if one does not declare their rights or acknowledge another's rights, they are not inalienable. So then inalienable rights exist only in a system of mutual agreement.

You do realize that you are not using a working definition of "inalienable?" If something is inalienable it is indivisible and a priori to anything else, and that includes any declaration or acknowledgement of such a property. It is the sound of the tree falling in the forest when no one hears it because sound is characterized as a variation in sonic vibrations, not what someone heard.

"Inalienable" cannot be dependent on anything that proceeds from itself because it is essence itself and prior to all but itself. It is "inalienable," "indivisible," and uncorruptable by anything else. It just is and is antecedent to and not defined by that which follows from it and is independent of that which follows it.

To declare is not the same thing as to acknowledge. In the first case, a declaration is a statement that defines something. To acknowledge, one is accepting that which exists independently of the observer and has become noticed by the observer.

If you state that rights exist because one declares them, then they are not independent of the observer or the one who declares them and they are not "inalienable" because one requires them to be declared to exist.

To acknowledge rights one must admit that they exist prior to and are independent of the observer.

To declare rights, one has to set the premise that from a particular state of existence flows rights. What is the fundamental premise and what is the particular state of existence?

This prior state of "inalienable" rights, now recognized as inalienable by an observer exists independent of the observer and is not a based upon its declaration or by mutual agreement and is not arrived at by social conventions.

All that is agreed is that these rights are now recognized, not that their recognition makes them inalienable, otherwise, they are not inalienable rights. One cannot semantically and logically state that because one recognizes rights, they are inalienable, because that is not the definition of inalienable.

Further written by ican was.

"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."

You dodged the question that if a dog could talk would that confer human rights upon it. After all, if this talking canine could, as you require for rights to be conferred, viz., "declare and acknowledge rights" then "they are inalienable for the declarer and all others who make that same declaration", and the dog should be afforded rights that humans have.

Dismissing that dogs cant talk is not the tackling the issue, the issue is that if a non-human can talk and communicate doing as you say to "declare and acknowledge rights," then rights follow from this.

Since dogs can't do this and humans can, what property do humans possess that is "inalienable" in humans that is not in dogs and from which flow rights?

according to you, the requirement for a state of human rights depends on the "intelligence to acknowledge their rights."

Yet, infants don't, retards don't, coma patients don't, and Alzheimer's victims don't. Yet all are afforded human rights, but dogs aren't.

So it is not merely that dogs have no rights because they are not intelligent enough to acknowledge their rights. There are other fundamental differences between humans and dogs that cause humans to deny rights to non-speaking dogs.

I asked you

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

Your reply that....

"Nothing that is relevant to this discussion."

Is wrong. It has everything to do with the discussion because your remark is contradictory to what you said was required for rights to occur, viz., an ability to "declare and acknowledge rights."

A talking dog would be capable of doing each of these things, while the aforementioned infants can't, retards can't, coma patients can't, and Alzheimer's victims can't.

we have rights because humans are inherently self aware and are self conscious and grant rights to all who have this potential if not in fact but in theory.

0 Replies

Criminy.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

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.

Atheism is the lack of theism. It has no belief, no creed, no structure, it is the *LACK* of belief. It's as much a religion as bald is a hair color.

0 Replies

ican,
what is religion? What is belief?

Cephus,
what is religion? What is belief?

Thank You

0 Replies

infraB; uninvited, i will offer a take on belief, and religion;

'belief' is the act of adopting an idea, in spite of the fact that there are no guarantees of 'truth' (your welcome, Frank), as one's own.

'religion' is a series of ideas, tied together by some conceptual device, offered for 'sale' to anyone willing to pay the 'price' of 'buying in'; accepting external control (itemized rules) over your 'belief' system (a 'package' deal, eliminating, infact disallowing, the thought process).

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

I agree with kuvasz:
"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'm not sure what to make of this sudden upsurge in Fichteanism. Do I alert the media or alert the authorities?

I appreciate your answers to these questions, ican. I have been somewhat puzzled by the charges that you had linked inherent rights to a concept of god -- I have looked through your posts and hadn't been able to find anything like that. Your forthright answer should, I hope, end this particular strawman argument.

On the other hand, I don't see how you can agree with kuvasz when you still hold of rights:

Quote:

They are not based on mutual enlightened self-interest. Only their mutual acknowledgment is so based. I think that it shall ALWAYS be in our enlightened mutual self-interest to mutually acknowledge our inherent rights.

Fichte argued that rights are a matter of pure reason. The use of a prudential calculus, even if it is employed as a method of acknowledging rights (whatever that means), contradicts this proposition. If rights are only knowable, or only acknowledged, by means of a prudential calculus, then they are not knowable through pure reason. In other words, they are not inherent because their knowability or "acknowledgeability" is purely societal.

kuvasz explained it well:

Quote:

You do realize that you are not using a working definition of "inalienable?" If something is inalienable it is indivisible and a priori to anything else, and that includes any declaration or acknowledgement of such a property. It is the sound of the tree falling in the forest when no one hears it because sound is characterized as a variation in sonic vibrations, not what someone heard.

"Inalienable" cannot be dependent on anything that proceeds from itself because it is essence itself and prior to all but itself. It is "inalienable," "indivisible," and uncorruptable by anything else. It just is and is antecedent to and not defined by that which follows from it and is independent of that which follows it.

That, I believe, is absolutely correct.

0 Replies

You do realize that you are not using a working definition of "inalienable?" If something is inalienable it is indivisible and a priori to anything else, and that includes any declaration or acknowledgement of such a property. It is the sound of the tree falling in the forest when no one hears it because sound is characterized as a variation in sonic vibrations, not what someone heard.

"Inalienable" cannot be dependent on anything that proceeds from itself because it is essence itself and prior to all but itself. It is "inalienable," "indivisible," and uncorruptable by anything else. It just is and is antecedent to and not defined by that which follows from it and is independent of that which follows it.
That, I believe, is absolutely correct.
--------------
Me, too. So you agree we have inalienable rights! Very Happy

0 Replies

It's finally clear to me that I am failing to communicate my actual thinking when I use different words to convey the same concepts to different people. Embarrassed

I'll stop doing that. I'll henceforth use the same words repeatedly to communicate my actual thinking.
===============================================

GOD
I do not have sufficient valid data to warrant a guess whether God exists or not.

I do not have sufficient valid data to warrant a guess about what is a valid definition of God.

I do not have sufficient valid data to warrant a guess about what might God's role be in our universe, if God were to exist.

In order to simplify the presentation of my thinking, until what appears to me to be a more likely definition comes along, I choose to define God and the universe as the same thing. The universe evolved humans.

INALIENABLE RIGHTS
I think that there exist certain intrinsic and inherent human rights. Because these rights are intrinsic and inherent they are inalienable. They cannot be removed or transferred.

Main Entry: in·trin·sic
1 a : belonging to the essential nature or constitution of a thing <the intrinsic worth of a gem> <the intrinsic brightness of a star> b : being or relating to a semiconductor in which the concentration of charge carriers is characteristic of the material itself instead of the content of any impurities it contains
2 a : originating or due to causes within a body, organ, or part <an intrinsic metabolic disease> b : originating and included wholly within an organ or part <intrinsic muscles>

Main Entry: in·her·ent
: involved in the constitution or essential character of something : belonging by nature or habit : INTRINSIC
- in·her·ent·ly adverb

My reason for thinking this is better described in kuvasz's words than in my own words.

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.

WHAT RIGHTS ARE INALIENABLE
One might legitimately ask: What rights are intrinsic and inherent in all humans, and therefore inalienable? I think that among the rights intrinsic and inherent in all humans are the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Without life, humans cannot be conscious and self-aware. Without liberty, humans cannot honorably exercise their full range of capabilities which are also inherent and intrinsic. Without the pursuit of happiness, humans are deprived of adequate motivation to use their intelligence for more than merely achieving survival. In the case of many humans, without the right to pursue happiness, they don't even have adequate motivation to attempt survival.

ACKNOWLEDGING RIGHTS
Failure on any one's part to acknowledge their own rights risks their enjoying their rights and risks precluding their acknowledgement of the the same rights of others. Failure to acknowledge rights precludes taking the liberty to work to secure those rights. Failure to secure rights risks precluding the right to enjoy, practice, apply and benefit from having those rights. In effect, failure to acknowledge intrinsic and inherent rights renders those rights a form of dormant unused human potential.

APPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF UNIVERSALITY AND ENLIGHTENED MUTUAL SELF-INTEREST
We must recognize the fundamental principle that any right acknowledged by any human as his intrinsic and inherent right, is simultaneously acknowledged as intrinsic and inherent in all humans. Full application of this principle will probably discourage, through enlightened mutual self-interest, the acknowledgment of rights that contradict other rights already acknowledged as intrinsic and inherent in others, as well as in oneself.

SECURING RIGHTS
In order to secure rights, one must join with others to form or amend the power of government to prevent some from usurping the rights of others. In order to secure rights it is necessary to acknowledge the same rights of others.

More opportunity for discussion about securing rights will soon to be created in a concurrent forum.

0 Replies

InfraBlue wrote:

ican,
what is religion? What is belief?

Cephus,
what is religion? What is belief?

Thank You

From Merriam Webster
www.m-w.com

Main Entry: re·li·gion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY
Date: 13th century
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
- re·li·gion·less adjective

Main Entry: be·lief
Pronunciation: b&-'lEf
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English beleave, probably alteration of Old English gelEafa, from ge-, associative prefix + lEafa; akin to Old English lyfan
Date: 12th century
1 : a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
2 : something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group
3 : conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence
synonyms BELIEF, FAITH, CREDENCE, CREDIT mean assent to the truth of something offered for acceptance. BELIEF may or may not imply certitude in the believer <my belief that I had caught all the errors>. FAITH almost always implies certitude even where there is no evidence or proof <an unshakable faith in God>. CREDENCE suggests intellectual assent without implying anything about grounds for assent <a theory now given credence by scientists>. CREDIT may imply assent on grounds other than direct proof <gave full credit to the statement of a reputable witness>. synonym see in addition OPINION

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

I appreciate your answers to these questions, ican. I have been somewhat puzzled by the charges that you had linked inherent rights to a concept of god -- I have looked through your posts and hadn't been able to find anything like that. Your forthright answer should, I hope, end this particular strawman argument.

Stick around, Joe. You will be a lot less puzzled after you debate with Ican for a while longer.

I almost guarantee you will someday look at that last sentence of yours about "forthright answers" from Ican -- and "strawman arguments" from others -- and say, "Aha -- now I see!"

0 Replies

ican,
kuvaz's arguments will work just as well to argue that rights are not inalienable.

0 Replies

InfraBlue wrote:

ican,
what is religion? What is belief?

Cephus,
what is religion? What is belief?

Thank You

I think you may subsequently also want to know
What is inalienable?
What is rights?

From Merriam Webster
www.m-w.com

Main Entry: in·alien·able
Pronunciation: (")i-'nAl-y&-n&-b&l, -'nA-lE-&-n&-
Function: adjective
Etymology: probably from French inaliénable, from in- + aliénable alienable
Date: circa 1645
: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred <inalienable rights>
- in·alien·abil·i·ty /-"nAl-y&-n&-'bi-l&-tE, -"nA-lE-&-n&-/ noun
- in·alien·ably /-'nAl-y&-n&-blE, -'nA-lE-&-n&-/ adverb

Main Entry: 2right
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English riht, from riht, adjective
Date: before 12th century
1 : qualities (as adherence to duty or obedience to lawful authority) that together constitute the ideal of moral propriety or merit moral approval
2 : something to which one has a just claim: as a : the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled b (1) : the interest that one has in a piece of property -- often used in plural <mineral rights> (2) plural : the property interest possessed under law or custom and agreement in an intangible thing especially of a literary and artistic nature <film rights of the novel>
3 : something that one may properly claim as due
4 : the cause of truth or justice
5 a : RIGHT HAND 1a; also : a blow struck with this hand <gave him a hard right on the jaw> b : the location or direction of the right side <woods on his right> c : the part on the right side d : RIGHT FIELD
6 a : the true account or correct interpretation b : the quality or state of being factually correct
7 often capitalized a : the part of a legislative chamber located to the right of the presiding officer b : the members of a continental European legislative body occupying the right as a result of holding more conservative political views than other members
8 a often capitalized : individuals sometimes professing opposition to change in the established order and favoring traditional attitudes and practices and sometimes advocating the forced establishment of an authoritarian order (as in government) b often capitalized : a conservative position
9 a : a privilege given stockholders to subscribe pro rata to a new issue of securities generally below market price b : the negotiable certificate evidencing such privilege -- usually used in plural
- right·most /-"mOst/ adjective
- by rights : with reason or justice : PROPERLY
- in one's own right : by virtue of one's own qualifications or properties
- of right 1 : as an absolute right 2 : legally or morally exactable
- to rights : into proper order

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

...
I almost guarantee you will someday look at that last sentence of yours about "forthright answers" from Ican -- and "strawman arguments" from others -- and say, "Aha -- now I see!"

Your "almost guarantee" is worth less than that of a fraudulent used car dealer.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

ican,
kuvaz's arguments will work just as well to argue that rights are not inalienable.

Please explain how.

If something A is an intrinsic and inherent characteristic of something B, I think it not possible for A to be alienated from B.

If something A is an inherent characteristic of something B, I think it not possible for A to be alienated from B.

If something A is an intrinsic characteristic of something B, I think it not possible for A to be alienated from B.

Main Entry: alien·ate
...
1 : to make unfriendly, hostile, or indifferent where attachment formerly existed
2 : to convey or transfer (as property or a right) usually by a specific act rather than the due course of law
3 : to cause to be withdrawn or diverted
...

0 Replies

I know I owe some patient people a case of Tylenol. Scroll me if your heads start pounding. :wink:

Can we consider baby humans, who haven't been indoctrinated or socialized? We bring them home--and they begin instructing us as to humans' natural state. They scream and cry for sustenance (food/water), comfort (dry diapers), and physical contact (security). At age two, they all go ballistic, fighting for independance (personal freedom). I'm almost sure the other two year olds didn't set up a meeting to discuss this.

0 Replies

kuvaz argued that self-awareness is inherent and that this means that rights are inherent (simpley on the basis that self-awareness is needed for rights). He did not, of course, use inalienable because both rights and self-awareness are so obviously alienable.

But even his case for rights being inherent is very weak. Instinctual self-preservation is no indication of an implied right. After all, self-preservation is an instinct that routinely denies rights.

What I think you have failed to consider is that rights conflict with each other. A basic right to live can in millions of situations come down to one person's right to live versus that of another. Even in theory (since we can't help but agree that rights are not secured in practice in an 'inalienable' way) one has to note that it is an impossibility for rights to be inherent when their very nature makes for mutually exclusive situations.

What you seem to be asking is "what rights would you automatically cede to another individual?" but you had to go and couch it in rhetoric (inalienable) and now you are stuck defending it when it'd be wise to just let that one word go.

Rights are simply not inherent to existence just because we want them to be.

Rights are a social contruct.

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

I know I owe some patient people a case of Tylenol. Scroll me if your heads start pounding. :wink:

Can we consider baby humans, who haven't been indoctrinated or socialized? We bring them home--and they begin instructing us as to humans' natural state. They scream and cry for sustenance (food/water), comfort (dry diapers), and physical contact (security). At age two, they all go ballistic, fighting for independance (personal freedom). I'm almost sure the other two year olds didn't set up a meeting to discuss this.

So? You have shown that they have an instinctual willingness to clamour for what they want.

That has absolutely nothing to do with a right. Heck I can whine, that doesn't make what I whine for my right.

0 Replies

ARE WE ENDOWED WITH CERTAIN UNALIENABLE RIGHTS?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know