ARE WE ENDOWED WITH CERTAIN UNALIENABLE RIGHTS?

No problem, Mike, you don't even have to mention it. :wink:

0 Replies

Tartarin wrote:

Frontiersman: My impression of Ican, through his argument, is that we are unbound in nature, set loose... (there's a word here I'm searching for and can't find). The impression is one of the frontiersman, answerable, in effect, to no one.

And then there's another aspect: fear of the majority (see Joe's last paragraph). But I gotta run. Back later.

BINGO

Yes, both of your assertions are correct.

Howdie, y'all majority! Howdie, y'all minority!

change the rules of an election after the election is over -- like hell you will.

make me less than equal before the law -- like hell you will.

transfer my lawfully obtained property to someone else -- like hell you will.

tax a dollar of my income more (or less) than you tax someone else's dollar of income -- like hell you will.

do that which destroys my liberty and the liberty of my posterity -- like hell you will.

kill my deeply retarded 45 year old nephew -- ( Mad

(#)) like hell you will (#) Mad

)

In other words, Pa'dner, do any of these things, and y'all got a fight on your hands, that you may not find worth fighting. Mad

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

No problem, Mike, you don't even have to mention it. :wink:

Yeah! But I wanted to! :wink:

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

In my opinion, there are no "rights" that are immutable, unalienable, inalienable, inherent, or anything else of that sort.

All of our "rights" -- as nearly as I can tell -- are transitory.

So is there any basis for justifying the rights we have? Is there some standard by which we can determine what should be a right? And can a society actually transgress rights by violating this standard?

For instance, let's say that society has adopted a set of rights because those rights, in one way or another, accord with a broadly defined notion of "social utility." In other words, society has determined that those rights "work," or at least work better than any other conceivable set of rights. Can such a society, then, justifiably endorse a right that does not "work" in this sense?

Furthermore, absent some kind of universal or widely held standard, can one society justifiably criticize another society's choice of rights? To echo the point raised by Thomas, could there be a principled ground of criticism of a regime that denies the right to life to a segment of its population -- such as the profoundly retarded, to return to my initial hypothetical -- if it can be shown that, for that particular society, such a rule "works" for it and it has faithfully followed all the required legal process?

Frank Apisa wrote:

I was having a bit of fun. Please disregard the comment.

No problem. Don't mention it.

0 Replies

Re: truth

Frank Apisa wrote:

Over in Abuzz, it was mentioned dozens of times -- although to be completely honest, I described it as "people demanding rights" -- a phrasing with which you folks may disagree.

No, that's basically what it is. The Founding Fathers wanted there to be rights inherent in the new country, not inherent in the human condition. Unfortunately, you'll always find folks who are disproven again and again (or in ican's case, again and again and again and again) who just can't get it through their thick skulls that they're flat out wrong.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

BY LOGIC! In otherwords, by the clear implication that the human species cannot survive even the two million or so years the dinosaurs survived without our mutual acknowledgment of our INDIVIDUAL intrinsic and inherent rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is alleged that the human species has so far survived less than 200,000 years. Fortunately for us, enough of our ancestors implicitly and/or explicitly acknowledged their mutually intrinsic and inherent rights for us to be here. Whenever humans made too parochial too contingent that acknowledgement, millions of humans died and so far as we know, no longer possessed intrinsic or inherent anything other than decaying or decayed flesh.

None of our ancestors acknowledged an inherent right to much of anything. You're showing yourself to be utterly ignorant of history (and pretty much everything else). No one has claimed that there is an inalienable right to life. We don't have any problem going to war and blowing the heads off of people without worrying about their right to life. I think Patton said it best when he said "No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country." So much for a right to life.

Quote:

Yes, all live people have intrinsic and inherent rights that we must acknowledge for the sake of our own survival, whether we like it or not.

You really don't have a clue what intrinsic or inherent means, do you? You don't *HAVE* to acknowledge an inherent right, it's inherent! Any right which can be violated cannot be inalienable by definition. That means that if I *CAN* kill you, you do not have an inalienable right to life.

Want to test that one?

0 Replies

Listen -- we're dealing with a concept which seemed so manly, so strong, so independent 130 years ago when the population was so much smaller. We don't have the option of setting ourselves so high now. We are living in close quarters. We are forced to share. There's room only for the mature adult who has learned patience and altruism. Think about road rage. Think about what would cure it: a) halving the population on the roads, or, that being unlikely, b) a willingness to join in a scripted minuet in which the dancers' first obligation is to make room for others. There's no room anymore for "my rights above all other considerations." Probably never was. It may be a scrotal fantasy. Unless it's coupled with altruism and dance lessons.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Craven de Kere wrote:
You are starting to come around. You are using legally granted rights in your examples.

You miss my point altogether.

Since lawful rights are not alienated when one is deprived of their enjoyment, why must intrinsic and inherent rights be alienated when one is deprived of the enjoyment of one of them?

No, you're purposely missing the point.

There *ARE* no intrinsit or inherent rights, only lawful rights. Rights are granted by the society in which you live, and by extension, the government. You have no rights beyond those which you are granted.

And of course, your 'enjoyment' of your property is not guaranteed by law, there are many cases where your property can be legally and lawfully taken from you and you have little recourse to 'enjoy' it. So much for inalienable rights.

0 Replies

Re: truth

Cephus wrote:

who just can't get it through their thick skulls that they're flat out wrong.

You may be describing yourself. :wink: How would you know one way or the other?

joefromchicago wrote:

Furthermore, absent some kind of universal or widely held standard, can one society justifiably criticize another society's choice of rights? To echo the point raised by Thomas, could there be a principled ground of criticism of a regime that denies the right to life to a segment of its population -- such as the profoundly retarded, to return to my initial hypothetical -- if it can be shown that, for that particular society, such a rule "works" for it and it has faithfully followed all the required legal process?

TRIAL HYPOTHESIS

Let's ignore bone-brains like me. Let's eschew any need whatsoever for a higher, say moral, standard that is not abridgeable by any popular decision making process.

Let's leave it up to a majority or perhaps some super majority less than 100%.

Say a majority believes in an egalitarian society wherein no one shall be allowed to possess anything (e.g., status, stuff, or smarts) greater than anyone else. They argue that this is the only way to curb that damnable human propensity to pernicious envy. However, they soon discover that some will have to LEAD this effort to transform society, thereby causing them, at least until the goal is accomplished, to designate those who shall lead and have more power than the others. However, they soon discover another human propensity they like even less: excessive power of leadership corrupts leaders. So they terminate all resistant leaders and henceforth limit the power of future leaders by adopting a constitution. But the constitution is flawed in that it fails to make adequate provision for the people to recall incompetent, fraudulent, or sociopathic leaders who exceed the powers granted them by the new constitution. So they terminate all resistant leaders and write a new constitution. ... ... ...

Eventually, Ben, Tom and John come up with what they think is a brilliant idea for extricating themselves from their current quagmire.
Let's teach our children a set of unabridgeable values, independent of majority rule, that we claim the universe dictates. Then these values shall be used to infer universal rights that apply equally to everyone. Wait says Fidel upon hearing of this idea! If we do that, then the people given equal rights will invariably end up with different status, stuff and smarts. We'll be back to square 1. Yeah, but almost all of us says Adam, another observer, will have a greater chance of survival, since many people will produce far more stuff than they can possibly consume, and sell their surplus to those who produce less. Ben says, maybe we can educate our children to root for each other instead of envy each other, and then, by golly, emulate the more accomplished. It'll never work, says Fidel. So they terminate Fidel.

0 Replies

The RIGHT to life is inalienable.
The SECURITY of that right is alienable.

If you and most everyone else are unwilling to make that distinction, then the value and even existence of your and everyone else's life will hang on the whims of the majority (e.g., Robespierre and friends, 1758 -1794, -- he got terminated a little early).

If the value of your life hangs on the whims of the majority, then we both can cause the majority to vote us both out of existence. The majority of course will simply perceive themselves as performing a public service and vote us out of existence with good conscience for any specific reason that serves their convenience..

0 Replies

Cephus wrote:

You really don't have a clue what intrinsic or inherent means, do you? You don't *HAVE* to acknowledge an inherent right, it's inherent! Any right which can be violated cannot be inalienable by definition. That means that if I *CAN* kill you, you do not have an inalienable right to life.

I think this statement can be filed under the heading "Pot maligning Kettle's blackness." Certainly, ican hasn't been terribly consistent in his description of inherent rights, but it's unlikely that he has been as comprehensively misguided as Cephus is here.

"Inalienable" clearly does not mean "inviolable." Indeed, to equate the two terms is to commit a profound, bewildering error. Every natural rights theorist, from Aquinas to Finnis, recognizes that rights could be violated and yet still be inherent. There is no contradiction between the two concepts.

Furthermore, just because someone can deprive one of a right (such as life), it does not logically follow that the right does not exist. Even Cephus can't actually believe this: after all, Cephus acknowledges the reality of "lawful rights," which are just as easily violated as "inherent rights." If the violation of inherent rights is evidence of their non-existence, then surely the violation of "lawful rights" is equal evidence of their non-existence. This isn't a refutation of inherent rights, it's a refutation of all rights.

ican711nm wrote:

Eventually, Ben, Tom and John come up with what they think is a brilliant idea for extricating themselves from their current quagmire. Let's teach our children a set of unabridgeable values, independent of majority rule, that we claim the universe dictates.

This is simply another version of the platonic "noble myth" that you alternately endorse and reject. Either rights are inherent, in which case they simply are, or they are the product of some sort of agreement or prudential calculus or "brilliant idea," in which case they are societal in nature and not inherent.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

This is simply another version of the platonic "noble myth" that you alternately endorse and reject. Either rights are inherent, in which case they simply are, or they are the product of some sort of agreement or prudential calculus or "brilliant idea," in which case they are societal in nature and not inherent.

Yes, I agree. But please remember I titled the whole thing TRIAL HYPOTHESIS.

MY HYPOTHESIS

Eventually, Ben, Tom and John come up with what they think is a brilliant idea for extricating themselves [[[ and everyone else ]]] from their current quagmire.

Let's teach our children a set of unabridgeable values, independent of majority rule, that we [[[ think are intrinsic and inherent to all live human beings ]]]. Then these values shall be used to infer universal rights that apply equally to everyone. ...

MY REBUTTAL

I'm caught between a razor and a sharp place. Who shall really decide what are these actual unabridgeable values? If they are intrinsic and inherent everyone should unanimously acknowledge them as such without
debate. Right? Ok, what are they? :wink:

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
In my opinion, there are no "rights" that are immutable, unalienable, inalienable, inherent, or anything else of that sort.

All of our "rights" -- as nearly as I can tell -- are transitory.

So is there any basis for justifying the rights we have? Is there some standard by which we can determine what should be a right? And can a society actually transgress rights by violating this standard?

Absolutely not! We can simply want them. A majority may win on some items -- and a minority on others, simply because they are more vocal than the majority.

I most certainly am not talking about an inherent right to demand rights! :wink:

The "standard" can be anything people can agree to.

Quote:

For instance, let's say that society has adopted a set of rights because those rights, in one way or another, accord with a broadly defined notion of "social utility." In other words, society has determined that those rights "work," or at least work better than any other conceivable set of rights. Can such a society, then, justifiably endorse a right that does not "work" in this sense?

As I said, I am not all that interested in defending some "right" to establish rights.

I think societies have grown from small things to the large thing it is now. While growing -- which is done in a trial and error way -- the people who comprise societies have decided that certain "laws" aid society in functioning properly. In effect, they decide to take unbridled liberty and freedom away.

You cannot steal! You cannot murder! You cannot go through red lights! That kind of thing.

As I said earlier, some of the laws are flat-assed bad.

The laws that allowed people to traffic and own slaves sucked big time.

But that does not mean that a society cannot come up with "bad" laws. It can -- and often does.

The hope is we will eventually get things correct.

In any case, laws that ultimately take lives; take freedom; and limit the freedom to pursue happiness no matter where it leads -- are necessary if there is going to be society.

Quote:

Furthermore, absent some kind of universal or widely held standard, can one society justifiably criticize another society's choice of rights?

Sure they can. They may not be right -- and they may often be hypocrites and their logic may be abysmal -- but they certainly can do it.

And do!

We Americans do it all the time!

Quote:

To echo the point raised by Thomas, could there be a principled ground of criticism of a regime that denies the right to life to a segment of its population -- such as the profoundly retarded, to return to my initial hypothetical -- if it can be shown that, for that particular society, such a rule "works" for it and it has faithfully followed all the required legal process?

Why not?

But to suppose that laws like that which disgust most of us are intrinsically evil -- is probably as illogical as the thought that goes into the passage of such laws.

Quote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
I was having a bit of fun. Please disregard the comment.

No problem. Don't mention it.

Thanks, I needed that laugh. (I'm assuming you wrote that AFTER my last posting to Ican.)

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

[But to suppose that laws like that which disgust most of us are intrinsically evil -- is probably as illogical as the thought that goes into the passage of such laws.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

ican711nm wrote:

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Furthermore, just because someone can deprive one of a right (such as life), it does not logically follow that the right does not exist. Even Cephus can't actually believe this: after all, Cephus acknowledges the reality of "lawful rights," which are just as easily violated as "inherent rights." If the violation of inherent rights is evidence of their non-existence, then surely the violation of "lawful rights" is equal evidence of their non-existence. This isn't a refutation of inherent rights, it's a refutation of all rights.

No, it isn't because if rights are simply granted by society and can be taken away by society, the ability to be removed is inherent. If someone kills you and the right was granted by society, then society punishes the individual who violated your right. It doesn't bring you back from the dead, of course, but the criminal is supposed to pay for his crimes, as set out in the law.

The biggest problem with so-called inherent rights is they can't be demonstrated. They can't be proven. They can't be objectively supported. They can just be *STATED* over and over again. It's little more than "this is what I want to happen, therefore I simply declare it to be true". So where is the logic involved in the declaration of inherent rights? If those inherent rights can simply be taken away by society, what point is there in arguing that they exist? Saying you have a right to life doesn't seem to make a bit of difference in the real world. I don't think the Nazis would pay much attention if the Jews had declared their right to life, do you? There seems to be no practical application of this philosophical position.

0 Replies

So we come back to it: the right are an outcome of a social process and are inherent in the social contract -- ARE the social contract. One's right are inevitably limited by others, either because another individual prevents you from exerting your rights over his, or because you live in a community which has a set of laws based on the belief in rights, or because you live in a community in which certain people are denied rights and you are one of them. In the case of this country (and many others) the rights spring from the belief in equality and that no one's rights are greater than any other's -- or any less.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

dlowan wrote:
A society could legally take away the rights of profoundly retarded people to life, if due legal process were folowed.

... which the Nazis arguably did in Germany. Under the constitution of the Weimar Republic, it was perfectly legal for the Reichstag (the German parliament) to give Adolf Hitler dictatorial power and allow him to repeal human rights for millions of people. If I understand your argument correctly, it follows that Hitler was justified in what he did to the Jews because he followed due process.

Based on this understanding of your argument, I strongly disagree with it.

Good grief, Thomas - of course I do not believe that Hitler was justified!

I do not believe he was justified on ethical grounds - not legal grounds.

Societies CAN make whatever laws they choose to. This does not mean that I have to agree with them. For instance, I fiercely disagree with the USA's use of capital punishment - I believe it is immoral and very damaging to the civilisation of the USA. I do not believe it is illegal - except in terms of whatever the legal implications are of any documents the US has ratified - like the International Human Rights agreement - (HAS the US signed this?) - but I do believe it is profoundly wrong. I fiercely disagree with my country's current policies on asylum seekers - and I believe, as does the UN, that they violate international treaties we have signed - however, they are LEGAL - just immoral.

Why on earth do you, and others, seem to believe that denying that we have absolute, inherent, intrinsic rights means that I deny that, by the reasonable and profoundly supportable agreements by which humans form societies and become civilized, that we come to agree that society affords people rights which ought never to be alienated?

Morally, I would agrgue that such "rights" be extended - as they gradually are being - and that more and more countries recognize them.

Sigh...

0 Replies

Cephus wrote:

No, it isn't because if rights are simply granted by society and can be taken away by society, the ability to be removed is inherent.

I have no idea what this means. The ability of "what" to be removed? The rights? What do you mean "removed"? Does that equate to "violated"?

Cephus wrote:

If someone kills you and the right was granted by society, then society punishes the individual who violated your right. It doesn't bring you back from the dead, of course, but the criminal is supposed to pay for his crimes, as set out in the law.

I know of no natural rights theorist who argues that an inherent rights position depends upon personal enforcement of rights. To take one example: Locke viewed rights as inherent, but people (through the social contract) transferred their right to enforce their rights to the state. No one claims that the only entity capable of punishing wrongs is the entity that grants rights. You are arguing against a strawman, Cephus.

Cephus wrote:

The biggest problem with so-called inherent rights is they can't be demonstrated. They can't be proven. They can't be objectively supported. They can just be *STATED* over and over again. It's little more than "this is what I want to happen, therefore I simply declare it to be true".

A lot of people would disagree with you. Most natural rights theorists are quite convinced that they have proven the existence of inherent rights. If you think they're wrong, it's your obligation to provide more than a blanket "you can't prove it."

Cephus wrote:

So where is the logic involved in the declaration of inherent rights? If those inherent rights can simply be taken away by society, what point is there in arguing that they exist?

The whole point is that inherent rights cannot be taken away by society -- at least not without some sort of legal process which itself is sanctioned by the inherent rights position. Or are you again equating "remove" and "violate"?

Cephus wrote:

Saying you have a right to life doesn't seem to make a bit of difference in the real world. I don't think the Nazis would pay much attention if the Jews had declared their right to life, do you? There seems to be no practical application of this philosophical position.

To the extent that inherent rights are a fiction, then so too are societal rights. If I have a right to life by virtue of a grant from God or a grant from the state, my right may still be violated. Your objection here, Cephus, as far as I can fathom it, has no merit.

0 Replies

ARE WE ENDOWED WITH CERTAIN UNALIENABLE RIGHTS?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know