3
   

ARE WE ENDOWED WITH CERTAIN UNALIENABLE RIGHTS?

 
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Aug, 2003 08:43 am
Frank Apisa wrote:
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.


Ah, Frank, you are a veritable Montesquieu!

But what you're suggesting here is a sort of prudential calculus (albeit one that develops over time) as the basis for rights. In other words, a standard for determining what is or is not a "right."

Absent such a standard -- and you seem to want to reject any such standard -- there is really no point in talking of "rights" at all. If rights are granted or denied by society, based on no other reason than whim and caprice (such being no better and no worse than any other reason, given that there is no standard by which to judge these things), then what's the point of having "rights" in the first place? To illustrate: if I can have the right to own private property one moment and lose it the next, can I say, in any meaningful sense, that I have a right to own anything?

If society can arbitrarily assign rights, base on nothing more than "anything people can agree to" (as you've stated), then what we have, at best, are limited grants of freedom, not rights. We have no more claim to our rights than a squatter has claim to a piece of property. In both cases, we face eviction at a moment's notice.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Aug, 2003 08:45 am
speaking of rights (and lefts and middles)Johnny Cash

Well the one on the right was on the left,
And the one in the middle was on the right,
And the one on the left was in the middle,
And the guy in the rear was a Methodist,

Well the one on the right was on the left,
And the one in the middle was on the right,
And the one on the left was in the middle,
And the guy in the rear burned his driver's license,

Well the one on the right was on the bottom,
And the one in the middle was on the top,
And the one on the left got a broken arm,
And the guy in the rear said, Oh dear,

Well the one on the left works in a bank,
And the one in the middle drives a truck,
And the one on the right's an all night D.J.,
And the guy in the rear got drafted.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Aug, 2003 09:49 am
joefromchicago wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
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.


Ah, Frank, you are a veritable Montesquieu!

But what you're suggesting here is a sort of prudential calculus (albeit one that develops over time) as the basis for rights. In other words, a standard for determining what is or is not a "right."

Absent such a standard -- and you seem to want to reject any such standard -- there is really no point in talking of "rights" at all. If rights are granted or denied by society, based on no other reason than whim and caprice (such being no better and no worse than any other reason, given that there is no standard by which to judge these things), then what's the point of having "rights" in the first place? To illustrate: if I can have the right to own private property one moment and lose it the next, can I say, in any meaningful sense, that I have a right to own anything?

If society can arbitrarily assign rights, base on nothing more than "anything people can agree to" (as you've stated), then what we have, at best, are limited grants of freedom, not rights. We have no more claim to our rights than a squatter has claim to a piece of property. In both cases, we face eviction at a moment's notice.



Well all that could be, Joe, BUT that is exactly the situation as it now stands.

And you must agree that it is -- unless you want to argue that we have rights within laws currently existing -- WHICH CANNOT BE TAKEN AWAY OR CANNOT BE LOST.

As I said -- and you must have missed this - it is my opinion that all "rights" are transitory.

If, in your opinion, that mean they should not properly be called rights -- then think of another name for what they are -- and at that point my position will be that we have NO RIGHTS.

Let me restate that: IF (I repeat, IF) rights have to be immutable, unalienable, inalienable, inherent, or anything else of that sort in order to be considered rights -- then in my opinion, there is no such thing as a "right."


BTW, I do not think it is necessary for a right to have to be any of those things in order to be considered a right. I think we can have rights -- but since I think the only rights we have are those we demand for ourselves or that others have demanded for us -- and since I think that all rights are transitory -- I think temporary "rights" ARE rights -- and I think we have always to be on guard to see that rights we very much want and have fought hard to win -- are retained.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Aug, 2003 12:11 pm
truth
It seems to me that if you make an argument to having an inherent right to life, and you are, nevertheless, killed by someone who either ignores your claim or accepts it but kills you anyway because it is in his interest to do so, your argument to that right has not been refuted. Moreover, to argue that if you claim a right to life but can be killed by individuals or the state, your argument has no practical significance is not quite right either. Jews, gypsies, homosexuals and politically dissident Germans were murdered by the Nazi regime and the practical outcome was the Nuremberg prosecutions. That's a practical outcome, and one based on a belief in rights to life. I do not believe in inherent rights. EVERYTHING, in my view, is human construction. I am just addressing the logical limitations of earlier statements. .
0 Replies
 
Cephus
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Aug, 2003 02:18 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
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"?


No, the right can be removed. If you commit a felony, your right to vote, along with your right to freedom can be revoked, perhaps permanently. If you kill someone, your right to life can be revoked. There isn't a single law that society, through its system of government and laws, can't take away from you.

Quote:
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.


Unfortunately, people like Locke simply declare inherent rights to exist, there is no way to objectively demonstrate it. Philosophical positions are simply statements of belief, not fact. Heck, Hitler believed that blue-eyed, blond-haired Aryans were the superior race, it doesn't make it so.

So far, neither you nor Locke nor anyone else has demonstrated that rights are anything more than societally granted, and in practice, that's all that matters.

Quote:
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."


Exactly how can it be proven? Sorry, but running around, waving your arms, screaming "I have rights! I have rights!" is pretty silly when society can just tell you to shut up and get in the back of the police car.

Most natural rights theorists are convinced in the same way that most theists are convinced that their deity exists. It's faith, not fact. Sorry, faith doesn't impress me.

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"?[/quote]

But there aren't any rights that exist that *CAN'T* be taken away by society. Why is this so hard to comprehend? Besides, it's utterly silly to claim that inherent rights, those which cannot be removed under any circumstances because they simply exist, can be removed by a societal whim. That's like saying the irresistable force is utterly irresistable unless the immovable object says otherwise. You can't have it both ways. You can't have rights which are 'part of reality' and have them removed with great regularity by anyone walking down the street. The whole concept of natural rights is based on wishful thinking, not demonstrable fact.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Aug, 2003 08:12 pm
ican711nm wrote:

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:


I'll decide.

UNABRIDGEABLE VALUES

Treat others the way you want to be treated.

Do not treat others the way you don't want to be treated.

Love others as you love yourself.

Root for one another to live long, healthy, honorably, and prosper.

INTRINSIC AND INHERENT RIGHTS IMPLIED BY THE UNABRIDGEABLE VALUES

Life.

Liberty.

The pursuit of happiness.

None of the above is subject to editing by a majority or a minority. All of the above is subject to their security being determined by a majority or a minority.

Furthermore, none of you can prove you are right or I am wrong. I win by your default, because this is my forum. :wink:
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Aug, 2003 08:25 pm
Cephus wrote:
But there aren't any rights that exist that *CAN'T* be taken away by society. Why is this so hard to comprehend?


It's hard to comprehend because it is false. Prove otherwise.

Intrinsic and inherent rights of living humans exist because we humans exist. They CANNOT be taken away unless one takes away ALL humans.

It is only the security of those rights that can be taken away. That is self-evident. Why is this so hard for you to comprehend?

Why do you insist on pretending you can delegate to some majority or minority the power to decide what rights you or anyone else has? It's bad enough we have to delegate to some majority or minority what rights of ours will be secured and how well they will be secured.

We have our intrinsic and inherent rights as long as we shall live, and no one has a damn thing they can do about that one way or the other. Anyone who infringes any such right, secured or not, commits an evil.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Aug, 2003 08:52 pm
truth
Ican, I go along with your last statement, and I think it IS your bottom line--"We have our intrinsic and inherent rights as long as we shall live, and no one has a damn thing they can do about it one way or another. Anyone who infringes any such right, secured or not, commits an evil."
I actually enjoyed typing out that very vigorous statement of value--like playing a beautiful melody on the piano. I respect it, even though it contains philosophical challenges, i.e., the nature of inherent rights, not to mention "evil." But I don't think that every thought we construct and live by must be objectively defensible. Values are, to me, ultimately subjective. If it's a myth, it's a good myth to live by. And that's what we all do, continuously, live by myths which are charters for action.
0 Replies
 
Terry
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Aug, 2003 09:49 pm
Typical, ican. You cannot support your position, so you arbitrarily declare an unearned "victory" by virtue of "owning" the forum.

You are only deluding yourself.


The concept of rights has meaning only in a social context since they simply define how people shall be treated by others. Hermits don't need 'em!

There is no inherent right to life, only a mutual agreement that we will not kill each other unlawfully and will punish anyone who breaks the contract. (Disease, disaster and deities kill humans as arbitrarily as animals, since they recognize no inherent rights.)

There is no inherent right to liberty. Women, children, and slaves have been legally treated as chattel throughout much of human history, even in the US. Serfs and others of lower socioeconomic status or caste, and citizens of totalitarian states often lacked the liberty to choose their occupation, travel, participate in government, or own property.

Religious taboos and laws limit ways in which you may pursue happiness, without regard for any inherent right to do so.


Not only did you fail to prove that any rights are inherent, you could not even come up with a credible source for them.

If self-awareness is the source of inherent rights, then many of the predecessors of H. sapiens and apes may well be included in the class. We keep apes in cages, use them in experiments and kill them for bush meat. But we keep people in cages too and kill them in wars, so it seems that "inherent" rights mean nothing in practice.

If intelligence is the source of our rights, then babies and people who are severely retarded or have reduced brain function due to disease or injury have no inherent rights. Unwanted babies are still allowed to die of exposure/neglect in some cultures, and people without money may be denied medical treatment. So what makes you think that a right to life is inherent?

If an alleged god/creator is the source of inherent rights for Americans, why did God leave out slaves and women when he was granting those rights, as well as people of other cultures? Do those who lack belief in the Judeo-Christian God or any universal right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness still inherently have those rights?

How can rights be inherent if some people don't even know they have them?


We need to mutually agree on certain rights in order to live in a civilized society. IMO these should be legal equality and the rights to life, health, education, self-determination, and the pursuit of happiness - provided you do not cause unnecessary pain to others.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Aug, 2003 02:21 am
Terry wrote:
There is no inherent right to life,

[...]

There is no inherent right to liberty.

I disagree. But having read the exchange between you and Frank on the one side, and ican on the other side, I think the topic of discussion isn't really the problem here. The problem is that ican and I are talking about a different document than you and Frank are, and it's a mere coincidence that the letter of both documents is the same. You and Frank approach the declaration of independence as if it was a legal opinion, and correctly find that as a legal opinion, the statement that our creator endowed us with rights doesn't hold water. But you are both missing the point: The declaration of independence isn't a legal opinion. When Jefferson wrote "we hold these truths to be self-evident ..." he was expressing an ethical belief and justifying a call to action. This means the quote merits a great deal more poetic license than you and Frank are willing to grant.

As it happens, I think it makes perfect sense to say that we were "endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights" -- when you take the statement with the appropriate amount of poetic license! Our creator -- Darwinian evolution -- has selected our genes for (among other things) respecting our peers' natural rights. So there's a reasonably real sense in which we've been endowed with these rights millions of years before we could talk about them and write them down into laws. But it seems to me that this is not the real problem in this thread. The real problem is that neither you nor Frank seem to want to deal with ican in any context that involves poetic license. I'm sure you have your reasons for that, but I'm afraid it makes you end up being right at the cost of missing the point in this case.

Terry wrote:
Religious taboos and laws limit ways in which you may pursue happiness, without regard for any inherent right to do so.

True. But this fact doesn't mean humans don't have these rights, it only means that according to Jefferson, it gives people the right to alter or abolish the religious taboos and laws in question. I agree with him.

-- Thomas
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Aug, 2003 07:00 am
Really interesting, Thomas. Of course, rights are all relative. Our rights incude our physical limitations which we try to get around with other forms of ingenuity (flying, spend long hours underwater...)

I'm reminded of Emerson's "demotion" of Jesus (in a sermon) and embrace of the rational, scientific advance... And I agree with Jefferson, too! But there are those who would like to overturn those abolitions (mourning on the courthouse steps in Alabama as we write).

I think the tussle which is going on in this and many other threads in A2K is the same one which went on in Puritan America centuries ago and which recurs regularly. The way in which Puritanism's face reappears in our history is interesting. No poetic license allowed!
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Aug, 2003 08:43 am
Cephus wrote:
No, the right can be removed. If you commit a felony, your right to vote, along with your right to freedom can be revoked, perhaps permanently. If you kill someone, your right to life can be revoked. There isn't a single law that society, through its system of government and laws, can't take away from you.


I'm going to go over this one more time, very slowly, and then I'll have done with it. The notion that rights are inherent is not contradicted by the notion that people may be punished with the deprivation of their rights, or that people may be deprived of their rights by wrongdoers. As I mentioned before, "inherent" does not mean "inviolable." Never has -- and no one has ever taken that position (except for people like Cephus who desperately want to erect and then knock down this strawman).

Indeed, for some rights theorists, such as Hegel, the idea that punishment involved depriving a wrongdoer of a certain right was evidence of the wrongdoer's inherent rights. Thus, executing a murderer affirmed the right to life (Hegel's argument, like everything else he said, is too complicated to summarize here -- you'll just have to read it yourself or, better yet, take my word for it).

So let's repeat together: according to the inherent rights position, a person can have the right even if that right is, in some fashion, violated or deprived or "removed" (whatever that means). Now let's either talk about this issue sensibly or let's move on.

Quote:
Unfortunately, people like Locke simply declare inherent rights to exist, there is no way to objectively demonstrate it. Philosophical positions are simply statements of belief, not fact. Heck, Hitler believed that blue-eyed, blond-haired Aryans were the superior race, it doesn't make it so.

So far, neither you nor Locke nor anyone else has demonstrated that rights are anything more than societally granted, and in practice, that's all that matters.

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".


And societal rights can be proven objectively? How? Sorry, Cephus, but you're not allowed to hold the inherent rights position to a higher standard of proof than your own position.

Cephus wrote:
Exactly how can it be proven? Sorry, but running around, waving your arms, screaming "I have rights! I have rights!" is pretty silly when society can just tell you to shut up and get in the back of the police car.


And that's your proof for societal rights? It is to laugh.
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Aug, 2003 09:40 am
The metaphor I like is the one right out my window, here in ranchland. I can see way down there the cattle fence separating my neighbor's and my pastures, properties. Here in Texas, if one of us sets foot on the other's land, the owner has the right to shoot. Doesn't happen much. On the contrary, the custom is also that, when the fence needs repair, we repair it together, share the cost equally. His bull charges through when my cows are in season? He gets the bull and apologizes. I guess I could shoot the bull (literally) but of course I wouldn't -- that's a right seldom exerted. Relationships are kept very carefully -- friendly and correct, even cool (though far from unfriendly). I know the breed of his cattle; I don't know which programs he watches on TV or which church he goes to, if any. We're all in trouble in bad weather, when a rattler gets us; we all need each other in emergencies. Our lives (and the lives of our rights, therefore) are extended enormously thanks to the mere existence of the other. We aren't predator and prey; we're co-existers.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Aug, 2003 10:13 am
Over in the other thread -- Ican is now making the case that a god did endow us with certain inherent and intrinsic rights.

Some ideas die hard.
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Aug, 2003 11:04 am
Well, Frank, if he comes on my property, I know how to take care of him!
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Aug, 2003 12:06 pm
truth
Frank and Tartarin, as I said earlier regarding Ican's proclamation of the nature of rights, they have no inherent metaphysical reality. They are claims. This is what I see Ican doing, making value claims. To me, the question is not whether or not our claimed rights to life and happiness are inherent; it is whether or not others have a right to deny us those rights. Ican says they do not, and if they do so deprive us of such rights, they have committed acts of "evil." As I see Ican's situation, he has permitted himself to be drawn into a losing situation, trying to prove the intrinsic nature of rights. His proclamation is an essentially poetic one. It is from such poetic utterances that cultures have progressed--and regressed, of course.
Ican, I'm sorry for my presumption. If what I say about you is not accurate, I would still make the statement about a hypothetical person in such a situation.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Aug, 2003 12:40 pm
Frank Apisa wrote:
Over in the other thread -- Ican is now making the case that a god did endow us with certain inherent and intrinsic rights.

Some ideas die hard.


Mad (#) FRANK, THAT'S LIBEL (#) Mad shame on you!

I am making a case in that other forum that our universe did endow us with certain inherent and intrinsic rights.

I repeated there in that forum the same beliefs I stated here in this forum.

Bottom Line: My DEFAULT definition of God is:

God is Our Observable/Inferrable Universe (i.e., OOU).

I'll stick with my default definition until I have an alternate definition for which I have sufficient valid data to justify. As I wrote in this and the other forum, I currently do not even have sufficient valid data to warrant a guess about what is a valid definition of a God.

So yes, I claim OOU exists, and it evolved humans with intrinsic and inherent rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Do you really think that makes OOU God? Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Aug, 2003 12:48 pm
Re: truth
JLNobody wrote:
His proclamation is an essentially poetic one. It is from such poetic utterances that cultures have progressed--and regressed, of course.
Ican, I'm sorry for my presumption. If what I say about you is not accurate, I would still make the statement about a hypothetical person in such a situation.


Wow! I have managed to communicate despite my limitations. Very Happy Thank you for your help!

One more time:

NLNobody wrote:
...the question is not whether or not our claimed rights to life and happiness are inherent; it is whether or not others have a right to deny us those rights. Ican says they do not, and if they do so deprive us of such rights, they have committed acts of "evil." ... His proclamation is an essentially poetic one. It is from such poetic utterances that cultures have progressed--and regressed, of course.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Aug, 2003 01:07 pm
Terry wrote:
We need to mutually agree on certain rights in order to live in a civilized society. IMO these should be legal equality and the rights to life, health, education, self-determination, and the pursuit of happiness – provided you do not cause unnecessary pain to others.


NLNobody wrote:
...the question is not whether or not our claimed rights to life and happiness are inherent; it is whether or not others have a right to deny us those rights. Ican says they do not, and if they do so deprive us of such rights, they have committed acts of "evil." ... His proclamation is an essentially poetic one. It is from such poetic utterances that cultures have progressed--and regressed, of course.


I wish I had written that!

Our rights are not determineable by some majority, plurality, or minority however well or benignly intended. If you or any one else succeeds or even attempts to succeed in trying to deprive any of us of our rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, then you or any of us commits "evil", and therby forfeits these rights.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Aug, 2003 02:22 pm
ican711nm wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
Over in the other thread -- Ican is now making the case that a god did endow us with certain inherent and intrinsic rights.

Some ideas die hard.


Mad (#) FRANK, THAT'S LIBEL (#) Mad shame on you!

I am making a case in that other forum that our universe did endow us with certain inherent and intrinsic rights.

I repeated there in that forum the same beliefs I stated here in this forum.

Bottom Line: My DEFAULT definition of God is:

God is Our Observable/Inferrable Universe (i.e., OOU).

I'll stick with my default definition until I have an alternate definition for which I have sufficient valid data to justify. As I wrote in this and the other forum, I currently do not even have sufficient valid data to warrant a guess about what is a valid definition of a God.

So yes, I claim OOU exists, and it evolved humans with intrinsic and inherent rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Do you really think that makes OOU God? Rolling Eyes



Yes, Ican.

You are saying that you cannot define GOD -- so you are going to define GOD as the universe (or OOU) -- and you are then saying that your GOD (OOU) has endowed us with intrinsic and inherent rights.

Can't have it both ways, Ican.

I'm not libel.

It is just reporting.

I thought these good folks would be interested in the way you work.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/27/2025 at 01:26:49