ARE WE ENDOWED WITH CERTAIN UNALIENABLE RIGHTS?

Now there's a place for a little experimental 'genetic engineering'! Twisted Evil

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Cephus wrote:
One cannot demonstrate that these inherent rights have any existence in the real world. For societal rights, you can point to a system of laws and penalties for those who violate the social contract. Your inherent rights are not defined anywhere, carry no penalty for violating them and vary from person to person.

This is so confused, it really cannot be taken seriously. Let me see if I can address some of this confusion:
(1) For societal rights, you can point to a system of laws and penalties for those who violate the social contract. This is somewhat akin to a naturalistic fallacy. According to Cephus, I may have a right to own property because there is a whole system of laws and penalties establishing that right. But then the question is: do I have a right to rely on those rights? In other words, the whole scheme of societal rights seems to be based on the citizens' right to have rights, and so we need to ask what the source of that right is. And if it's simply another societal right, then we have to wonder if we're dealing here with another "turtles all the way down" type of argument.
Furthermore, Cephus, I suppose that, by mentioning the "social contract" in defending a societal rights position, you were being unintentionally ironic.

Can you count on having rights? Absolutely not. Rights are subject to change at any time and may vary from place to place. You simply can't go to Afghanistan and demand to have the same rights you have in New York. That's what scares a lot of people, that rights aren't omnipresent and unchangable. Rights are simply those things given to you by society, you can't demand them. You can't walk into the courtroom and demand to be released from jail because you have a right to be free. They'll just laugh at you.

As far as the social contract is concerned, it is an understood contract between the individual and the society. You follow society's rules, they give you rights. It is a mutual agreement between man and society that man will act in a socially-agreed-upon manner and society will not punish man if he does so. Surely you know this.

Quote:

(2)Your inherent rights are not defined anywhere, carry no penalty for violating them and vary from person to person. Earlier, Kuvasz mentioned Schopenhauer, who had something to say about this: "Those who deny . . . that there is a right apart from the State, confuse the means of enforcing the right with the right itself." A law that protects my right to own property is not, in itself, a "right," and so the entire framework of laws that Cephus points to as evidence of societal rights is merely evidence of society's recognition of rights. Whether society recognizes these rights as inherent or societal remains an open question.

Tell that to the Indians. The "right" to own property is meaningless. Land was here before you were born and will be here long after you're dead. From where did this "right" to own the land while you are alive come from? Does God show up to settle property disputes?

Besides, there really isn't a "right" to own property, nothing says you get to own anything. You may purchase it, you may own it, you may sell it, you may give it away, but you don't pop out of the womb with a deed. In a communist society, your "right" to own property is rather moot, everything is community property.

Unfortunately, you're still arguing inherent rights, but you're not doing a damn thing to back it up. I'll ask again, how are these 'inherent' rights defined and by whom? How are they protected and defended? If you can't come up with an answer to that, then you're just blowing hot air.

Quote:

Falsifiability is already factored into our gnome test. Per Karl Popper, we cannot have a valid inductive science if it is not potentially falsifiable. So whatever test we chose, it must be falsifiable or it isn't science.

So where is your test?

Quote:

No, only the protections afforded that right are specific to a given society. Under an inherent rights theory, such rights are universal regardless of the society's particular laws and regulations.

You keep repeating this over and over, but you're coming no closer to actually demonstrating it than you were in your first post. Come on, put up or shut up.

0 Replies

Tartarin wrote:

Woke up this morning, Ceph, to a religious rant on San Antonio Sunday morning radio. All about these idiotic evolutionists who claim (among other foolishness) that we evolved from African and Asians. That the "female race" evolved in Africa and the "male race" evolved in Asia. See? Evolutionists don't even understand one of god's basic miracles: mommy and daddy have to get together! Silly scientists!

Honest. In south Texas they're getting a great story about evolutionists.

Yet another example of how utterly stupid fundies are (not that we need any more examples). They're terrified that they might actually have to think and that everything important in their lives can't just be handed to them by some superior power and be true forever and ever and ever. That's true in the 'inherent rights' debate too. Too many people want to be able to point to something and say "That's true, it's written in stone, it'll never change, I don't have to worry about it."

Unfortunately, that's a childish idea, just as childish as the idiot creationists who purposely and knowingly lie, misrepresent and misquote science to invent silly claims like the above. It's just one more example of a frightened people who want to huddle in their pews and declare that they don't need to understand the world, they just want God to tell them what it's like.

0 Replies

Frightened... and very, very lazy. That's what Christianity has come to look like (to me) in the US.

0 Replies

Cephus wrote:

Sofia wrote:
I say it is not poetic license--but fact. Man is more than an orderly lump of flesh and goo. You don't have to buy religion or God to believe that man comes into this world with more than biology can explain.

There's a difference between something biology has not yet explained and something that biology cannot explain. To date, we've found nothing that science simply cannot answer, but many things for which we don't have enough evidence to make a full explanation.

You claim that man is more than an orderly lump of flesh and goo, please demonstrate that this is so. There is nothing that I have observed which would make that a valid claim.

I've already mentioned the instinctual rites of passage for humans--the thrusts for increased independance at at age 2, around puberty... instinct of survival at birth and on, personality,...the things we each show evidence of, which has no biological reason. Also--hope. Why does man hope? Which organ runs this?

0 Replies

I want that kitten on the right, Sophia!!

Hope comes, in part, from experience, understanding, acceptance, and trust. You can build hope by facing fear. Survival instinct and the way to serve it is in the DNA.

As we understand more and more about the human body, we understand the biological causes of (say) depression. I see hope as the converse of depression. So...

0 Replies

I think Code has mentioned somthing I long considered relevant. Lobbying is how the more successful sway the vote. I ogten hear people criticize this but in some countries in which I have lived lobbying was illegal. This did not make politics more honest. Whet it did was make outright bribery the standard since all lobbying was illegal.

I think it's great that ideas in politics are investments.

BGW,

I can't understand how the 'absolute power' wordplay ever became acceptable as axiomatic either. I think an interesting discussion would be about how some are swayed more easily by the power of words alone.

sofia,

Without the survival instinct you die. So those who have an survival instinct have survived while those without it didn't. Process of elimination. Also evolution.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

ican711nm wrote:

What makes you think that socially constructed set will satisfy your own minimum wants assuming that's one of your criteria (but why should it be?). What criteria shall you use to guide you? Shall it be the results of frequently taken polls while the social construct process continues or some other set of criteria?

Ican what are you talking about? An individual would use reasoning and his/her moral compass.

I'm trying to determine what you think are the criteria by which you or another individual will decide whether or not a particular socially constructed set of rights satisfies your or their minimum wants.

You wrote: "An individual would use reasoning and his/her moral compass."

What do you mean by the words, "moral compass"?

Do we all have our own individual "moral compasses" pointing toward our own individual "norths?" Or do all our "moral compasses" point to the same "north". Confused

0 Replies

Individual Norths. There is a collective north and that has to be haggled over.

0 Replies

As to the axiom about power and corruption -- the elimination of the important words "tends to" renders the quote almost silly.

0 Replies

Amen to that. The aaddition of 'absolutely' is as absurd.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Individual Norths. There is a collective north and that has to be haggled over.

Remember, I wrote:

Quote:

I'm trying to determine what you think are the criteria by which you or another individual will decide whether or not a particular socially constructed set of rights satisfies your or their minimum wants.

So your answer clearly implies that you are willing to negotiate (haggle) with others to determine the consensus criteria (i.e., the collective "north") that shall be used to determine whether collective wants satisfy the "minimum" collective wants. That in turn implies that you will accept the collective "north" as long as its "north" is not "too far off" your own individual "north". And, of course, the collective criteria for "too far off" is negotiable too, and is based on still other collective criteria, et cetera. Crying or Very sad

If you're right that our moral compasses do not point to the same "north", we are doomed to collective moral navigation: that is, "moral navigation" by committee. That would be a kind of survival of the consensus "north": a kind of collectivist reality.

I prefer to gamble that there exists a single "north", and search for it, based on the single criterion, enlightened mutual self-interest, rather than gamble on the collectivist approach and its historical "anecdotal" record of horror.

I'm calling that single "north" our "inalienable north". That is, it can not be given, forfeited or taken away from any of us who are alive.

I cannot prove with certainty an "inalienable north" exists. Nor can I provide a preponderance of evidence that an "inalienable north" exists. I can provide a preponderance of data that collectivist "norths" (pardon the expression) "stink up high heaven".

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

So your answer clearly implies that you are willing to negotiate (haggle) with others to determine the consensus criteria (i.e., the collective "north") that shall be used to determine whether collective wants satisfy the "minimum" collective wants. That in turn implies that you will accept the collective "north" as long as its "north" is not "too far off" your own individual "north". And, of course, the collective criteria for "too far off" is negotiable too, and is based on still other collective criteria, et cetera.

If you're right that our moral compasses do not point to the same "north", we are doomed to collective moral navigation: that is, "moral navigation" by committee. That would be a kind of survival of the consensus "north": a kind of collectivist reality.

I am simply not as pessimistic about this. Such is life.

ican711nm wrote:

I prefer to gamble that there exists a single "north", and search for it, based on the single criterion, enlightened mutual self-interest, rather than gamble on the collectivist approach and its historical "anecdotal" record of horror.

I think it's better to strive for your north and as a matter of course influence the collective compass.

If there is no true north you will not find it. I find a true north as attractive as you do but do not think my desire will help realize it.

ican711nm wrote:

I'm calling that single "north" our "inalienable north". That is, it can not be given, forfeited or taken away from any of us who are alive.

You made me smile.

ican711nm wrote:

I cannot prove with certainty an "inalienable north" exists. Nor can I provide a preponderance of evidence that an "inalienable north" exists. I can provide a preponderance of data that collectivist "norths" (pardon the expression) "stink up high heaven".

Democracy sucks. A pity we can do no better in large groups.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Amen to that. The aaddition of 'absolutely' is as absurd.

I thought we all agreed that there isn't any such thing as "absolute power". Or, at least, no one here has claimed they believe it exists.

So yes, power "tends" to corrupt. The historical anecdotal evidence is plentiful. In other words, give a human being too much power and that power will corrupt him. What's too much? It varies among human beings. Our own Constitution attempted to control the acquistion of too much power by "a separation of powers". The problem they left unsolved was how to curtail the power of judges to change laws instead of interpret them. To the best of my knowledge no judge has been impeached and removed from office for that ubiquitous crime. There's still much more work to do to secure our rights.

0 Replies

Ican,

I with you on that. "Power tends to corrupt" is a good axiom.

0 Replies

Sofia wrote:

I've already mentioned the instinctual rites of passage for humans--the thrusts for increased independance at at age 2, around puberty... instinct of survival at birth and on, personality,...the things we each show evidence of, which has no biological reason. Also--hope. Why does man hope? Which organ runs this?

The same one that controls it in animals, perhaps?

0 Replies

As for the fundamentalists (interesting word that; do they get paid for not thinking?) are really to be sympathized with; they simply have never grown up, to take responsibility for their own world; 'daddy' is still in charge!

And Sofia, to paraphrase Craven, 'hope' comes from 'logic'; nothing else makes sense. (therefore the 'body part' is the brain, the only source of logic; logic cannot come from the heart!)

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

I'd love to discuss the Locke stuff -- and if you want to, let's have a go at it. I suspect that the arguments Locke uses reduce to what Ican is doing, but like I said, I don't normally bite off more than I can chew -- and I am not completely sure of Locke's position on the issue.

Offer what you will on that.

I'll respond.

Setting me to work, and on Labor Day weekend! There should be some sort of rule against that.

OK, let me set forth one theory (albeit admittedly incomplete and imperfect) of natural rights. I'm drawing here primarily on Locke and Hobbes, but I've excluded any theistic references (which is, I think, critical to Locke's thinking, if not his theory), and I start with the right to life (whereas Hobbes starts with liberty and Locke, if I understand him correctly, starts with property).

First, a working definition of right: Rights are justified claims to the protection of persons' important interests. Each right has two components: the rightholder's claim or interest, and the duty of others to forbear from interfering with that claim or interest.

Thesis 1. Persons are masters of their own bodies. This can be derived from any number of sources: Fichtean self-awareness, a Cartesian cogito, a notion of free will, etc. Not only is it, I think, intuitively correct, but I doubt that even a societal rights position could contradict it.
Corollary 1a. No other person has a greater interest in an individual than that individual. If I am master of my own body, then my interest in myself is greater than anyone else's interest in me.
Corollary 1b. No person may transfer this interest to another. This derives from the preceding, and establishes that any right deriving from these bases will be inalienable.

Thesis 2. As master of one's own person, an individual has an interest in preserving his/her own life. This can be derived, again, from free will or perhaps from a Bergsonian notion of time. We can only understand the notion of "rights" by projecting ourselves into the future: if we did not have a notion of a future (and thus a notion of ourselves as being "preserved" or continued into the future), then we would have no notion of "rights."
Corollary 2a. A person has an interest in the means by which that person's life may be preserved. It would be an empty claim if I asserted an interest in my life but did not assert an interest in those things (e.g. food, shelter, etc.) that allow my life to be preserved.
Corollary 2b. No other person has an interest in ending an individual's life that is greater than the individual's interest in preserving it. This is derived from both Thesis 1 and Thesis 2.

Thesis 3. A person is entitled to preserve his/her life as against all other persons. Derived from the above.
Corollary 3. A person is entitled to act as judge of his/her own interest, and punish those who infringe on the person's interest in his/her own life and the means to preserve life. This is derived from both the person's own individuality and interest: it would be an empty claim to assert an interest in one's own life but disclaim any means to prevent others from infringing on that interest. This is a crucial claim for both Hobbes and Locke.

Thesis 4. All persons are under an obligation to refrain from infringing upon an individual's interest in his/her life. If a person has an interest in his/her own life, and if all persons are similarly imbued, and if all are to act as judges of their own interests, then all are bound to respect the interests of others or face punishment. I've probably skipped over some intermediate steps here, but this thesis can be derived from the inherent sociability of humankind (as set forth by Grotius) or innate reason or some sort of categorical imperative (as per Kant).

Thesis 5. Consequently, all persons have a right to life: in that one's interest is a justified claim, and that all others are under a duty to respect that claim.

Note: all of this happens prior to the advent of civil society: i.e. prior to a Hobbesian or Lockean social contract. For both of them, the crucial step toward a civil society was the abandonment of the private right to punish (corollary 3 above). The inherent rights of each individual, however, remained intact.

Now, this is only one right: as I mentioned before, there is also the rights to property and liberty, as well as others (right to think freely, right to form attachments with others, etc.) that I have not set forth. But this should at least focus this discussion more closely on a real theory of natural rights, rather than a strawman argument erected by the theory's opponents.

0 Replies

Here's more on "moral compasses".

As previously posted in another context, "North" on my individual "moral compass is ==>:

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.

I claim that plotting a "moral course" on the basis of this "North" will probably <work better> than plotting a "moral course" based on any other "consensus north". The historical anecdotal evidence is compeling.

By <work better> I mean: less likely to produce tyrannies that enslave and murder.

So I'm going to ASSUME the "North" of my "moral compass" goes with the territory, so to speak (i.e., is intrinsic and inherent to the territory). What's my territory? You guessed it! Our Observable/inferrable Universe, OOU is my territory.

I cannot prove that assumption is valid or invalid, but I'm gambling that it is valid.

So what's the "moral course" implied by that assumption? I claim it is self-evident that that course is one on which we acknowledge everyone's right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, and also acknowledge that those rights cannot be taken from anyone, but a right can be forfeited by one who fails to acknowledge that right of another.

Then the proper function of government is to secure those unforfeited rights lest some fail to acknowledge any one or more of those rights.

0 Replies

Joe, I decided to work on labor day, too -- 6 minutes after you!

0 Replies

ARE WE ENDOWED WITH CERTAIN UNALIENABLE RIGHTS?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know