ARE WE ENDOWED WITH CERTAIN UNALIENABLE RIGHTS?

Joe

This is probably the most interesting, and potentially fruitful, discussion I've been in for the last month or so. The others -particularly the ones with Ican and Maliagar - seem to be runaway trains destined to become train wrecks.

But in order to guard against this one becoming like the others, I think we have to break it down into smaller parts - so that we are not dealing with dozens of items at a time.

HERE IS MY TAKE ON HOW TO PROCEED:

We were headed - or so it seemed to me - toward a discussion about whether or not "rights" are inherent or not.

So let's deal with that - before taking on hypotheticals that "assume for the sake of argument" - that "rights" ARE inherent - derived from nature.

We certainly can do that later - after we have agreed that either a) rights are inherent; b) rights are not inherent but are transient; or c) there is no way to determine if rights are inherent or transient.

You wrote:

Quote:

Whereas the argument against inherent rights resembles Old Mother Hubbard's cupboard. I have set forth one possible defense of inherent rights. As of this moment, no one has come up with a comparable justification for the position that inherent rights do not exist, except to repeat, time after time, that they simply don't exist.

I honestly have not seen a defense of inherent rights. I have seen your interpretation of Locke's assumptions that there are inherent rights.

All Locke is doing, as I read what you wrote, is to say they exist. His defense of that position is, in my opinion, virtually non-existent. (I can be VERY wrong on that - and I am willing to have you be Locke for a while and argue why you see inherent rights as existing - with me playing me - and arguing as best I can against it.)

And I very definitely have never intended to say that such rights do not exist - just that I THINK they do not exist - and I SEE NO REASON TO ASSUME THEY EXIST.

For the purposes of this discussion, I am willing to retract everything I've said thusfar about whether or not inherent rights exist - and I will leave my position on the matter at: I see no reason TO ASSUME they exist.

I will not be defending the position "they do not exist" - I will be defending the position "I see no reason to assume they exist."

Okay! Now, Professor Locke, just in case I have misunderstood what you term to be "a defense of inherent rights" - please repeat your argument. Please, please avail yourself of cut and paste technology. I will not be offended if you simply cut and paste exactly what you said earlier - although if you do that, I will point out what I see as significant deficiencies in your argument.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

This is probably the most interesting, and potentially fruitful, discussion I've been in for the last month or so. The others -particularly the ones with Ican and Maliagar - seem to be runaway trains destined to become train wrecks.

I will do my best to avoid any maliagaring.

Frank Apisa wrote:

But in order to guard against this one becoming like the others, I think we have to break it down into smaller parts - so that we are not dealing with dozens of items at a time.

I'm quite content to proceed in this fashion.

Frank Apisa wrote:

I honestly have not seen a defense of inherent rights. I have seen your interpretation of Locke's assumptions that there are inherent rights.

You want me to repeat that whole thing? How about just the conclusion:

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.

Honestly, if this isn't a defense of inherent rights, then I'm at a loss as to what might qualify as one. Granted, you may deem it insufficient, but, as I pointed out before, I offer it as a framework for discussion.

And admittedly, it is a defense of only one inherent right: the right to life. But rather than provide frameworks for additional rights (e.g. the right to private property, which is derivable from Corollary 2a), it is perhaps better, at this point, to concentrate on a single, core right rather than fly off in multiple directions.

Frank Apisa wrote:

All Locke is doing, as I read what you wrote, is to say they exist. His defense of that position is, in my opinion, virtually non-existent. (I can be VERY wrong on that - and I am willing to have you be Locke for a while and argue why you see inherent rights as existing - with me playing me - and arguing as best I can against it.)

Well, if all Locke did was assume that inherent rights existed, I suppose his Second Treatise on Government could have been re-issued as his "Second Pamphlet on Government." Locke set out to prove that everyone had inherent rights. His proof may have been flawed (I, for one, think it was), but it was much more than simplying setting out and elaborating on an assumption.

Frank Apisa wrote:

And I very definitely have never intended to say that such rights do not exist - just that I THINK they do not exist - and I SEE NO REASON TO ASSUME THEY EXIST.

There is absolutely no reason for you to assume that inherent rights exist. Belief that rests on mere assumption is little more than blind faith.

Frank Apisa wrote:

I will not be defending the position "they do not exist" - I will be defending the position "I see no reason to assume they exist."

Nor should you. You might, however, come to the conclusion that, by virtue of deductive proofs, you are convinced that they exist.

Frank, as a means of getting at your assumptions, let me ask a simple question: can a government ever pass an unjust law? Go ahead and define the operant terms in whatever fashion you see fit.

0 Replies

Cephus wrote:

Ultimately, if the theory has no real-world application, then it's just an exercise in mental masturbation. Theory is all well and good, but reality is all that matters.

Well, you can go off and play with yourself all you want. The theory of inherent rights has real world applications so long as people continue to act on the belief that they have inherent rights.

Cephus wrote:

But people as a whole do *NOT* have an inherent interest in preserving their lives. I've given examples of people who certainly do not want to preserve their lives, many of them are actively throwing it away. So I guess you're only talking about people who are not suicidal, not actively engaged in life-threatening activities or occupations, etc....

You can't be serious. People who are suicidal are the exceptions, not the norm. Indeed, society typically views suicidal individuals as, in some sense, deranged. Schopenhauer may have viewed suicide as the only sensible choice in life, but the uniqueness of that particular view is, I think, pretty good evidence that the vast majority of people views suicide as aberrant.

So, yes, I'm only talking about people who aren't suicidal. Fashioning a theory of an inherent right to life to accomodate the views of suicidal people is akin to fashioning a theory of the solar system to accomodate the views of those who still think the sun revolves around the earth.

Cephus wrote:

But, of course, no one has demonstrated that the right to property is inherent. If it was, then every regime on the planet has violated this right, as there are plenty of people without property. Where do we go to have this right upheld? Again, this is yet another claim with zero real-world application, and anything without application is meaningless.

I no longer have the patience to explain, for the fourth or fifth time, that "inherent" does not mean "inviolable." Instead, I will henceforth simply refer to this error as the "Cephus fallacy" and have done with it.

Cephus wrote:

Hope you like small cells and bread and water then. In fact, you *MUST* obey the laws of the country you choose to live in or you are in violation of the social contract. You have agreed to follow the laws as a condition of your membership in the society.

A fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the social contract. And you suggested that you understood this concept. Oh, the irony!

Cephus wrote:

Done and done. Next?

The smug confidence that you have in your own feeble accomplishments is at once bewildering and amusing.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Well, you can go off and play with yourself all you want. The theory of inherent rights has real world applications so long as people continue to act on the belief that they have inherent rights.

Which, of course, doesn't happen. The overwhelming majority of people don't act on the belief that they have inherent rights and in reality, neither government nor society acts on that supposed widespread belief. In fact, the only one who is playing with themselves around here appears to be you, the only one you have on your side is Ican, and he's not what I'd call an asset.

Quote:

So, yes, I'm only talking about people who aren't suicidal. Fashioning a theory of an inherent right to life to accomodate the views of suicidal people is akin to fashioning a theory of the solar system to accomodate the views of those who still think the sun revolves around the earth.

But of course, I didn't only say people who were suicidal, I also brought up those who join the military and put themselves in mortal danger, people who engage in dangerous pasttimes, etc. I guess police and firemen are insane in your view because they often give their lives for others. Apparently their over-riding desire for self-preservation, which you demand that all humans have, isn't very strong.

Quote:

I no longer have the patience to explain, for the fourth or fifth time, that "inherent" does not mean "inviolable." Instead, I will henceforth simply refer to this error as the "Cephus fallacy" and have done with it.

Then stop explaining, THINK! Stop parroting Locke. You're so married to the conclusion that you've lost the ability to rationally think about the assumptions that lead up to that conclusion. Both Frank and I have pointed out problems with the assumptions, but you just keep repeating them anyhow.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

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.

Honestly, if this isn't a defense of inherent rights, then I'm at a loss as to what might qualify as one. Granted, you may deem it insufficient, but, as I pointed out before, I offer it as a framework for discussion.

Earlier I noted that the first thought that came to mind after reading this comment, was the Aquinas endings to his "proofs of the existence of God" wherein he says: "and this (first cause; first motion) everyone agrees is God." There is a second thought that comes to mind now - the notion Christians sometimes advocate of "Look around you. See the creation. Can't you see there has to be a Creator?"

Thesis 5 proceeds from theses 1 - 4 - each of which are merely assertions that we are masters of our own body - and that rights proceed from that initial right.

But so far, I have seen no arguments to establish this notion other than "look around - it is obvious" - an argument that I do not buy at all.

Nearly as I can tell, Professor, all you are doing is asserting that we have a natural "right" to life and of ownership and mastery of our bodies - which for the life of me (pun intended) I cannot see as the result of any logic or reasoning. It appears to me to be merely an assumption.

Perhaps leaving this for a bit - and responding to your last question will get us past this.

You asked:

Quote:

Frank, as a means of getting at your assumptions, let me ask a simple question: can a government ever pass an unjust law? Go ahead and define the operant terms in whatever fashion you see fit.

Aha "simple" question!

I am going to assume you, Joe, are asking me this question rather than Dr. Locke.

I am also going to assume that when you used the expression "simple question" you had your tongue jammed rather fully into your cheek.

Let me attempt an answer with as much specificity as I can muster.

In a way, no law any government ever passes is unjust. In this same sense, no law instituted by fiat by a King or dictator is unjust. In this particular sense, it becomes a definitional absolute.

Here in the United States, it probably could be argued that "unjust" laws can be passed - but we have a procedure (initially espoused by Locke) of checks and balances - and the Supreme Court overturns any law that truly is "unjust." So if that review is considered part of the "passing laws" process - my comment that government cannot pass unjust laws stands. In our country - any law that survives Supreme Court review - is by definition "just." In any country without such checks and balances - without judicial review - any law passed by the legislature or instituted by fiat, is by definition (one of the definitions) just.

In another way, however, we have to recognize that government certainly can pass laws that are bad - and in another sense of the word "just", I guess a bad law could be considered unjust.

Joe, I am not trying to evade anything here - just covering all thoughts that arose in response to your question. If what I have written prompts any other questions - go for it.

LAST THOUGHT: You mentioned that this issue is not dear to your heart. It isn't for me either, other than I know Ican is trying to justify some of his right-wing rhetoric by asserting that some rights are inherent. It is important to me to at least deal with this issue on that account.

If you decide to bail out - especially in light of the fact that you may not be aggressively on the side of the issue which you are arguing - I will understand.

I hope you stick with it. As Martha Stewart might say: This is a good thing.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

In a way, no law any government ever passes is unjust. In this same sense, no law instituted by fiat by a King or dictator is unjust. In this particular sense, it becomes a definitional absolute.

I agree with you, there's simply no way a government can pass a law that is inherently unjust, mostly because "just" and "unjust", like "right" and "wrong" are subjective terms. Can the people which live under that government consider the law unjust? Certainly, just as they can point to laws in other countries and consider them unjust, and as you point out, we have the ability in the US to overturn laws which the majority of voters consider to be wrong.

By attempting to imply that "unjust" laws can, by their very nature, exist is very similar to historical revisionism in a lot of ways. Maybe legal revisionism. Smile

One cannot say that slavery, for example, has always been wrong. You cannot apply modern morals to pre-modern situations. Today, yes, slavery is wrong. Was it 200 years ago? Was it 1000 years ago? Was it wrong when the Jews had slaves? Heck, God commanded the Jews to enslave or wipe out entire cultures, was that wrong?

Whether you're talking about the "injustice" of slavery or the "unjust" laws, neither can exist without the society and the values that society holds. There is nothing inherent in an unjust law, just the interpretation of such by those who have to live under it.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Thesis 5 proceeds from theses 1 - 4 - each of which are merely assertions that we are masters of our own body - and that rights proceed from that initial right.

Well, I wouldn't call them mere assertions.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Nearly as I can tell, Professor, all you are doing is asserting that we have a natural "right" to life and of ownership and mastery of our bodies - which for the life of me (pun intended) I cannot see as the result of any logic or reasoning. It appears to me to be merely an assumption.

I did not set forth a basis for Thesis 1, but I did suggest several. To refresh your recollection, here is what I wrote:

"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."

Although the foundation for this thesis is, obviously, of some importance, the proof of it would be both complex and distracting. After all, if the basis for Thesis 1 is, for instance, a Fichtean notion of self-awareness, that proof would take us into the realms of epistemology and would inevitably divert us from any discussion of inherent rights.

I sympathize with your unease over the unproven nature of Thesis 1, and you are free to criticize it for any of its supposed logical faults. But basing your objections on the fact that it is a mere assumption presents me with an unacceptable choice. If you will accept nothing less than the epistemological proof for Thesis 1, then I will have to graciously beg off: I have neither the time nor the inclination to engage in that kind of labor. On the other hand, if you cannot accept any arguments that are framed on an "as if" basis, then I don't think we can proceed unless I provide the epistemological proof.

I believe that we can still maintain an intelligent, fruitful conversation based on the framework I provided, even absent a full-fledged proof of the initial thesis. Indeed, I suggested several different bases for Thesis 1 precisely because I wanted to move beyond a foundational debate and focus directly on the issue of inherent rights.

In large part, that's why I asked my simple question:

Frank Apisa wrote:

You asked:
Quote:
Frank, as a means of getting at your assumptions, let me ask a simple question: can a government ever pass an unjust law? Go ahead and define the operant terms in whatever fashion you see fit.

Aha "simple" question!

I am going to assume you, Joe, are asking me this question rather than Dr. Locke.

You may assume that I am asking the question. I will relate your answers to Dr. Locke.

Frank Apisa wrote:

I am also going to assume that when you used the expression "simple question" you had your tongue jammed rather fully into your cheek.

Ah, you saw through my clever ruse. Guilty as charged.

Frank Apisa wrote:

In a way, no law any government ever passes is unjust. In this same sense, no law instituted by fiat by a King or dictator is unjust. In this particular sense, it becomes a definitional absolute.

Quite right. I believe that your position requires this response.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Here in the United States, it probably could be argued that "unjust" laws can be passed - but we have a procedure (initially espoused by Locke) of checks and balances - and the Supreme Court overturns any law that truly is "unjust."

As I will explain below, this is question-begging.

Frank Apisa wrote:

So if that review is considered part of the "passing laws" process - my comment that government cannot pass unjust laws stands. In our country - any law that survives Supreme Court review - is by definition "just." In any country without such checks and balances - without judicial review - any law passed by the legislature or instituted by fiat, is by definition (one of the definitions) just.

If "justice" is defined as "whatever the government does," then of course a government cannot, by definition, pass an unjust law (regardless of its constitution or form). But then, such a definition of "justice" assumes that which it attempts to define: it is, in this way, a classic petitio principii.

Frank Apisa wrote:

In another way, however, we have to recognize that government certainly can pass laws that are bad - and in another sense of the word "just", I guess a bad law could be considered unjust.

Well, that's a nice save there, Frank. You can't be wrong if you adhere to all definitions of "unjust."

Frank Apisa wrote:

Joe, I am not trying to evade anything here - just covering all thoughts that arose in response to your question. If what I have written prompts any other questions - go for it.

It prompts a great many questions, and I appreciate the difficulties that you are evidently encountering in attempting to answer my "simple" question. Indeed, for adherents to the societal rights position, I believe that one of the toughest things to explain is the notion of "justice." If all rights are derived from society, then is society bound by any standard when dispensing those rights? And if it is obligated to be "just," is it, in effect, obligated to respect the rights of the citizens?

Frank Apisa wrote:

If you decide to bail out - especially in light of the fact that you may not be aggressively on the side of the issue which you are arguing - I will understand.

I hope you stick with it. As Martha Stewart might say: This is a good thing.

Martha is a very wise, if very malign, person. I will continue as long as this holds my interest. You are certainly helping in that regard, Frank. It is a pleasure to discuss this issue with you.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Nearly as I can tell, Professor, all you are doing is asserting that we have a natural "right" to life and of ownership and mastery of our bodies - which for the life of me (pun intended) I cannot see as the result of any logic or reasoning. It appears to me to be merely an assumption.

I did not set forth a basis for Thesis 1, but I did suggest several. To refresh your recollection, here is what I wrote:

"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."

Although the foundation for this thesis is, obviously, of some importance, the proof of it would be both complex and distracting. After all, if the basis for Thesis 1 is, for instance, a Fichtean notion of self-awareness, that proof would take us into the realms of epistemology and would inevitably divert us from any discussion of inherent rights.

I sympathize with your unease over the unproven nature of Thesis 1, and you are free to criticize it for any of its supposed logical faults. But basing your objections on the fact that it is a mere assumption presents me with an unacceptable choice. If you will accept nothing less than the epistemological proof for Thesis 1, then I will have to graciously beg off: I have neither the time nor the inclination to engage in that kind of labor. On the other hand, if you cannot accept any arguments that are framed on an "as if" basis, then I don't think we can proceed unless I provide the epistemological proof.

Joe, you don't know me -- but the people who debated with me over in Abuzz know that I NEVER ASK FOR PROOF unless someone says they can prove something. I have made a big point of that over the years.

I most assuredly am not asking for proof here -- but I do expect something more than "...just look around at the creation. Can't you see that there must be a Creator."

I do not know Locke or his philosophy very well -- but so far, I have not heard one word that looks like a reasonable argument that his assertion that we have natural rights -- is anything but an assertion.

Positing self-awareness, Cartegian cogito, a notion of free will, etc -- simply doesn't do the job IN MY OPINION. You certainly are entitled to yours -- but I don't see it.

We definitely can do an "IF" thing -- but it just doesn't seem worthwhile. The "if" to me is just too great.

Quote:

I believe that we can still maintain an intelligent, fruitful conversation based on the framework I provided, even absent a full-fledged proof of the initial thesis. Indeed, I suggested several different bases for Thesis 1 precisely because I wanted to move beyond a foundational debate and focus directly on the issue of inherent rights.

But there seems to be no evidence or arguments that occasion an assumption that there are "inherent rights."

Quote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
In a way, no law any government ever passes is unjust. In this same sense, no law instituted by fiat by a King or dictator is unjust. In this particular sense, it becomes a definitional absolute.

Quite right. I believe that your position requires this response.

Not sure why you wrote that that way, but the fact is that one of the definitions of "just" is "legally right."

If a law is passed "legally" it is, by definition "just."

I certainly am not playing a word game here, if that was the reason for the way you worded your comment that way.

Quote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Here in the United States, it probably could be argued that "unjust" laws can be passed - but we have a procedure (initially espoused by Locke) of checks and balances - and the Supreme Court overturns any law that truly is "unjust."

As I will explain below, this is question-begging.

Frank Apisa wrote:
So if that review is considered part of the "passing laws" process - my comment that government cannot pass unjust laws stands. In our country - any law that survives Supreme Court review - is by definition "just." In any country without such checks and balances - without judicial review - any law passed by the legislature or instituted by fiat, is by definition (one of the definitions) just.

If "justice" is defined as "whatever the government does," then of course a government cannot, by definition, pass an unjust law (regardless of its constitution or form). But then, such a definition of "justice" assumes that which it attempts to define: it is, in this way, a classic petitio principii.

I'm not sure what "classic petitio principii" is. At 67 years of age, I am more than 40 years removed from formal education. If we could avoid that academic talk, it would be helpful.

Bottom line is that one of the definitions of "justice" is: "the administration of law, esp. the establishment or determination of rights according to the rules of law or equity."

I was merely acting in recognition of that definition.
\

Quote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
In another way, however, we have to recognize that government certainly can pass laws that are bad - and in another sense of the word "just", I guess a bad law could be considered unjust.

Well, that's a nice save there, Frank. You can't be wrong if you adhere to all definitions of "unjust."

Once again, there is an edge to your comments. I was trying to answer your "simple question" completely and accurately -- so as not to later be subjected to an interrogation that included a "well how about such and such."

You asked if a government could pass an unjust law. I answered as completely and honestly as I could. I now get the feeling that you resent that I was thoroughness.

Keep in mind that I am seeing both sides of this issue. I am not advocating one side as are you. So naturally, I will see both sides of a question such as you proposed.

If I am being paranoid here, I apologize, Joe.

Quote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Joe, I am not trying to evade anything here - just covering all thoughts that arose in response to your question. If what I have written prompts any other questions - go for it.

It prompts a great many questions, and I appreciate the difficulties that you are evidently encountering in attempting to answer my "simple" question. Indeed, for adherents to the societal rights position, I believe that one of the toughest things to explain is the notion of "justice." If all rights are derived from society, then is society bound by any standard when dispensing those rights? And if it is obligated to be "just," is it, in effect, obligated to respect the rights of the citizens?

No real problem for me there. The standard is flexible-- not rigid nor determined by nature or gods or anything external to the people. The major problem for people advocating the opposite side of that coin seem to me to be: How do you determine standards? Is there a GOD telling you what the standards are? Does nature do it somehow?

Quote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
If you decide to bail out - especially in light of the fact that you may not be aggressively on the side of the issue which you are arguing - I will understand.

I hope you stick with it. As Martha Stewart might say: This is a good thing.

Martha is a very wise, if very malign, person. I will continue as long as this holds my interest. You are certainly helping in that regard, Frank. It is a pleasure to discuss this issue with you.

Thanks. Let's keep at it.

0 Replies

Cephus wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
In a way, no law any government ever passes is unjust. In this same sense, no law instituted by fiat by a King or dictator is unjust. In this particular sense, it becomes a definitional absolute.

I agree with you, there's simply no way a government can pass a law that is inherently unjust, mostly because "just" and "unjust", like "right" and "wrong" are subjective terms. Can the people which live under that government consider the law unjust? Certainly, just as they can point to laws in other countries and consider them unjust, and as you point out, we have the ability in the US to overturn laws which the majority of voters consider to be wrong.

By attempting to imply that "unjust" laws can, by their very nature, exist is very similar to historical revisionism in a lot of ways. Maybe legal revisionism.

One cannot say that slavery, for example, has always been wrong. You cannot apply modern morals to pre-modern situations. Today, yes, slavery is wrong. Was it 200 years ago? Was it 1000 years ago? Was it wrong when the Jews had slaves? Heck, God commanded the Jews to enslave or wipe out entire cultures, was that wrong?

Whether you're talking about the "injustice" of slavery or the "unjust" laws, neither can exist without the society and the values that society holds. There is nothing inherent in an unjust law, just the interpretation of such by those who have to live under it.

Cephus

Thank you for your comments -- and for your encouragement.

I hope it doesn't seem that I am ignoring you -- or anyone else -- but Joe really has got my attention right now and I am trying to stick with that.

If I am late with any responses, please understand, but eventually I do get my ass in gear and respond.

We'll see where this goes.

Very interesting topic.

0 Replies

1. If one assumes that all rights are strictly a social construct, then one can thereby logically escape the burden of having to prove or even provide reasons why this assumption is more probably true than false.

2. If one assumes that some rights are an equal attribute of all members of the human race, then one can thereby logically escape the burden of having to prove or even provide reasons why this assumption is more probably true than false.

But what if one is among those members of the human race who are perplexed enough not to be certain which assumption is more likely to be the valid one and which is less likely. Such perplexed humans might want to consider a more probably self-evident assumption upon which to base their research in their quest for reducing if not resolving their perplexity.

3. If one assumes some humans can discern problems, possible solutions to problems, and the more probable solutions to problems, then one can thereby logically escape the burden of having to prove or even provide reasons why this assumption is more probably true than false.

TRIAL HYPOTHESIS I
All rights are strictly a social construct.

TRIAL HYPOTHESIS II
Some rights are an equal attribute of all members of the human race and individually decideable.

Let's assume that some humans can discern problems, possible solutions to problems, and the more probable solutions to problems.

What problems are implied by TRIAL HYPOTHESIS I? One of them is the risk that those who decide for a community whether a right shall be acknowledged and secured may do that based on their own narrow interests and not based on the interests of the entire community. This scheme presents a high risk of corruption and eventual tyranny. If those who decide are corrupted by their power to decide what rights will and will not be acknowleged and secured, then corruption and eventual tyranny are in deed a probable consequence.

What benefits are implied by TRIAL HYPOTHESIS I? One of them is, it is a relatively simple and repeatable, unambiguous, decision making process to set up and operate.

What problems are implied by TRIAL HYPOTHESIS II? One of them is the risk that the process for acknowledging what rights exist and should be secured in a community may require a degree of consensus not achievable. That probably will lead to anarchy which itself will more probably lead to tyranny than to any consensus.

What benefits are implied by TRIAL HYPOTHESIS II? One of them is it limits the risk of arbitrary and tyrannical decision making in the determination of what rights are an equal attribute of all members of the human race.

Our Constitution as amended is an attempt to resolve the problem in a neat manner. Consider the 9th Amendment. It acknowledges that all the people have in common, in addition to a set of rights specified in the Constitution, any right any one of them claim that is not prohibited by the Constitution. Consider the 10th Amendment. It stipulates that the federal government possesses no other powers than those specified by the Constitution. If secured, the 9th and 10th Amendments acknowledge a set of socially constructed rights, a set of socially deconstructed rights, plus any rights claimed by individuals because they say so.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

I most assuredly am not asking for proof here -- but I do expect something more than "...just look around at the creation. Can't you see that there must be a Creator."

And you certainly deserve more. That's why I've never held this position.

Frank Apisa wrote:

I do not know Locke or his philosophy very well -- but so far, I have not heard one word that looks like a reasonable argument that his assertion that we have natural rights -- is anything but an assertion.

I feel like a doctor whose patient, in response to the question "where does it hurt?" replies: "I don't know doc, I just know it hurts."

I provided a framework that ends with this conclusion: 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. This conclusion is neither a bald assertion nor an unsupported assumption. It is supported by everything that precedes it (theses 1-4) in a logical sequence. Furthermore, at certain points (principally theses 1 and 2), there are suggested foundations which are, themselves, based on deductive sequences (suggested but, admittedly, not spelled out).

Consequently, when you say that you have not seen anything that supports the assertion that there are natural rights, I can only respond: "where are you looking?" Merely stating that you're unconvinced by the "assertion" doesn't help me to locate the problem. Is it a gap in the logical sequence? Is it a missing piece of information? Or are you simply dissatisfied with the conclusion? Give me a hint here.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Positing self-awareness, Cartegian cogito, a notion of free will, etc -- simply doesn't do the job IN MY OPINION. You certainly are entitled to yours -- but I don't see it.

Well, it doesn't provide the sole support for the position that there are inherent rights: it only provides a basis for Thesis 1.

Frank Apisa wrote:

We definitely can do an "IF" thing -- but it just doesn't seem worthwhile. The "if" to me is just too great.

You have one last chance to pinpoint the problem. If you remain stuck on the "assertion" or "assumption" of inherent rights, then I will regrettably conclude that there can be no further meaningful discussion on this point.

Frank Apisa wrote:

If a law is passed "legally" it is, by definition "just."

And so a law, passed in accordance with the rules, reestablishing the institution of slavery would be "just," correct?

Frank Apisa wrote:

I'm not sure what "classic petitio principii" is. At 67 years of age, I am more than 40 years removed from formal education. If we could avoid that academic talk, it would be helpful.

I'm sorry. I thought from the context it was clear that a petitio principii is another term for "question-begging."

Frank Apisa wrote:

Bottom line is that one of the definitions of "justice" is: "the administration of law, esp. the establishment or determination of rights according to the rules of law or equity."

Interesting you would choose that definition. Are the "rules of law" different from "the law"?

Frank Apisa wrote:

Once again, there is an edge to your comments. I was trying to answer your "simple question" completely and accurately -- so as not to later be subjected to an interrogation that included a "well how about such and such."

Sorry, if we are to have any kind of meaningful dialogue there can be no moratorium on follow-up questions.

Frank Apisa wrote:

You asked if a government could pass an unjust law. I answered as completely and honestly as I could. I now get the feeling that you resent that I was thoroughness.

Quite the contrary. I appreciate your conscientious effort to defend your position. I am not, however, as convinced as you are that your answer was complete or thorough. Hence the follow-up questions.

Frank Apisa wrote:

No real problem for me there. The standard is flexible-- not rigid nor determined by nature or gods or anything external to the people. The major problem for people advocating the opposite side of that coin seem to me to be: How do you determine standards? Is there a GOD telling you what the standards are? Does nature do it somehow?

Well, let's stay focused on the societal position for now (we can talk about Aristotle or the Kantian categorical imperative later). If the standard for "justice" is flexible, what determines when something crosses the line and becomes "unjust"?

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

I do not know Locke or his philosophy very well -- but so far, I have not heard one word that looks like a reasonable argument that his assertion that we have natural rights -- is anything but an assertion.

I don't remember Locke's exact argument either. The modern argument for the existence of natural rights starts with an observation: Some rights are respected and enforced in pretty much all human societies, however different these societies may be in other regards. This is surprising if you believe that rights are just artifacts of the particular society that constructed them. You need to explain why no society chooses to dump these particular rights. And as it turns out, all explanations offered so far depend on the assumption that the society-independent rights are implied by human nature in some way. That's what modern scholars mean when they refer to them as "natural rights".

I know this isn't a proof in any rigorous, logical sense. But as I said, this kind of discussion is pointless unless you allow for at least some poetic license.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

I don't remember Locke's exact argument either. The modern argument for the existence of natural rights starts with an observation: Some rights are respected and enforced in pretty much all human societies, however different these societies may be in other regards. This is surprising if you believe that rights are just artifacts of the particular society that constructed them. You need to explain why no society chooses to dump these particular rights. And as it turns out, all explanations offered so far depend on the assumption that the society-independent rights are implied by human nature in some way. That's what modern scholars mean when they refer to them as "natural rights".

The problem is that there are cultures which dump these particular rights. Not many, of course, but the precident is there. The reason you find these "rights" appearing in so many cultures is because all cultures evolved from those that preceeded it. Those factors which worked for one culture will influence those that follow and laws against murder are pretty standard because murder is problematic for most societies. Laws and cultural rules tend to be those things which make the culture survive and thrive so it's hardly surprising that murder, theft, etc. are found commonly. That doesn't mean they are inherent rights, that simply by the existence of humans, these "rights" are present. There simply is no rational, logical or defensible argument for the existence of "natural" rights.

0 Replies

Cephus wrote:

There simply is no rational, logical or defensible argument for the existence of "natural" rights.

By your standards, there is no "rational, logical or defensible argument" for any right at all. If I claimed that, as a matter of principle, it is virtuous to kill as many people as possible, and that the victims had no right whatsoever to complain about it, would you say there is no rational way of refuting this opinion? I agree this position is correct as an excercise in formal logic, but I also think it's quite pointless.

0 Replies

In previous threads where the discussion became too technical for me, I excused myself from further participation in the technical aspects of the endeavor. I prefer not to bite off more than I can chew - and I abhor when I see someone else trying to fake his/her way through a discussion that is over his/her head - so I am careful not to do that myself.

Apparently this discussion of John Locke's presumed evidence of inherent natural rights is over my head - so I think I will bow out of the part of this debate that requires a greater understanding of his arguments.

My sense of things, even considering the excellent comments Thomas just offered, is that it is as logical and reasonable to assume that rights (such as there are) are strictly the result of human demands for those rights and are transient - as it is to assume that rights are somehow the result of endowment from nature - and are inherent (or as Locke would put it, inalienable.)

That is strictly my sense of things - not some great truth that I am sharing - and I acknowledge that it may be the product of an inability to comprehend the arguments of people with greater comprehension abilities than I currently possess.

Ill stick around - and we'll see where this goes.

0 Replies

Thomas,

You are making very little sense. Just because someone thinks rights are not inherent does not mean one believes that no rights should exist.

And frankly you don't seem to comprehend the first thing about logic.

0 Replies

Ooops. I owe Joe one answer.

Joe wrote:

Quote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
If a law is passed "legally" it is, by definition "just."

And so a law, passed in accordance with the rules, reestablishing the institution of slavery would be "just," correct?

Absolutely! If you are allowing the dictionary to determine what the word "just" means -- then absolutely!

One of the definitions of "just" is "legally right."

It may be a bad law - it may be an abhorrent law - but if it passes muster with the Supreme Court, it is a "just" law - by definition.

Let me ask you this in return: Is the law that allows women to terminate their pregnancies through abortion a "just" law?

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

You are making very little sense. Just because someone thinks rights are not inherent does not mean one believes that no rights should exist.

In this case, it should be possible for you to give a logical explanation of why rights should exist, without assuming that they are inherent. I'd be curious to see you try.

0 Replies

Piece of cake. Rights exist simply because each human that has ever existed has had the desire for rights. The desire we have had is also so great so as to be nearly impossible to divest us of it. Without being inherent they are unavoidable.

Therefore the lack of rights would be an almost impossible circumstance.

Now as to why right SHOULD exist it's elementary and makes it hard for me to write this without being far more rude.

Rights increase our chances of survival. It is a survival mechanism in human society.

There are a host of other logical defenses I now believe you have an even worse understanding of logic than I had previously thought.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

My sense of things, even considering the excellent comments Thomas just offered, is that it is as logical and reasonable to assume that rights (such as there are) are strictly the result of human demands for those rights and are transient - as it is to assume that rights are somehow the result of endowment from nature - and are inherent (or as Locke would put it, inalienable.)

Frank, there can be no logical answer to your "sense of things." In that respect, you have, at best, faith that your position is correct. I'll leave it at that.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Absolutely! If you are allowing the dictionary to determine what the word "just" means -- then absolutely!

One of the definitions of "just" is "legally right."

It may be a bad law - it may be an abhorrent law - but if it passes muster with the Supreme Court, it is a "just" law - by definition.

I think this is consistent with your position that all rights are societal. But then we run up against a distressing phenomenon: people in a society where rights are societal nevertheless believe that there is something out there called "justice" that is independent of laws and court decisions. Are they deluded? Can a society be so schizophrenic that it can sanction rights on one hand and criticize them as "unjust" on the other? And if the majority of a society's members believe that a law is "unjust," yet the law continues to be enforced, which of the two constitutes society's "will"?

Frank Apisa wrote:

Let me ask you this in return: Is the law that allows women to terminate their pregnancies through abortion a "just" law?

Under your definition of "just" or under an inherent rights definition?

Under your definition, the answer is simple: of course it is "just" in the only meaningful way that it can be "just," since it has (presumably) received society's sanction (you didn't mention which society's abortion law, so I'll assume that it is any society where the law was passed pursuant to the accepted rules by the duly constituted law-giving body). Moreover, if the society passed a law tomorrow making abortion illegal and subjecting both doctor and patient to the death penalty, that law would also be just.

Under an inherent rights definition, it would all depend on what rights are considered "inherent." If there is no conflict of rights here (e.g. if a fetus has no rights, or only subsidiary rights), then such a law would likely be "just." If there is a conflict, then the answer would depend upon the mechanism for resolving rights-conflicts (which, in turn, may ultimately depend upon some other inherent right).

0 Replies

ARE WE ENDOWED WITH CERTAIN UNALIENABLE RIGHTS?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know