ARE WE ENDOWED WITH CERTAIN UNALIENABLE RIGHTS?

Frank Apisa wrote:

I gave you an opportunity to present some rights that are not conferred by law or human agreement - but instead are our rights because nature or a god endowed us with them. You did not respond -- or you did not respond seriously. (see below)

Fine. I won't give you one right that is not conferred by either law or human agreement. Instead, I'll give you three:
1. The Right to Wear Clothing (this one is courtesy of Craven)
2. The Right to Form Affective Relationships (e.g. friendships)
3. The Right to Have Children

According to your position, you should be able to: (1) show that these are not rights; or (2) point out the exact state or federal code section or specific human agreement (as opposed to some type of social contract -- unless you base your position upon such a contract) that confer these rights. Furthermore, if these are rights, you might want to explain how they are "transient."

Frank Apisa wrote:

My point is that ALL of the "rights" we have are conferred on us by law - and quite honestly, they are ALL transient.

See above.

Frank Apisa wrote:

I guess I have to remind you that I am not defending the proposition that rights ARE man made and transient - but instead that there is no reason to assume any rights we possess are endowed upon us by a god or nature and are inherent.

If you are simply attacking the inherent rights position, you're going to have to do more than just say that you don't accept its assumptions. The "assumption" that you constantly point out -- the existence of inherent rights -- is a conclusion of that theory, not one of its assumptions. Disagreeing with the conclusion is not a logical argument, it is simply contradiction.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Do you have some rights in mind that are not the product of law? Do you have some rights in mind that cannot be abrogated by law? (Sorry about the redundancy!)

See above.

Frank Apisa wrote:

If this conversation is bothering you so much that you must resort to something as unreasonable as that, Joe, perhaps we ought both to acknowledge that this is not an issue amenable to absolute resolution - and that since the discussion has stopped being fun for some of us, maybe it is best we go on to something else.

Frank, despite whatever esteem I might have for you as an individual, I cannot hold your arguments in the same regard. Your argument is not amenable to resolution because, as I pointed out before, your position ultimately rests on faith, not logic.

Frank Apisa wrote:

That analogy was absurd.

Well, it may have been flippant (and for that I apologize), but I believe that it was apt.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

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.

Certainly there is. If you attempted to do anything like that, you'd find yourself up on murder charges in virtually any nation on the face of the planet. That proves that societal rights work, there are proscribed penalties for breaches of societal rights. There are seemingly no penalties whatsoever for these so-called "natural rights" if they differ from those set out by society. That's the problem, these "rights" are utterly transparent and for all intents and purposes, non-existent.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

To the same extent, Frank, you argue that societal rights exist because we have societal rights, and if anyone doubts that we have societal rights, all he need do is look around.

The problem is that he's right. You cannot find one case where any right is demonstrated to exist that is not a societal right.

Quote:

Easily. Following your example, I hereby define all rights as natural rights. Thus, if you see a right, then you see a natural right. And if you doubt that, look around you! And if you can't see them, then they're hiding behind the Bleens!

Now the trick is DEMONSTRATING that your definition is true and valid. If rights are natural rights, prove it. Show us where courts are using natural rights (as opposed to societal rights and laws) to come to decisions. Show us where the Supreme Court is using natural rights instead of the Constitution. Anyone can make a claim, the real trick is backing it up.

0 Replies

Cephus wrote:

The problem is that he's right. You cannot find one case where any right is demonstrated to exist that is not a societal right.

This is a good opportunity to clarify some points and eliminate some common misconceptions.

1. Laws, by themselves, are not "proofs" of societal rights. The only way to show that laws are proof of societal rights is to define "law" in such a way that it assumes the existence of societal rights -- and that's classic question begging.

2. An inherent rights position is not inconsistent with the existence of laws. This should be obvious, but maybe it isn't to some people. Just because, e.g., there is a law prohibiting murder doesn't mean that, by virtue of that fact, there is no inherent right to life. For Locke, the whole point of man entering into civil society was to safeguard their rights through means of the state, and that included enacting laws to protect inherent rights. So pointing to the law of murder and saying "that's a societal right" is simply not conclusive, since the law may, in fact, be the formalization of a pre-existing inherent right.

3. Inherent rights can co-exist with societal rights. Inherent rights are fundamental to humans. If society decides to enact laws dealing with non-fundamental matters (e.g. speed limits, zoning regulations, taxes, etc.) that is no proof that all rights are societal. Some rights clearly are societal in nature, but that doesn't necessarily mean that all of them are.

4. Differences in laws across cultures are not proofs of societal rights. Just because Society X protects property in a different way from Society Y is no evidence that the right to property is societal in nature. Locke, Grotius, and others would respond that the inherent right remains the same, regardless of the differing protections offered by various states.

Cephus wrote:

Now the trick is DEMONSTRATING that your definition is true and valid. If rights are natural rights, prove it.

I have already offered my proof. Where's yours?

Cephus wrote:

Show us where courts are using natural rights (as opposed to societal rights and laws) to come to decisions. Show us where the Supreme Court is using natural rights instead of the Constitution. Anyone can make a claim, the real trick is backing it up.

There you go again, equating "laws" with "societal rights." If laws are the same thing as societal rights, then you cannot prove anything by saying that laws are examples of societal rights. It's simply question-begging.

As for courts using natural rights, I'll leave aside Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, both of whom are believers in a jurisprudence of natural rights (this isn't a proper forum to discuss their judicial philosophies). In any event, I could point to scores of cases where courts have relied on natural rights. But that wouldn't prove the existence of natural rights any more than the absence of those decisions would prove their non-existence. Courts, after all, are in the business of interpreting laws. And so we're right back to Point 2, set forth above.

In large part, much of the confusion here stems from a definitional problem, and the fact remains that the only person in this thread who has offered a definition of "right" is me. I'll repeat it here for everyone's convenience:
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.

My challenge to you, Cephus, and anyone else who holds the societal rights position: what is your definition of "right"?

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

My challenge to you, Cephus, and anyone else who holds the societal rights position: what is your definition of "right"?

The power or privilege to which one is justly entitled by a social contract.

0 Replies

Joe,

I'm starting to think that it isn't so much a case of you not making adequate support for your arguments so much as not having one at all.

Thus far when I said that toward the goal of collective survival rights are a logical means you have tried to twist that into an "is/ought" and have tried to argue that survival is not the sole reason for the existence of rights (when nobody except you was talking about that).

So I'm calling your bluff. The arguments are very simple ones and verbal gymnastics isn't going to help you fake your way through it. I pose a simple question to you:

Are rights a logical means to better ensure collective survival?

Let's see if you can come up with a straight answer instead of wordplay.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

1. Laws, by themselves, are not "proofs" of societal rights. The only way to show that laws are proof of societal rights is to define "law" in such a way that it assumes the existence of societal rights -- and that's classic question begging.

A set of laws which proscribes penalties for a certain act, say murder or theft, demonstrates that murder or theft is wrong, hence a violation of what is acceptable in society. They describe a pattern of protections, or rights, for the members of society and a system of punishments for those who violate them.

Quote:

2. An inherent rights position is not inconsistent with the existence of laws. This should be obvious, but maybe it isn't to some people. Just because, e.g., there is a law prohibiting murder doesn't mean that, by virtue of that fact, there is no inherent right to life. For Locke, the whole point of man entering into civil society was to safeguard their rights through means of the state, and that included enacting laws to protect inherent rights. So pointing to the law of murder and saying "that's a societal right" is simply not conclusive, since the law may, in fact, be the formalization of a pre-existing inherent right.

I never said they were inconsistent with laws, but they don't demonstrably exist outside of laws. I think you're mistaking "right" for "ability" in many cases. In a post to Frank, you mention the "right to wear clothing". There is no right to wear clothing, there is the ABILITY to wear clothing. In some cases, there is the legal requirement to wear clothing. Where you get the idea that it's a right, I have no idea.

The problem here is that you demand that inherent rights exist regardless of the law. In a communist country, you insist that there is an inherent right to own property, even if it is illegal to do so, yet demonstrate no rational, logical or practical reasons to think this is so. In every case where societal rights and your natural rights conflict, societal rights win out.

Quote:

3. Inherent rights can co-exist with societal rights. Inherent rights are fundamental to humans. If society decides to enact laws dealing with non-fundamental matters (e.g. speed limits, zoning regulations, taxes, etc.) that is no proof that all rights are societal. Some rights clearly are societal in nature, but that doesn't necessarily mean that all of them are.

Inherent rights are only fundamental because you claim they are, it cannot be objectively demonstrated to be true. Clearly every right which we can demonstrate is societal in nature, there has never been a case I am aware of where a natural right has overridden a societal right. Maybe you can point out a couple cases for me?

Quote:

4. Differences in laws across cultures are not proofs of societal rights. Just because Society X protects property in a different way from Society Y is no evidence that the right to property is societal in nature. Locke, Grotius, and others would respond that the inherent right remains the same, regardless of the differing protections offered by various states.

It's nice to claim that, it's another thing to back it up. If you can own property in Topeka, but not in Moscow, then that is two different sets of societal rights being inacted. It makes no sense to claim you're right because you're right, it only matters what you can objectively demonstrate and so far, that isn't much.

Quote:

I have already offered my proof. Where's yours?

I'm still waiting for your proof, you've only offered baseless claims to date.

Quote:

As for courts using natural rights, I'll leave aside Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, both of whom are believers in a jurisprudence of natural rights (this isn't a proper forum to discuss their judicial philosophies).

That's all well and good, but when it comes to their job, Thomas and Scalia go back to interpreting what the Constitution says, not what natural rights say.

Quote:

In large part, much of the confusion here stems from a definitional problem, and the fact remains that the only person in this thread who has offered a definition of "right" is me. I'll repeat it here for everyone's convenience:
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.

Of course, this is a claim, not a proof. How is a right 'justified' and by whom? Who determines what is an important interest? Who says we have any inherent duty to keep from interfering? If I say that my important interest in obtaining a million dollars, should they just let me walk into the bank and take a million dollars? After all, it's their duty to keep from interfering.

Quote:

My challenge to you, Cephus, and anyone else who holds the societal rights position: what is your definition of "right"?

A right is anything which is granted by society for the protection of its members or the society itself. These rights evolve over time and are not monolithic, they can change as the society changes.

Is that sufficient or do you want more?

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Thus far when I said that toward the goal of collective survival rights are a logical means you have tried to twist that into an "is/ought" and have tried to argue that survival is not the sole reason for the existence of rights (when nobody except you was talking about that).

You explained your position and withdrew at least one inconsistent claim. I accepted your explanations and have moved beyond this point. Why haven't you?

Craven de Kere wrote:

So I'm calling your bluff. The arguments are very simple ones and verbal gymnastics isn't going to help you fake your way through it. I pose a simple question to you:

Are rights a logical means to better ensure collective survival?

I don't care.

Craven de Kere wrote:

Let's see if you can come up with a straight answer instead of wordplay.

OK, I answered your question. Now answer mine (I'll repeat it for the third time): are you proposing a classic utilitarian model of rights?

Don't feel ashamed, Craven, if you have to admit that you don't know what the classic utilitarian position on rights is. I'll be happy to explain it to you.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
I gave you an opportunity to present some rights that are not conferred by law or human agreement - but instead are our rights because nature or a god endowed us with them. You did not respond -- or you did not respond seriously. (see below)

Fine. I won't give you one right that is not conferred by either law or human agreement. Instead, I'll give you three:
1. The Right to Wear Clothing (this one is courtesy of Craven)
2. The Right to Form Affective Relationships (e.g. friendships)
3. The Right to Have Children

Are you saying that the wearing of clothing is not something that has been arrived at by human agreement?

In other words, are you saying that Nature (or some god) gave us a right to wear clothing?

Are you saying that forming relationships is not something that has been arrived at by human agreement?

In other words, are you saying that Nature (or some god) gave us the right to form relationships?

(I'll deal with the "right" to have children later -- when I discuss how that "right" can, and has been, abrogated in various juristictions. 0

In any case, the "right" to wear clothing; the "right" to make friendships; the right to drink water; the right to pee; the right to scratch an itch; the right to fart; the right to clear one's throat; the right to play golf on Saturdays; and all the other like "rights" are not only a product of human agreement, they are also a product of law -- specifically in the United States, by the restrictions the Constitution places on the legislative branch on what laws it can and cannot pass.

We don't get that stuff from Nature, Joe. We get it from law and the agreements humans have worked out on their own.

Quote:

According to your position, you should be able to: (1) show that these are not rights; or (2) point out the exact state or federal code section or specific human agreement (as opposed to some type of social contract -- unless you base your position upon such a contract) that confer these rights. Furthermore, if these are rights, you might want to explain how they are "transient."

They are transient in so far as our constitution creates and protects these rights by denying the legislature the power to pass laws that infringe on them.

Have a Stalin or Hitler come to power in the United States -- and who knows -- all of those "rights" might be gone.

In any case, in some jurisitictions, the laws forbid freedom to have children. In China, right now, a couple may have a child -- but not children.

Quote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
I guess I have to remind you that I am not defending the proposition that rights ARE man made and transient - but instead that there is no reason to assume any rights we possess are endowed upon us by a god or nature and are inherent.

If you are simply attacking the inherent rights position, you're going to have to do more than just say that you don't accept its assumptions.

Really! Is that a new law that abrogates my "right" to do that?

I often take a position where I do not know the answer to the question being discussed. I am an agnostic -- and I am use to dealing with that kind of situtation.

There is absolutely nothing wrong, illogical, or unreasonable in my arguing against an assertion that we have rights that have been bestowed upon us by nature or a god -- without defending the proposition that the rights have not been bestowed upon us by nature or a god.

And if you see that to be logically inconsistent, you are simply not thinking it through carefully.

I DO NOT KNOW IF RIGHTS ARE CONFERRED, ENDOWED, OR BESTOWED UPONS US BY NATURE OR A GOD. I SUSPECT THEY ARE NOT -- BUT I DO NOT KNOW. I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO DESIRE TO DEFEND MY SUSPICION THAT THEY ARE NOT -- BUT I HAVE PLENTY OF DESIRE TO REBUT THE ASSERTION THAT THEY DEFINITELY ARE.

That is what I am doing.

I am rebutting the contention that our rights are a product of endowment.

And I think I'm doing a damn good job of it.

Quote:

The "assumption" that you constantly point out -- the existence of inherent rights -- is a conclusion of that theory, not one of its assumptions.

Absolute blather, Joe. The "existence of inherent rights" is an assumption -- and it now appears to me that it is an assumption pulled out of thin air.

I haven't seen one decent, coherent argument that rights are bestowed upon us by a god or nature. It is purely an assumption. And I really don't understand why you do not see that.

Quote:

Disagreeing with the conclusion is not a logical argument, it is simply contradiction.

As I said, it is not a conclusion, it is an assumption -- and an unwarranted one. My disagreement with it is logical.

Quote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
If this conversation is bothering you so much that you must resort to something as unreasonable as that, Joe, perhaps we ought both to acknowledge that this is not an issue amenable to absolute resolution - and that since the discussion has stopped being fun for some of us, maybe it is best we go on to something else.

Frank, despite whatever esteem I might have for you as an individual, I cannot hold your arguments in the same regard. Your argument is not amenable to resolution because, as I pointed out before, your position ultimately rests on faith, not logic.

You are dreaming here,Joe. This is not an argument based on "faith." I have not heard any convincing arguments that go to the issue of rights being a gift from nature or a god. I am refuting the assumption that they are. I'm not sure why you want to characterize my arguments as faith and lacking in logic -- but you are dead wrong.

Go back to the main issue.

Why are you saying that our "rights" are endowed upon us?

What evidence do you offer that this is so?

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Cephus wrote:
]Now the trick is DEMONSTRATING that your definition is true and valid. If rights are natural rights, prove it.

I have already offered my proof. Where's yours?

Joe, you are now asserting that you have offered "proof" of your position???

Earlier I said that I never ask for proof -- unless someone alleges that he/she has proof.

So now I am asking for your "proof" that rights are inherent.

I've never seen this "proof" that you say you have offered. And if it is available -- offer it again.

Quote:

It's simply question-begging.

Why don't you just ask the questions -- and stop with this "question begging" stuff? What is that all about?

0 Replies

Cephus wrote:

A right is anything which is granted by society for the protection of its members or the society itself. These rights evolve over time and are not monolithic, they can change as the society changes.

Is that sufficient or do you want more?

No, that's quite sufficient. In fact, your definition relieves me of any need to respond to the other points you raised in your post. You attempt to prove that rights are societal in nature. If "a right is anything granted by society," then rights are, by your definition, societal in nature. In other words, you assume that which you attempt to prove. This is a classic petitio principii, i.e. begging the question. Your position rests on a logical fallacy. It is, therefore, meaningless: there is no need to examine it further.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Craven de Kere wrote:
So I'm calling your bluff. The arguments are very simple ones and verbal gymnastics isn't going to help you fake your way through it. I pose a simple question to you:

Are rights a logical means to better ensure collective survival?

I don't care.

I didn't ask if you cared. And as I suspected you reveal that you indeed, had no arguments.

joefromchicago wrote:

Craven de Kere wrote:
Let's see if you can come up with a straight answer instead of wordplay.

OK, I answered your question.

Many people confuse 'typing-after-a-question-is-asked' with answering a question.

joefromchicago wrote:

Now answer mine (I'll repeat it for the third time): are you proposing a classic utilitarian model of rights?

I asnwered you the first time I saw you pose this question. In this thread I am not suggesting any model (when I answered you the last time I described it as "class") of rights.

If I were to think about what rights I'd like, I'm afraid I am not knowledgeable enough to give them an adequate label.

joefromchicago wrote:

Don't feel ashamed, Craven, if you have to admit that you don't know what the classic utilitarian position on rights is. I'll be happy to explain it to you.

Actually I'd rather just see you clarify your objections to my argument. I strogly suspect taht you have no qualm with the argument I had posed:

Are rights a logical means to better ensure collective survival?

I am sincere when I say I'd like to hear your answer (real answer, not that you don't care, it's disheartening to have someone argue with you so vigorously and then refuse to clarify their positions by simply waiving it off with a "I don't care."). Like I said, I don't think we will disagree on this.

0 Replies

joe,

Naming something a logical fallacy does not make it one. Just because people here define rights as societal doesn't mean this argument is based on that definition. You created a silly trap. IF you define rights as anything but societal then you would be guilty of what you accuse by your standards.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Joe, you are now asserting that you have offered "proof" of your position??? Earlier I said that I never ask for proof -- unless someone alleges that he/she has proof. So now I am asking for your "proof" that rights are inherent. I've never seen this "proof" that you say you have offered. And if it is available -- offer it again.

Here it is again:

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.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Why don't you just ask the questions -- and stop with this "question begging" stuff? What is that all about?

You can find a good definition here.

0 Replies

Joe,

By and large I agree with teh rights you propose. What makes you think they are inherent? As opposed to a realization by society that they are fundamentally sound and should be recognized.

That is my qualm herein. Since what constitutes justice and "right" is so widely interpreted I think it needs to be qualified by being something society agrees on so as to preclude individiual claims to rights that fly in the face of the rights the majority has accepted and recognized.

BTW, Frank knows what begging the question means. He was asking why it was being misused.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Are you saying that the wearing of clothing is not something that has been arrived at by human agreement? In other words, are you saying that Nature (or some god) gave us a right to wear clothing?

There was an agreement to wear clothes? I must have missed that.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Are you saying that forming relationships is not something that has been arrived at by human agreement? In other words, are you saying that Nature (or some god) gave us the right to form relationships?

Again, when was this "agreement"?

Frank Apisa wrote:

In any case, the "right" to wear clothing; the "right" to make friendships; the right to drink water; the right to pee; the right to scratch an itch; the right to fart; the right to clear one's throat; the right to play golf on Saturdays; and all the other like "rights" are not only a product of human agreement, they are also a product of law -- specifically in the United States, by the restrictions the Constitution places on the legislative branch on what laws it can and cannot pass.

Let me get this straight: rights are the things included in the laws, and also those things excluded from the laws? In other words, the right to wear clothing is a law, because it is something that Congress can't outlaw? You'll have to explain that better.

Frank Apisa wrote:

We don't get that stuff from Nature, Joe. We get it from law and the agreements humans have worked out on their own.

You're referring to the agreement to wear clothes? I know of no such agreement.

Frank Apisa wrote:

They are transient in so far as our constitution creates and protects these rights by denying the legislature the power to pass laws that infringe on them.

And so if a constitutional amendment passed tomorrow stating that no one can have children, then you'd agree that there would be no right to have children. Correct?

Frank Apisa wrote:

Really! Is that a new law that abrogates my "right" to do that?

No, it's not a new law. Rather, they're the laws of logic. And they're really quite old.

Frank Apisa wrote:

There is absolutely nothing wrong, illogical, or unreasonable in my arguing against an assertion that we have rights that have been bestowed upon us by nature or a god -- without defending the proposition that the rights have not been bestowed upon us by nature or a god.

I certainly agree. You can argue anything you like. But in order to make any sense, you have to base your arguments on some sort of logic.

Frank Apisa wrote:

I DO NOT KNOW IF RIGHTS ARE CONFERRED, ENDOWED, OR BESTOWED UPONS US BY NATURE OR A GOD. I SUSPECT THEY ARE NOT -- BUT I DO NOT KNOW. I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO DESIRE TO DEFEND MY SUSPICION THAT THEY ARE NOT -- BUT I HAVE PLENTY OF DESIRE TO REBUT THE ASSERTION THAT THEY DEFINITELY ARE.

I'm not sure how you can rebut the assertion that rights are inherent, but nevertheless remain agnostic regarding their actual origins. If you prove that rights are definitely not inherent, then what are you left with?

Frank Apisa wrote:

That is what I am doing. I am rebutting the contention that our rights are a product of endowment. And I think I'm doing a damn good job of it.

Your self-confidence rivals that of Craven.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

There was an agreement to wear clothes? I must have missed that.

Was there an agreement to allow people to not murder others on a Sunday while wearing a leather jacket and driving aHarley or did that somehow fall under a more general legal definition?

Sure, there is the right to wear clothes. Society has largely accepted that self-expression that does not violate the right to peaceful co-existence is allowed.

There is no specific codification about clothing and the "right" to wear it but then again there is no law that specifically states that I, Craven de Kere, am not allowed to murder people.

Joe,

Don't let my self confidence stop you from putting together a coherent argument. I always appreciate them.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Many people confuse 'typing-after-a-question-is-asked' with answering a question.

Yeah, I know how you feel. I run into that all the time.

Craven de Kere wrote:

I asnwered you the first time I saw you pose this question. In this thread I am not suggesting any model (when I answered you the last time I described it as "class") of rights.

If I were to think about what rights I'd like, I'm afraid I am not knowledgeable enough to give them an adequate label.

Fair enough. We'll just have to see if your position comports with the utilitarian model of rights.

Craven de Kere wrote:

Actually I'd rather just see you clarify your objections to my argument. I strogly suspect taht you have no qualm with the argument I had posed:

Are rights a logical means to better ensure collective survival?

I said that I didn't care about this question because I suspect that you no longer care about this question, Craven. After all, you yourself stated: "I did not say that the only reason rights exist are as a survival mechanism. There are many reasons rights are created and as I mentioned some go directly against the survival factor."

So what's the point of raising the "collective survival argument" again. After all, it was never my position, and it apparently is no longer your position either. Or are you saying that you're retracting yet another of your positions?

Craven de Kere wrote:

I am sincere when I say I'd like to hear your answer (real answer, not that you don't care, it's disheartening to have someone argue with you so vigorously and then refuse to clarify their positions by simply waiving it off with a "I don't care."). Like I said, I don't think we will disagree on this.

Very well. To forestall yet another iteration of this trivial pursuit, I'll say this: theoretically, rights can either contribute to, detract from, or be irrelvant to collective survival.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

I said that I didn't care about this question because I suspect that you no longer care about this question, Craven. After all, you yourself stated: "I did not say that the only reason rights exist are as a survival mechanism. There are many reasons rights are created and as I mentioned some go directly against the survival factor."

So what's the point of raising the "collective survival argument" again. After all, it was never my position, and it apparently is no longer your position either. Or are you saying that you're retracting yet another of your positions?

Joe, the only postion I have retracted here is that ALL humans have desired rights. All the others I have not retracted and will defend if you wish.

I do care about that question because my lastest foray into this thread had a simple purpose. Thomas made a bold claim. He said there was no rational argument for the existence of rights.

I disagreed vehemently. It was a slander of logic and ration to say so. There are thousands of rational defences for the existence of rights and I named but one.

That's why I ask if you think that is a logical defense of rights. Because I entered this thread to say that and I now think you disagreed with me simply because I'm not in the "rights are inherent" camp.

joefromchicago wrote:

Craven de Kere wrote:
I am sincere when I say I'd like to hear your answer (real answer, not that you don't care, it's disheartening to have someone argue with you so vigorously and then refuse to clarify their positions by simply waiving it off with a "I don't care."). Like I said, I don't think we will disagree on this.

Very well. To forestall yet another iteration of this trivial pursuit, I'll say this: theoretically, rights can either contribute to, detract from, or be irrelvant to collective survival.

Fair enough. Would you like to discuss inherent vs. societal now? I suspect taht is the argument you had intended to pursue.

0 Replies

Thank you for the response, Joe.

I have to start by expressing my initial reaction to your post, which is: I really cannot understand how you feel this information constitutes PROOF that our rights are inherent and derived by endowment from nature or a god.

I do not think the information given comes even close to doing that, but since you have presented it with a straight face, so to speak, I will at least attempt to share my concerns with it.

As I usually do, I want to take this in small pieces -- so as to make the operation more manageable.

Let's start by looking at your working definition:

You say:

Quote:

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.

I would argue that "rights" are much more than that -- and at the same time, much, much less than that.

Fact is, a "justified claim to the protection of a person's important interests" may not be a right at all -- unless you are going to define "justified claim" in a way that will eventually put your argument in the grave.

Let me take a shot at this -- and perhaps you will respond.

Suppose you have a neighbor who has annoyed you -- and who appears to you to be dangerous -- a person whom you assume may one day do you harm. Using your definition of "right", you can assert a "claim" (I'll let you talk about whether it is justified or not) that in order to protect your "important interests" (your peace of mind) that person has to be removed as a potential threat -- and that you therefore have a "right" to shackle him or kill him.

Do you assert that you have that right?

Do you assert that your neighbor has an obligation to forbear from interfering with your claim in that instance?

Do you assert that society (the law) must forbear from interfering with your claim in that instance?

Supposing that the positions were reversed and your neighbor were in fear of you -- would you feel an obligatin to forbear from interfering with his claim that you are a threat to his important interests -- and he therefore has to kill you?

Let's start there, Joe.

0 Replies

ARE WE ENDOWED WITH CERTAIN UNALIENABLE RIGHTS?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know