ARE WE ENDOWED WITH CERTAIN UNALIENABLE RIGHTS?

I just wanted to say a naughty word.

0 Replies

to even begin this discussion and its question one has to place in context what rights are and from what they are derived.

what differentiates humans from other animals is sentience, self awareness. that science may find these lines increasingly blurred when examining the lives and behavoir of apes, dolphins and whales is not yet at issue. yet seemingly it will soon be and the issue of human rights will someday be superceded by "sentient" rights.

by current standards, humans alone in the animal kingdom and the Universe itself can say "I am." this is why many religions consider humanity to be a corporeal image of God, who is the ultimate "I am."

if each of us is a reflection of "God" or the transcendental "Ground of Being" in time and space, then the question of "rights" draws from recognition of the divinity found in all humans.

some would use the tautology of recognizing the "Christ" or "Buddha Consciousness" abiding in us all to develop a set of rules for behavior towards each other. others would dismiss this imagry and state that "rights" are merely an artifact of a cultural mechanism for social stability.

the former case produces human rights via an admission that to deny another's rights is to act against God. Thus all rights derive from God, or as mentioned in the American Declaration of Independence" endowed by the Creator"

the latter case is merely a formulation for producing social efficiencies and lacks any admission that rights are inherent. in this case all rights are derived from social conditions which are subject to change when social conditions change... and not always for the better.

those atheists and agnostics who profess "human rights" need to ask themselves why they believe in them and if they believe that such rights exist beyond mere guidelines for social behaviors found to be useful in stabilizing societies.

this is important because if one recognizes "human rights" as only an artifact of social impulse for societial survival, then it may be that those rights which promote social stability in one set of circumstances are irrelevant in another set of circumstances. this is the moral relativism many in the religious communities point to as anathema when debating "secular humanism."

the secular humanists, agnostics, and atheists have to defend why humans should have rights at all if all things are relative to a specific set of circumstances.

if one does not believe in a "Creator" why would one have marched for civil rights with Martin Luther King Jr other than it was good for society? and if this is so, there may be conditions where civil rights are not good for a society. it is quite true that one could question whether any society which does not believe in human rights is "bad" but if this argument is used, it must be based upon something beyond looking at rights as merely attempts to promote social stability and admit a moral/ethical feature to the analysis. when this occurs one is faced with the question as to why humans should have any rights at all which do not facilitate stabilization of society and more importantly, "from whence they come?" if not derived from social convention.

0 Replies

kuvasz wrote:

...the former case produces human rights via an admission that to deny another's rights is to act against God. Thus all rights derive from God, or as mentioned in the American Declaration of Independence" endowed by the Creator"

I disagree. Very strongly.

It is completely possible people "believe" in a God and "believe" the God endows them with certain rights -- and then fight to have those rights guaranteed by government -- and still be wrong that there is a God.

If a person "believes" rights are granted by a God -- and then efforts to obtain and protect those rights -- the rights can be won without the person necessarily being correct about the God.

In fact, I dare to guess that in many cases, that is exactly what happens -- although one would be hard pressed to show that the god of the Bible, for instance, really give a damn about most of the rights we Americans take for granted.

Quote:

the latter case is merely a formulation for producing social efficiencies and lacks any admission that rights are inherent. in this case all rights are derived from social conditions which are subject to change when social conditions change... and not always for the better.

Perhaps not always for the better, Kuvasc, but in my opinion, very often for the better.

It is my opinion that we are not "endowed" by any supernatural being with any rights. We are humans -- we think -- we can decide what rights we want -- and then demand them. Sometimes we get them; and sometimes we don't. But as nearly as I can tell -- the only rights (of the sort we are discussing here) we get are rights that we have demanded -- or that someone else has demanded for us.

I suspect it is ALWAYS a purely social construct.

Quote:

those atheists and agnostics who profess "human rights" need to ask themselves why they believe in them and if they believe that such rights exist beyond mere guidelines for social behaviors found to be useful in stabilizing societies.

If you want atheist to talk about what they "believe" -- fine. But a true agnostic does not discuss what he/she "believes." I may make some guesses; I may have some desires; I may estimate; I may even insist orl demand certain rights -- and all I have to explain is why I want them.

I am not saying that any rights exist in and of themselves -- and I certainly am not saying I should have them because some "Creator" endowed me with them. But as a human being, I can certainly make decisions on what I see as a reasonable right. I can demand that right. And if I get enough other human beings to join me - we can make the right come into existence - and we can demand that our government insure that right.

Quote:

this is important because if one recognizes "human rights" as only an artifact of social impulse for societial survival, then it may be that those rights which promote social stability in one set of circumstances are irrelevant in another set of circumstances...

Not only "may be" but damn well are.

Are you arguing that our rights came to us by dint of endowment of some god?

Quote:

... this is the moral relativism many in the religious communities point to as anathema when debating "secular humanism."

Well they ought to grow up and recognize moral relativism as a positive rather than a negative.

Quote:

...the secular humanists, agnostics, and atheists have to defend why humans should have rights at all if all things are relative to a specific set of circumstances.

Why is that?

Kuvasz, this really does not sound like you. What are you thinking here?

Are you arguing that the only rights we can have or demand - are rights that a god has endowed us with?

Quote:

...if one does not believe in a "Creator" why would one have marched for civil rights with Martin Luther King Jr other than it was good for society?

What are you saying here?????????????????

What do you see wrong with marching with Martin Luther King, Jr -- JUST BECAUSE IT WAS GOOD FOR SOCIETY?

0 Replies

kuvasz wrote:

the secular humanists, agnostics, and atheists have to defend why humans should have rights at all if all things are relative to a specific set of circumstances.

...

it is quite true that one could question whether any society which does not believe in human rights is "bad" but if this argument is used, it must be based upon something beyond looking at rights as merely attempts to promote social stability and admit a moral/ethical feature to the analysis. when this occurs one is faced with the question as to why humans should have any rights at all which do not facilitate stabilization of society and more importantly, "from whence they come?" if not derived from social convention.

Yes! Let's pursue this!

Thomas Paine writing about the rights of posterity, in “The Rights of Man”, 1791-2:

“The illuminating and divine principle of the equal rights of man, (for it has its origin from the Maker of man) relates not only to living individuals, but to generations of men succeeding each other. Every generation is equal in rights to the generations which preceded it, by the same rule that every individual is born equal in rights with his contemporary.”

If Tom was correct, then rights are qualities that are intrinsic to one at one's birth, regardless when one is born. Merely by virtue of one's survival long enough to be born, one <possesses> certain rights. But how can one <possess> a right, but nonetheless need government to secure that right? How can one <possess> a right and nonetheless be denied it? Certainly I can possess property, but nonetheless need government to secure my possession. If someone steals my property, it still remains my property; I continue to be justified in seeking lawful assistance to retrieve that stolen property.

Our rights are ours regardless of circumstances. The guilty no less than the innocent possess their rights. However, rights of the guilty are less secured when that is necessary to secure the rights of the innocent. So while rights are immutable, the security of those rights is not immutable. That security is that which we voluntarily choose to provide (e.g., government) each other in our own enlightened self-interest.

The fundamental question is: Is it always in our own enlightened self-interest to secure the rights of each and everyone of us now and in future?

I think it will always be in the enlightened self-interest of MY innocent posterity to have their rights secured. For theirs to be secured, I think it necessary to secure the rights of everyone else's innocent posterity.

"What goes around, comes around."

0 Replies

I repeat:

I see no reason to assume we have any rights except the ones we have demanded and won for ourselves -- or that others have demanded and won for us. Certainly I see no reason to assume a "Creator" endowed us with any rights.

I see no reason to assume that any of our rights are inalienable. They most assuredly can be taken from us or otherwise lost - and I consider it an obligation to guard against such things.

It makes eminent sense to me to demand certain rights for ourselves and in so far as is possible, to pass on to our posterity the rights we've won - and the rights that have been passed down to us.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

I repeat:

I see no reason ...

I see no reason ...

It makes eminent sense to me to demand ...

Ok, I've got it. Cool

Some of us do and some of us don't see a reason to assume rights are independent of whether they are demanded or secured or not. I see lots of reasons (many recorded here in able2know) why it is better to presume rights absolute rather than contingent upon successful demand.

The very concept of <successful demand> presumes there exists some person or persons who are empowered or endowed with the power to grant me that which I demand. It presumes there be a person or persons who empowered or endowed them with the power to make that decision? Perhaps it is you and others who think like you who so empowered or endowed them. Whothehell empowered or endowed you to do such? I reject that empowerment or endowment by you or anyone else. I grant no one that power to decide. I have the rights I think I do. I do not delegate to you or any one else the power to delegate to others the power to decide that for me. However, I do delegate to others the power to secure those rights for me, while I am vigilant to hold them accountable for such.

Even our Constitution as amended grants we have rights not explicitly specified or explicitly prohibited by our Constitution as amended (see the 9th Amendment). No requirement for <demanding> those rights is stipulated in our Constitution as amended.

I've got my rights whether I demand them or not. It's analogous to whether reality exists whether one perceives it or not. I say it does; some say it doesn't. I trust my own judgment.

0 Replies

My comments were not obtuse. They were directly relating why one declares human rights exist. I took no side in the formulation of the two theses discussed.

The effect of one's belief in a higher power is the presentation of a list of human rights one recognizes thru the moral imperative of their gods. By presenting such a bill of rights it is not necessary to prove a higher power exists for the rights to be self-evident to the person, that they believe is enough for them, nor have I implied that since human rights exist so too does God.

frankie the pisa .......Quote:

the latter case is merely a formulation for producing social efficiencies and lacks any admission that rights are inherent. in this case all rights are derived from social conditions which are subject to change when social conditions change... and not always for the better.

Your response that

"Perhaps not always for the better but in my opinion, very often for the better."

is not the point. But in fact it is that one who thinks that human rights always evolve to a higher state is ignoring history. Human rights are not like time, which moves only in one direction. There is regression, and as such cannot be entirely independent of cultural constructs. By understanding this, your later comments on the dependence of rights on culture and society agree with my statement.

Further,

"If you want atheist to talk about what they "believe" -- fine. But a true agnostic does not discuss what he/she "believes." I may make some guesses; I may have some desires; I may estimate; I may even insist orl demand certain rights -- and all I have to explain is why I want them"

I did not ask why one does not believe in gods, but why one believes in the concept of "rights." What is the basis for demanding "rights?" If you imply only "your" right to feed your desires, without extending them to others, then they can hardly be conceived of as rights and instead are individual and personal desires to be actualized. we are moving into Nietzsche's a-moral Superman territory here, where rights have no meaning and all that is left is human desire.

So, from induction, from the particular and individual to the general and group, what is the basis for rights when a god belief is not a part of the calculus? Either the belief in rights is based upon personal desires or is as aggregate, a response by society to stabilize itself by allowing or disallowing particular actions of the individual.

Your..

"Well they ought to grow up and recognize moral relativism as a positive rather than a negative."

..ignores that moral relativism is, as I stated, unlike time and can move in both directions, and by regression destroy human rights once recognized.

Your..

"Kuvasz, this really does not sound like you. What are you thinking here?

"Are you arguing that the only rights we can have or demand - are rights that a god has endowed us with?"

Well, that's just the effects of $500/oz of some really kind bud.

But what I am getting at is that rights are subjective, and personally based. Regardless of how one arrives at the demand for rights, they are just derived from the individual's viewpoint of themselves and their universe.

The religionists have, I think at least a consistent approach by pointing to their gods calling upon them to recognize that all people are their god's children, created equal and from this flows their morality, ethics, and commitment to human rights.

The secularists have to convince themselves that we are all equal or in the least all should be granted the same rights and privileges by another mechanism other than morality.

All I have asked is "What is that way?"

Is it just secular ethics and if so, what are the basic premises of these secular ethical standards?

This is why I asked of secularists marching for rights with Dr. King, "what is the motivation and what are the basic principles that leads one to march?"

just saying......."Well, we are all human" begs the question....."So what?"

0 Replies

What if?
What if all rights were derived from something other than religion, say similar to a physician's oath to Do No Harm?

---BumbleBeeBoogie

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
I repeat:

I see no reason ...

I see no reason ...

It makes eminent sense to me to demand ...

Ok, I've got it.

Some of us do and some of us don't see a reason to assume rights are independent of whether they are demanded or secured or not. I see lots of reasons (many recorded here in able2know) why it is better to presume rights absolute rather than contingent upon successful demand.

Could you name one?

Quote:

The very concept of <successful demand> presumes there exists some person or persons who are empowered or endowed with the power to grant me that which I demand. It presumes there be a person or persons who empowered or endowed them with the power to make that decision?

No it doesn't. It presumes that humans can get together and simply assert rights -- and then demand that the governments which they institute codify those rights.

{quote]I've got my rights whether I demand them or not. [/quote]

Any rights you've got, either you have demanded them -- or someone else has demanded them for you. But I understand that you are unable to appreciate that or to acknowledge it.

Quote:

It's analogous to whether reality exists whether one perceives it or not. I say it does; some say it doesn't.

Sounds like you are stretching things here -- and mixing apples and oranges.

Quote:

I trust my own judgment.

Yes you do. It is a habit you ought to break.

0 Replies

kuvasz wrote:

frankie the pisa .......Quote:

Kuvasz, over in Abuzz we were cyber friends -- and you never resorted to bullshit like this.

I'll assume the $500 lid is responsible.

When you are straight, post again. I'll respond then.

0 Replies

forgive me. i thought our intellectual comradeship would afford the joshing. i apologize with sincerity. no harm was ever intended.

0 Replies

The children of those who hadn't had rights and who fought for them accepted those rights quite easily. Occasionally we are called on to defend ours (and others') rights and we do so whether we believe in a god or not. The rights derived from societal circumstances -- a pushing and shoving to improve those circumstances. The European settlers of this country very precisely fled a situation in which state and church determined and could remove rights capriciously.

There seems to be a tremendous anxiety on the part of some to try to define others' lives in terms of their god, their invisible god. As Kristoff noted in his column in last week's Times, the heart is a wonderful organ but let's use our brains. Please.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

I see lots of reasons (many recorded here in able2know) why it is better to presume rights absolute rather than contingent upon successful demand.

Could you name one?[/quote]

Sure!

The very concept of <successful demand> presumes there exists some person or persons who are empowered or endowed with the power to grant me that which I demand. It presumes there be a person or persons who empowered or endowed them with the power to make that decision?

Quote:

No it doesn't. It presumes that humans can get together and simply assert rights -- and then demand that the governments which they institute codify those rights.

<Demand> doesn't presume any such thing. The phrase <get together and simply assert> is not the same thing as <Demand>, but let's assume they are the same thing. <Demand> presumes that one must act to have a right when one actually has the right regardless of whether one <Demands> it or not. Likewise, regardless of whether one does <get together and asserts> or not, one has the rights they think they do.

Yes, I've got my rights whether I demand them or not.

Quote:

Any rights you've got, either you have demanded them -- or someone else has demanded them for you. But I understand that you are unable to appreciate that or to acknowledge it.

I understand that it is you who cling compulsively to that which makes no sense; not me. It is your lack of ability to recognize that a person does not require any one's permission or indulgence to have a right. What rights they have, they have without anyone else having a thing to say about it. What they require is not some one's permission to have a right; what they require is someones cooperation to secure that right. You refuse to acknowledge that having a right is independent of whether it is secured or not.

Reread the Federalist Papers. Hamilton, Jay and Madison wrote these well after the end of the Revolutionary War. They all assumed everyone had the same rights, none of which were contingent on even requesting them much less <Demanding> them. They didn't assume they required George the 3rd to yield to their demands to have those rights. They assumed they had them win lose or draw. Their concern was not with having rights, but with securing them.

Again, I have the rights I say I do. My possession of those rights is not contingent on any one else's opinion one way or the other. Because my rights are absolute and non-contingent, I must of necessity recognize that others have the same rights. So by virtue of that logic, I am constrained. Any right I say I have, I must of necessity say everyone else has it also. If there be a right I don't want to recognize that others have, then I must recognize that I do not have it either.

In a sense you seem to be arguing for a kind of collectivism, while I argue for a kind of individualism. I despise collectivism because it yields to much corrupting power to those who run the collective. With individualism power is distributed among competing individuals striving to earn the cooperation of their fellows via their accomplishments and not their polemics.

0 Replies

Ican

You are so far out of whack -- I find it incomprehensible that I consider you intelligent.

I gave you a clue for an alternate view of this situation in the thread you started in Abuzz, but you never picked up on it even after I called it to your attention. So let me try this here -- because it directly impacts on the defective thinking in your last post.

Consider this: Governments are not here to grant us rights. In fact, governments, for the most part, are here to LIMIT our freedoms.

Most of the time, we are not asking our government to grant us any particular rights -- but instead are demanding that they not sanction in any way various freedoms that we want.

Government does not grant us the right to speak freely. In fact, it can be argued that there is no such right. But every person certainly can speak his/her mind whenever he/she chooses. What we ask of government -- indeed demand of government in this country -- is that it make no laws that unnecessarily abridge our freedom to speak freely. (Obviously, some speech is legislated against)

Go through any of the supposed "rights" that we have -- and you will see that rather than demanding of government -- or any individual -- that they GRANT us those rights -- we are essentially demanding that the power of the government to restrict the things that we do and say -- are limited to restrictions that we can all agree are necessary for society to function. A person, for instance, is free to take into possession anything he/she wants - but it makes sense for government to recognize standards of ownership - and make laws against stealing.

Quote:

Quote:
ican711nm wrote:
I see lots of reasons (many recorded here in able2know) why it is better to presume rights absolute rather than contingent upon successful demand.

Could you name one?

Sure!

The very concept of <successful demand> presumes there exists some person or persons who are empowered or endowed with the power to grant me that which I demand. It presumes there be a person or persons who empowered or endowed them with the power to make that decision?

I hate to point this out to you, Ican -- but although you said, "Sure!" -- you still didn't do it. What "right" do you see as better presumed absolute rather than contingent upon successful demands?

The rest of your post is too fuzzy headed for me to want to dignify it with a response, but I guess I'm stuck.

Quote:

Quote:
No it doesn't. It presumes that humans can get together and simply assert rights -- and then demand that the governments which they institute codify those rights.

<Demand> doesn't presume any such thing. The phrase <get together and simply assert> is not the same thing as <Demand>, but let's assume they are the same thing. <Demand> presumes that one must act to have a right when one actually has the right regardless of whether one <Demands> it or not. Likewise, regardless of whether one does <get together and asserts> or not, one has the rights they think they do.

Yes, I've got my rights whether I demand them or not.

No you don't! Every right you have is yours because either you have demanded it for yourself -- or because someone else demanded it for you. And if you had any sense of dignity and ethics, since most have been demanded FOR you at the cost of blood -- you would not only acknowledge it -- you would be thankful for it.

Quote:

Quote:
Any rights you've got, either you have demanded them -- or someone else has demanded them for you. But I understand that you are unable to appreciate that or to acknowledge it.

I understand that it is you who cling compulsively to that which makes no sense; not me. It is your lack of ability to recognize that a person does not require any one's permission or indulgence to have a right. What rights they have, they have without anyone else having a thing to say about it. What they require is not some one's permission to have a right; what they require is someones cooperation to secure that right. You refuse to acknowledge that having a right is independent of whether it is secured or not.

Yeah, a bigmouth like you can shoot off abject nonsense like that with impunity here in 21st century America. I'd love to see you be in the company of an Idi Amin; Caligula; Nero; Napoleon; Hitler; Stalin; Saddam Hussein and shoot your yap off that way.

They'd have given you a few lessons in whether or not they had any say about your vaunted rights.

Quote:

Reread the Federalist Papers. Hamilton, Jay and Madison wrote these well after the end of the Revolutionary War. They all assumed everyone had the same rights, none of which were contingent on even requesting them much less <Demanding> them. They didn't assume they required George the 3rd to yield to their demands to have those rights. They assumed they had them win lose or draw. Their concern was not with having rights, but with securing them.

Horseshit! Wanna argue this? Think about the words "slaves" and "women" before you do.

Their concerns were with establishing a government responsible to a few landed men -- a government that could be limited in what freedoms and liberties it could or could not take away from those people.

The rest of your post is such ill-conceived baloney; I really won't dignify such drivel with any more response than I've already given. Fact is, this disagreement started when you originally asserted that we had rights that were endowed upon us by a Creator. You've managed to weasel out of that. Congratulations!

And to think - all this so that you can eventually argue that you have a RIGHT to own a gun.

Pathetic!

0 Replies

kuvasz wrote:

the latter case is merely a formulation for producing social efficiencies and lacks any admission that rights are inherent. in this case all rights are derived from social conditions which are subject to change when social conditions change... and not always for the better.

Quite right, which is why ican errs in suggesting that "unalienable" rights can be based upon "shared mutual self-interest." After all, if the shared mutual self-interest changes, then the rights previously considered "inalienable" but now considered contrary to that mutual self-interest would, by necessity, be rejected.

kuvasz wrote:

this is important because if one recognizes "human rights" as only an artifact of social impulse for societial survival, then it may be that those rights which promote social stability in one set of circumstances are irrelevant in another set of circumstances. this is the moral relativism many in the religious communities point to as anathema when debating "secular humanism."

I agree.

kuvasz wrote:

the secular humanists, agnostics, and atheists have to defend why humans should have rights at all if all things are relative to a specific set of circumstances.

That is indeed the task faced by those arguing for inalienable rights that are not "god-given," regardless of intellectual stripe. But it is not an impossible task. There are numerous secular theories of inherent rights. Certainly, if we base our conception of "inherent right" on one's basic humanity, then the notion of god or a creator or whatever is irrelevant. What we can't do, however, is base our conception of "inherent right" on a notion of expedience or utilitarianism or some sort of prudential calculus, as ican seems to be suggesting.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Again, I have the rights I say I do. My possession of those rights is not contingent on any one else's opinion one way or the other. Because my rights are absolute and non-contingent, I must of necessity recognize that others have the same rights. So by virtue of that logic, I am constrained. Any right I say I have, I must of necessity say everyone else has it also. If there be a right I don't want to recognize that others have, then I must recognize that I do not have it either.

This is an oddly Kantian notion, out of place with your position regarding "mutual self-interest."

Rights cannot be "absolute and non-contingent" if they are based on mutual self-interest. Indeed, they are, by definition, relative and contingent: relative in the sense that they relate to a societal notion of self-interest, and contingent in that, if society's view of self-interest changes, the relevant rights must change along with it.

If, on the other hand, you are suggesting that everyone has a mutual self-interest in acknowledging rights as absolute and non-contingent (despite their actual relativeness and contingency), you are merely arguing for a form of mass self-delusion, a kind of Platonic "noble myth."

So which is it?

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

I am not saying that any rights exist in and of themselves -- and I certainly am not saying I should have them because some "Creator" endowed me with them. But as a human being, I can certainly make decisions on what I see as a reasonable right. I can demand that right. And if I get enough other human beings to join me - we can make the right come into existence - and we can demand that our government insure that right.

This position is so close to the position of ican it is, perhaps, not surprising that you two are so bitterly opposed to one another.

As I see it, ican makes the fundamental mistake of supposing that unalienable rights can be based on a foundation of mutual self-interest. For the reasons stated in my previous posts, I think this is an error. As Frank points out, such rights are, in effect, "societal" in nature.

Eliminate the "unalienable" from the equation, and I think both of you are essentially on the same page.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Consider this: Governments are not here to grant us rights. In fact, governments, for the most part, are here to LIMIT our freedoms.

Government's legitimate function is securing the people's freedoms. Seemingly countless governments have not performed that legitimate function. They have instead made iINSECURE people's freedoms: for example, communists, nazis, shintoists, bin ladens, baathists.

Quote:

Most of the time, we are not asking our government to grant us any particular rights -- but instead are demanding that they not sanction in any way various freedoms that we want.

Main Entry: 2sanction
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): sanc·tioned; sanc·tion·ing /-sh(&-)ni[ng]/
Date: 1778
1 : to make valid or binding usually by a formal procedure (as ratification)
2 : to give effective or authoritative approval or consent to
synonym see APPROVE
- sanc·tion·able /-sh(&-)n&-b&l/ adjective
Confused

If you mean exactly what you wrote, then you interpret contemporary political action activities differently than I do.

Yes, it's true, that is the way it is appropriate for people to act; "demanding that [government] not sanction in any way various freedoms that we want. But too many are not acting that way.

Quote:

Government does not grant us the right to speak freely.

Exactly! We have that right because we say we do, AND because we tolerate all others having the same right. When the folks back in 1787-89 were debating whether it was appropriate to specify our rights in the Constitution, many said it was not appropriate. Others said it was appropriate. As we know, they compromised. They adopted the Constitution in 1789. Then they listed some rights in the 1791 ratification of the first eight amendments to the Constitution plus the 9th Amendment --
Very Happy

Amendment IX (1791)
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Very Happy

PLUS they included the 10th Amendment to explicitly limit government power.

Very Happy

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Very Happy

Quote:

Go through any of the supposed "rights" that we have -- and you will see that rather than demanding of government -- or any individual -- that they GRANT us those rights -- we are essentially demanding that the power of the government to restrict the things that we do and say -- are limited to restrictions that we can all agree are necessary for society to function. A person, for instance, is free to take into possession anything he/she wants - but it makes sense for government to recognize standards of ownership - and make laws against stealing.

I agree!

Government does not grant us any rights. We individually grant ourselves rights AND individually tolerate others granting themselves the same rights. Laughing

I infer you have changed your mind or changed your tune. CONGRATULATIONS Laughing

Quote:

I hate to point this out to you, Ican -- but although you said, "Sure!" -- you still didn't do it. What "right" do you see as better presumed absolute rather than contingent upon successful demands?

ALL OF THEM! Laughing

All of my rights (e.g., the right to say what I think, the right not to be compelled into the servitude of others, the right to own property, the right to equal protection of the law) are absolute and not contingent upon successful demands. What IS NOT absolute and IS contingent is the SECURING of those rights.

Yes, I (and you too) have got my (your) rights whether I or any one else on this planet demands them or not.

Quote:

No you don't! Every right you have is yours because either you have demanded it for yourself -- or because someone else demanded it for you. And if you had any sense of dignity and ethics, since most have been demanded FOR you at the cost of blood -- you would not only acknowledge it -- you would be thankful for it.

OH, YES I DO! Cool

I'VE HAD MY RIGHTS SINCE I'VE BEEN BORN. Laughing

No one demanded them for me. Rather they demanded my rights be secured. The sacrifices in blood made by so many INCREASED THE SECURITY OF MY RIGHTS. I am indeed very thankful to them for they're having done that.

Reread the Federalist Papers. Hamilton, Jay and Madison wrote these well after the end of the Revolutionary War. They all assumed everyone had the same rights, none of which were contingent on even requesting them much less <Demanding> them. They didn't assume they required George the 3rd to yield to their demands to have those rights. They assumed they had them win lose or draw. Their concern was not with having rights, but with SECURING them.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Horseshit! Wanna argue this? Think about the words "slaves" and "women" before you do.

Their concerns were with establishing a government responsible to a few landed men -- a government that could be limited in what freedoms and liberties it could or could not take away from those people.

Yes, they limited what rights they were willing to have their new government SECURE. Not 'till the adoption of the 13th Amendment in 1865 did they rectify that damn "three fifths of all other Persons" stuff.

Very Happy

Amendment XIII (1865)
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Very Happy

Then followed the 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th Amendments directing our government to better secure all our rights.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Fact is, this disagreement started when you originally asserted that we had rights that were endowed upon us by a Creator. You've managed to weasel out of that. Congratulations!

weasel out of that Question

I CHANGED MY MIND AND SAID SO. SHAME ON ME Crying or Very sad

However, The Declaration continues to say that. I frequently copy and quote it. SHAME ON ME! Crying or Very sad

Subsequently I explicitly stated many .... many times that I DO NOT KNOW WHETHER GOD EXISTS OR NOT AND I DO NOT KNOW WHETHER OR NOT I WILL EVER KNOW WHETHER GOD PROBABLY EXISTS OR NOT.

Here in able2know I've said many .... many times that I LACK SUFFICIENT VALID DATA TO EVEN WARRANT A GUESS WHAT THE VALID DEFINITION OF GOD IS.

Again, SHAME ON ME FOR CHANGING MY MIND. Crying or Very sad

Frank Apisa wrote:

And to think - all this so that you can eventually argue that you have a RIGHT to own a gun.

Wake up! Wake up! Wake up! Pay attention!

I'm going to eventually argue that I (you too) have a right to equal protection of the law, AND that our government is empowered to secure that right, AND that our government does not have the right to deny me (you too) that right.. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Rights cannot be "absolute and non-contingent" if they are based on mutual self-interest. Indeed, they are, by definition, relative and contingent: relative in the sense that they relate to a societal notion of self-interest, and contingent in that, if society's view of self-interest changes, the relevant rights must change along with it.

If, on the other hand, you are suggesting that everyone has a mutual self-interest in acknowledging rights as absolute and non-contingent (despite their actual relativeness and contingency), you are merely arguing for a form of mass self-delusion, a kind of Platonic "noble myth."

So which is it?

I am claiming that everyone has a mutual self-interest in acknowledging rights as absolute and non-contingent.

I claim this because, I infer from history (ancient, modern, contemporary) that relativistic value systems (alias, situation morality) dependent on popular wisdom of the moment, have failed time after time. Our society is currently in decline because of this very idea. Even our Constitution as Amended, is being interpreted by our courts in this manner with the result that our nation is devouring itself in fits of the promotion of pernicious envy of those who accomplish things that benefit us all. The result is that respect for the rule of law is all but gone. How can there be a respect for that which changes according to whim and not the lawful processes specified for accomplishing change that improves our lives.

This is no self-delusion or myth! This is a practical prescription for preserving human life and its evolution to more honorable pursuits. It isn't a statement of fanciful thought. It is a statement of a probable solution.

What's your reasoning that supports your claims: "merely arguing for a form of mass self delusion a kind of Platonic "noble myth." (despite their actual relativeness and contingency), Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

At some point, Ican has got to discover that denial is more than just a river in Egypt.

0 Replies

ARE WE ENDOWED WITH CERTAIN UNALIENABLE RIGHTS?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know