ARE WE ENDOWED WITH CERTAIN UNALIENABLE RIGHTS?

Is there anyone, who believes that ALL rights provided for in the Declaration and Bill Of Rights are not inalienable--but there are a few inalienable rights, namely the ones mentioned in the preamble...

Life, liberty and self-determination (as pursuit of each person's ideal of happiness--decision-making for oneself?) Don't most of the other rights tend to address these three?

Human-- second definition-- Having the nature or attributes of man.
Attributes probably relates to physical, but the nature? What is the nature of man?

Then that's as good as admitting that such rights are not absolute and non-contingent, but that they are merely to be treated as absolute and non-contingent. To equate the two would be to assert that form equals substance.



And in the place of those relativistic value systems you propose one of your own.



Practical and probable it may be: I offer no opinions on those points. But clearly any system of rights based upon "practicality" is not an "absolute" system.



To be precise, that wasn't my claim (given the ease with which one may copy and paste quotations in a medium such as this, I'd appreciate it if you took the minimal effort to quote me accurately). Nevertheless, allow me to offer an explanation.

Let us say that a certain society works best if everyone believes that the three classes which comprise that society -- the rulers, the warriors, and the workers -- are distinct and impermeable, and that one's rights depend upon one's membership in a class. This may or may not be true: it makes no difference. But it is recognized by the entire population that it is in their mutual self-interest for everyone to believe it to be true. And let us further suppose that only members of the ruler class have the right to participate in the decision-making process for that society, to the total exclusion of the members of the other two classes. Now, do the members of the ruler class have an absolute and non-contingent, or, in other words, an unalienable right to rule?

Under those circumstances, given that the division of society into three classes and the assignment of specific rights to each is based upon nothing more than "mutual enlightened self-interest," it would seem evident that those classes and their rights are as relative and as contingent as society's "self-interest." In other words, a change society's estimate of its mutual self-interest would necessitate a change in everyone's rights. Thus, if the society tomorrow no longer felt it prudent or expedient or beneficial to believe in the three classes and their attendant rights, those rights would vanish.

Now, I offer no opinion on whether or not a system of unalienable rights can be founded on some notion of God or nature or reason. I will, however, say, as I said before, that no system of absolute and non-contingent rights can be based on a foundation of mutual self-interest, for the simple reason that such a self-interest is itself relative and contingent. If, on the other hand, ican, you can propose a convincing explanation for the position that self-interest is absolute and non-contingent, then I'd be willing to re-visit my opinion.

Hi my name is Joe and I work in a button factory and give tediously long explanations! Your funny!

Interesting analyses, Joe.

In this discussion the two paths that lead to asserting "human rights" are the religious and the non-religious.

Icam espouses the first way, frankapisa, the second way.

In the former argument, the use of lyrical and mythological imagery and social convention are the predicating factors to declare that "human rights" are inherent, albeit derived from a "higher power."

In the latter argument, the first two items (which are based upon a higher power as defined by the imagery in the religiously based argument), are discarded, and what remains is a combination of social convention and that part of a human being, which is not entirely shaped by socialization and convention.

The question that drops out of this is what part of a human exists that is not defined or dictated by the impact on the individual by social conventions?

You stated in an earlier post the following:

"……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."

That appears to be a logical and valid comment, because it accepts the view that the lyrical and mythological imagery is not necessary for one to believe in "human rights."

Yet look again at this you wrote:

"…if we base our conception of "inherent right" on one's basic humanity,.."

You are using as the reason that a human has rights is because he/she is human without explaining why a human has rights at all simply because they are human.

The question is "why do humans have rights?" cannot be answered simply by saying that they have rights because they are human. One has to explain what it is about humans that from their state of existence rights flow.

So, what is it about the state of existence of a human that is the wellspring of rights?

Is it genetic?

Or is it intelligence?

Or is it free will?

Or is it spiritual?

Or is it sentience, self-consciousness itself?


I am using this train of argument because at base, both the aforementioned arguments by icam and frankapsia are actually starting from the same wellspring, and yet are traveling down different rivers.

And by example, apply each of their theses to the two sentences that follow:

Rights are based upon values and they are correlative with duties. If one has a right to life, one has a duty to respect the claim to that right by others.

The value that the secularists place on humanity is based in part by their recognition of the uniqueness of life and human sentience. Without sentience what is the value of rights? For whom would rights affect? Only the PETA people confer rights to non-humans that lack human sentience……and someday we may find them correct.

It appears that the secularists infer (but rarely actually mention) that sentience is that state of existence of the individual which is not wholly derived from social constructs, and is the pre-condition for rights to be "inherent."

It is, as I mentioned in the beginning of my first post, the "I am" principle and so too do the religionists use and place value in this principle.

But they offer such a state of existence, or at least a property of it a name, they call it the "soul" and it seems to me that both sides are explaining their position that sentience itself is the determining factor for the presence of rights, but by using different language each embarks down a different river from the same wellspring.

Arising from this the age-old question "Can ethics exist without morality?" can be reviewed and shown that if ethics can indeed exist without morality, again one must determine what is the principle value that produces ethical behavior.

Usually it is said, as you mentioned about rights, that it is our common humanity which is valued….and we arrive once again at the question……What is it about the state of existence of a human that has value in and of itself, un-marked by social factors?

What value does a person see in another person, above the utilitarian which leads them to look at that other person as worthy of rights more than a pig has?

I leave for another day to debate the issue of whether human self-consciousness itself is wholly predicated upon language, a social construct or is innate.

Homo Sapiens is one specie of the thousands, which aspires to rise above our humble beginning. From the dawn of prehistory, s/he has sensed the potential of what we could become if only we were able to shed the natural savagery, we have wallowed in for millennia, and commence the climb to true 'civilization'.
The rungs of the ladder we must climb in order to accomplish that goal, and free ourselves from the insidious demands of instinctive behaviour, are the human rights we confer on one another.
They are ours to give to one another; that is the only way they can be received. And if we fail to apply them to our neighbours, we relinquish our own right to them.
Freedom is a cross you must bear, if you truly wish to be free!

Where in the brain does religion originate?
Wouldn't it be fascinating to learn which areas of the brain produce the ability to conceptualize a real God and attendant religion?

I would be interested in knowing if there have been any studies to try to determine the area(s) in the brain where the concept of religion originates.

I know scientists have identified areas of intensified brain activity relative to certain thoughts, compulsions, etc., but don't recall any about God and Religion.

---BumbleBeeBoogie

Joe, I think your last post was a gem.

Kuvasz, please call me Frank. I apologize for the anger I sent your way in the last post I address to you. I appreciate the remarks and comments you made in response to Joe's last post.

ANYONE INTERESTED:

So that we understand where I am in this matter -- allow me to give another overview:

I do not suppose that we have any rights that are unalienable. All of our rights, in my opinion, are alienable -- and I honestly cannot think of any rights that we have or that anyone else has ever had -- that have not at some point in history, been alienated from some individuals.

I see absolutely no reason to suppose there was a Creator or any other kind of mystical being or essence that ever endowed us with any rights.

It is my opinion that Ican has fixated on that word "endowed" simply because he was originally of the opinion that a Creator endowed us with certain rights that were inalienable because they derived from that Creator. He now seems to be saying that we are "endowed" with "inalienable rights" by ourselves -- which wording seems to me to be exceptionally gratuitous.

I am of the opinion -- and I argue that -- such rights as we have, we have obtained either because we demanded them -- or that others demanded them for us.

I do not suppose that government grants or endows us with rights simply because I do not see rights derived by being granted at all. I think we DEMAND that government NOT UNNECESSARILY PROHIBIT speech or action. So in effect, as far as I can see, we derive rights by DEMANDING government NOT PROHIBIT speech or activities that we want to have as - what we will call "rights."

I think this is comprehensive, but if there are questions on it, I'll be glad to flesh it out further for anyone who is interested in what I think.

Went out to do the lawn -- and realized there was a thought I had not included.

Not all the rights we demand are, in my opinion, reasonable, fair, equitable, or sustainable.

EXAMPLE: At one point in America's past, the people demanded the right to own slaves -- and demanded that the government make no laws prohibiting trafficking in slaves or their ownership.

I'm especially glad that we eventually were alienated from that right.

True, but my object was not to engage in an explanation at all: I merely offered this position as one of "numerous secular theories of inherent rights." I neither endorsed it nor criticized it.



I believe that is correct.



That's possible, but I don't believe I've seen anyone here discuss the issue in these terms. Fichte, for one, based his secular theory of rights largely on his concept of self-awareness (the "Ich"), and argued that this concept was a priori true for all people. Consequently, rights could be based on our "humanness" even without an explicit recognition of a creator. So that's at least one way to defend a system of rights based on sentience or on our basic humanity.



Hi ReDHoRN, glad to meet you! I haven't had the pleasure of making your acquaintance, but I gather from your post that you are what passes for the village idiot around here

Another tediously long explanation! Other people surprisingly beg to differ from the view of the village idiot! But honestly enough, it doesn't seem like your the kind of man with enough wit to propound your explanation into a few sentences! Save your long monotonous banter and learn more from the other kind of men with wit and intellect! dont take it offensively, I only mock you because I like you! I am in a mood for a good debate!

You are right; or rather you have been right multiple times.

Multiple times you have demonstrated that your denial is (among other things) "more than a river in Egypt."

Nice try, I guess.

Not really up to your usual standard, though, and to be frank, your usual standard is none too high.

truth
JoefromChicago (and Frank) are clearly right. We humans make our worlds--cultural constructions for which we should take both blame and credit. All societies that I know of have ideologically based their most important norms on absolute grounds, usually sacred myths of various sorts. They are "defined" as sacrosanct and therefore beyond debate. But the reality is that, while this absolutism may be necessary for social stability, it is philosophically baseless.

I think Frank, that was de 'bait'!

What?

We are now waiting for Frank to 'take' the bait;

decorum demands that we sit quietly with our legs tidily crossed, and a quizzically knowing expression on our (royal) faces!

When I assert that rights are absolute and non-contingent, I mean the existence of a right is not dependent on who has them AND is not dependent on the circumstances in which anyone lives AND is not dependent on who or what claimed, bestode, granted, endowed, acknowledged, gave, yielded, tolerated, or assumed that right. All that is necessary is that any claim of a right shall coexist with an unconditional toleration by the claimant of anyone's possession of that same right, regardless of anyone's circumstances.

This "denial", too, is not a river in Egypt.

ReDHoRN states with a quizzical expression on her (royal) face:" Dammit Frank take the bait!"

there's something 'fishy' going on here;
maybe we should have tried worms;
oh, i get it, maybe there are no fish in denial!