ARE WE ENDOWED WITH CERTAIN UNALIENABLE RIGHTS?

Damn your funky monkies!

stop using puns, they're so tell tale.

hahahahahhahahahahoo

0 Replies

MUHAWWHWHWHAWHAWHAWHAW WHAAAAAAAAA! Laughing

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

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.

That was not what you said before. In your reworking of the Declaration of Independence, you ascribed the origin of unalienable rights to a "mutual enlightened self-interest." Now it appears you're ascribing those rights to "unconditional toleration." Which is it?

But rather than wait for the answer (and perhaps yet another version of your position), let me point out that your "unconditional toleration" is, as it now stands, without foundation. In other words, why should anyone tolerate unconditionally someone else's possession of a right? Is it because of "mutual enlightened self-interest"? If so, then "unconditional toleration" is conditioned on something else, and those mutually tolerated rights are relative and contingent. If, on the other hand, "unconditional toleration" is an a priori foundation for rights, then you need to explain why this toleration is logically -- as opposed to practically or prudentially -- necessary.

ReDHoRN wrote:

Other people surprisingly beg to differ from the view of the village idiot!

And they would be right to do so. In any argument between the village idiot and her opponents, I'd like to be counted among the opponents. But I have found, in groups such as this, that engaging in protracted arguments with the local village idiot is unwise: it demeans me and it does the idiot no good. I have made it a policy not to debate intellectual midgets who, for example, accuse me of lacking "wit" yet who are themselves unable to make the simple distinction between "your" and "you're." I have regrettably violated that policy here. So don't take it personally, ReDHoRN, if I don't respond to any of your infantile pipsqueaks in the future: after all, I only ignore you because I like you! Laughing

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
I am claiming that everyone has a mutual self-interest in acknowledging rights as absolute and non-contingent.

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.

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.

Sounds like another attempt (in a long line of many attempts) to define things in a way that has no other function than to provide Ican with an escape route from having to acknowledge that his original proposition was just flat out wrong.

Just re-read that gibberish you just posted, Ican -- and try to see it for the illogical bit of rationalizing fluff that it is.

TO OTHERS IN THIS DISCUSSION: It is at this point that Ican usually bails out of a specific issue being discussed with words to the effect of: You people just cannot understand the kind of deep thinking I am doing on this issue. It is a failure of comprehension on your part that this does not make sense -- not that it is malarkey.

I say it will happen, but we'll see. Once again, this will be something about which I will be delighted to be wrong.

In the meantime, I reaffirm my position that I see no reason to assume any rights we possess are inalienable or endowed upon us by any supernatural being -- or by dint of nature.

I think all of our "rights" become rights only when we demand of government (or others demand of government on our behalf) that no laws be made to unnecessarily limit our freedom to do or act as we choose. It is my opinion that only when that is codified, do any "rights" (such as we are discussing here) come into being.

I acknowledge that some rights are wrongs (the right to own and traffic in slaves) -- and the sooner we are alienated from those kinds of rights, the better for everyone.

Some rights, unfortunately, we lose through unwise decisions -- often of our elected officials -- but often because we allow despots to come into power and take already in-place rights away -- or to prevent rights from coming into existence.

0 Replies

THe ReDHoRN wrote:

... "Dammit Frank take the bait!" ...

Hay Cap'n! Why are you so persistent in stirring up more denial? The waters have been made muddy enough already. Confused

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

That was not what you said before. In your reworking of the Declaration of Independence, you ascribed the origin of unalienable rights to a "mutual enlightened self-interest." Now it appears you're ascribing those rights to "unconditional toleration." Which is it?

BOTH!

The "unconditional toleration" I advocated was an "unconditional toleration" of others possessing the same rights one claims for one self. I claim, that both <claim> and <toleration> are in our "mutual enlightened self-interest."

PERHAPS THIS WILL HELP (changes indicated between [ ...] )

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 [ demanded, commanded, apprehended, pleaded, emplored, wished, hoped, acquired, received ], claimed, [ bestowed ], 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 [THAT WAS CLAIMED BY THE CLAIMANT], regardless of anyone's circumstances.

NOTE: If I could figure out how to say it all completely and right the first time every time, I wouldn't bother posting here. I would be posting directly to a different audience from whom I was seeking action, and in fact, to an audience capable of taking action.

0 Replies

Could Ican possibly be saying that one can claim the right to own and traffic in slaves so long as that person allows unconditional toleration of others to own and traffic in slaves, including slaves?

Could Ican possibly be saying that an individual who lived under Saddam Hussein's rule a while back could, by simply asserting the right to free speech -- and granting toleration of others to engage in free speech -- the individual would have been possessed of that right in Saddam Hussein's Iraq?

I cannot conceive of me getting so involved in myself that I would be willing to torture the language and logic in this manner in search of a way to say "I am right no matter what!"

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

TO OTHERS IN THIS DISCUSSION: It is at this point that Ican usually bails out of a specific issue being discussed with words to the effect of: You people just cannot understand the kind of deep thinking I am doing on this issue. It is a failure of comprehension on your part that this does not make sense -- not that it is malarkey.

I say it will happen, but we'll see. Once again, this will be something about which I will be delighted to be wrong.

>>>>Here ya go Cap'n. Plenty of denial here (plus lots of demagogery ,too). Lest the demagogue, himself, misunderstand, I mean definition #1 below<<<<:

Main Entry: 1dem·a·gogue
Variant(s): or dem·a·gog /'de-m&-"gäg/
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek dEmagOgos, from dEmos people (perhaps akin to Greek daiesthai to divide) + agOgos leading, from agein to lead -- more at TIDE, AGENT
Date: 1648
1 : a leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power
2 : a leader championing the cause of the common people in ancient times
- dem·a·gogu·ery /-"gä-g(&-)rE/ noun
- dem·a·gogy /-"gä-gE, -"gä-jE, -"gO-jE/ noun

Frank Apisa wrote:

In the meantime, I reaffirm my position that I see no reason to assume any rights we possess are inalienable or endowed upon us by any supernatural being -- or by dint of nature.

I think all of our "rights" become rights only when we demand of government (or others demand of government on our behalf) that no laws be made to unnecessarily limit our freedom to do or act as we choose. It is my opinion that only when that is codified, do any "rights" (such as we are discussing here) come into being.

I infer that you're claiming for example that slaves have no right to liberty until such right is demanded and government secures that right for them. Rolling Eyes

I infer that for the same reason you're claiming for example that the two million murdered victims of Pol Pot had no right to life. Only those who survived Pol Pot's murders to demand and obtain security of the right to life had a right to life. Rolling Eyes

If that is what you think is true, then it's time for you to recognize the fallacy in that thinking.

For example, IF SOME OF US BORN DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO LIFE, BECAUSE THAT RIGHT HAS YET TO BE DEMANDED AND SECURED, THEN SOME OF US MAY NOT SURVIVE TO DEMAND IT AND SECURE IT, OR HAVE SOMEONE DEMAND IT FOR US AND SECURE IT FOR US.

I say a right exists prior to its demand and securing. It is the recognition of that fact that motivates others to attempt to secure that right for ourselves, others, and our posterity.

I say it is the ubiquitous recognition of that fact that is in OUR OWN MUTUAL SELF-INTEREST.

That fact is apparently an anathema to some. Why? Confused

I'm just guessing of course, but I think it is an anathema to those who fear the logical consequences of that fact. What are those logical consequences? They would be starkly confronted with ending their delusional denials, and finally having to recognize their own failures, refusals, and corrupt perpetratrations of attempts to secure the rights of others. They would finally have to face their own renunciation of honor and their own renunciation of their own higher humanity.

The folks who labored over our Constitution and those who subsequently labored over its amendments to reduce our Constitution's flaws assumed the existence of rights a posteriori to they're seeking to secure them. They didn't argue over what our rights were, they argued over how to best secure them. Many were afraid that the listing of specific rights might jeopardize the security of those rights not listed. Sure our Constitution still has flaws. What work of humans is flawless? However, until we started reinterpreting our Constitution according to the whims of wimps, it served us very well.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Could Ican possibly be saying ... ?

No!

What I am saying is that if you claim the right to murder, then you thereby grant to all others the right to murder you too.

What I am saying is that if you claim the right to steal, then you thereby grant to all others the right to steal from you too.

What I am saying is that if you claim the right to enslave, then you thereby grant to all others the right to enslave you too.

What I am saying is that if you claim the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, then you thereby grant to all others the right to their life, liberty and pursuit of happiness too.

"What goes around comes around."

GAD ZOOKS!

Do I really have to write it? Rolling Eyes

"Do unto others that which you would have them do unto you.
Do not do unto others that which you would not have them do unto you."

WHY Question

BECAUSE, IT'S IN YOUR OWN ENLIGHTENED SELF-INTEREST Exclamation

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

TO OTHERS IN THIS DISCUSSION: It is at this point that Ican usually bails out of a specific issue being discussed with words to the effect of: You people just cannot understand the kind of deep thinking I am doing on this issue. It is a failure of comprehension on your part that this does not make sense -- not that it is malarkey.

I say it will happen, but we'll see. Once again, this will be something about which I will be delighted to be wrong.

>>>>Here ya go Cap'n. Plenty of denial here (plus lots of demagogery ,too). Lest the demagogue, himself, misunderstand, I mean definition #1 below<<<<:

Nah, I'm just going by your past history. You've done it so many times; I've simply come to expect it.

We'll see how you handle it this time.

And if I'm wrong in my guess -- I will be delighted.

Quote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
In the meantime, I reaffirm my position that I see no reason to assume any rights we possess are inalienable or endowed upon us by any supernatural being -- or by dint of nature.

I think all of our "rights" become rights only when we demand of government (or others demand of government on our behalf) that no laws be made to unnecessarily limit our freedom to do or act as we choose. It is my opinion that only when that is codified, do any "rights" (such as we are discussing here) come into being.

I infer that you're claiming for example that slaves have no right to liberty until such right is demanded and government secures that right for them.

Yep!

Quote:

I infer that for the same reason you're claiming for example that the two million murdered victims of Pol Pot had no right to life. Only those who survived Pol Pot's murders to demand and obtain security of the right to life had a right to life.

Yep!

Quote:

If that is what you think is true, then it's time for you to recognize the fallacy in that thinking.

For example, IF SOME OF US BORN DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO LIFE, BECAUSE THAT RIGHT HAS YET TO BE DEMANDED AND SECURED, THEN SOME OF US MAY NOT SURVIVE TO DEMAND IT AND SECURE IT, OR HAVE SOMEONE DEMAND IT FOR US AND SECURE IT FOR US.

Jeez, Ican. Where have you been living? On Mars.

That happens all the time.

Yes, I am saying that one has no rights -- unless the right has been demanded and granted. Until then, there is just the theory of rights - right's lite -- potential rights.

If you find that illogical, what can I say?

Quote:

I say a right exists prior to its demand and securing. It is the recognition of that fact that motivates others to attempt to secure that right for ourselves, others, and our posterity.

Well you are certainly entitled to do so, and I probably could make a case for that if I were on that side of the question. But since you originally wanted rights to be endowed on us by a "Creator" -- and you wanted our rights to be "inalienable" -- I suspect you are arguing that way simply because you don't have what it takes to give up a lost cause -- and now are playing with words hoping to salvage at least some small piece of this debate.

Quote:

I say it is the ubiquitous recognition of that fact that is in OUR OWN MUTUAL SELF-INTEREST.

That fact is apparently an anathema to some. Why?

I'm just guessing of course, but I think it is an anathema to those who fear the logical consequences of that fact. What are those logical consequences? They would be starkly confronted with ending their delusional denials, and finally having to recognize their own failures, refusals, and corrupt perpetratrations of attempts to secure the rights of others. They would finally have to face their own renunciation of honor and their own renunciation of their own higher humanity.

The folks who labored over our Constitution and those who subsequently labored over its amendments to reduce our Constitution's flaws assumed the existence of rights a posteriori to they're seeking to secure them. They didn't argue over what our rights were, they argued over how to best secure them. Many were afraid that the listing of specific rights might jeopardize the security of those rights not listed. Sure our Constitution still has flaws. What work of humans is flawless? However, until we started reinterpreting our Constitution according to the whims of wimps, it served us very well.

Here comes a bit more of that demagoguery (this is the correct spelling of that word, Ican):

Folks, all of what we went through with Ican developing his "the evolution of the universe is governed by some kind of INTELLIGENCE"...

... was done to lead up to...

... "humans are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights" ...

...which was done to lead up to

a laughably far right conservative screed against the actions our government takes in trying to establish a safety net for the most unfortunate of society. As soon as he gets to this part, this will deteriorate into a "liberals are a bunch of asshole (which may be right, I'm not a liberal) and they are leading our country down the path to Hell."

That is what this insistence upon OUR MUTUAL SELF-INTERESTS is all about.

I hope you enjoy this part of Ican's presentation.

It is interesting and he presents it very well.

It is all bullshit -- but I will fight anyone who claims it is not interesting and well presented.

0 Replies

kuvasz wrote:

Interesting analyses, Joe.

Your analysis, kuvasz, is interesting too.

From my perspective the argument between Frank and me (demagoguery aside) is about whether there exists absolute values independent of the thinking of the present, or there exists only relative values dependent on the thinking of the present.

Well, that's not quite it either. Is it more in the interest of mankind to voluntarily seek only absolute values independent of exigency or to voluntarily seek only relative values dependent on exigency? Or, both?

Scientists tend to seek generalizations and engineers tend to seek exigency. Perhaps the rest of us should do both.

kuvasz wrote:

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.

I think both ways are actually religious in nature in that they both rely on what one chooses to believe with little or no evidence one way or the other. The real difference is between those who believe there is a higher intelligence in our universe that influences events along with living organisms (e.g., humans, mice, etc.) and the laws of nature, and those who believe events are influenced only by that intelligence in the universe that is manifested in living organisms and the laws of nature.

I fear the alarming tendency of humans to too easily succumb to the doctrines of psychopaths and sociopaths. Frank, I guess, fears the alarming tendency of humans to too easily succumb to the doctrines of the self-righteous.

Perhaps there exists a synthesis to be found in determining the real difference between psychopaths and sociopaths and the self-righteous?

0 Replies

Ican wrote:

Quote:

The real difference is between those who believe there is a higher intelligence in our universe that influences events along with living organisms (e.g., humans, mice, etc.) and the laws of nature, and those who believe events are influenced only by that intelligence in the universe that is manifested in living organisms and the laws of nature.

Uh, uh, uh. There also are those who DO NOT KNOW and are unwilling to guess -- but who argue against both sides as being unsustainable.

You are way too anxious to nest me in with "believers" who "believe" the other side of what you "believe."

I am arguing what I estimate to be the reality on the question of how any rights that we have happen to exist. I am also arguing what I see to be a logical position with regard to how I see them coming into existence.

There may very well be a God who endows us with rights -- and those rights may be unalienable.

I see absolutely no reason to suppose that to be the case -- so I am taking the other side.

0 Replies

Ican--
Very strong points. The Pol Pot example aids in explaining the view. Certainly, they were all created equal. Luck doesn't grant one man a right to life. I guess Frank sees rights as law, and we, at least I, see it as an intrinsic right. How can anyone say All Men are Created Equal--and disagree with the concept of inalienable rights.

Anyway, I enjoyed your posts.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

The "unconditional toleration" I advocated was an "unconditional toleration" of others possessing the same rights one claims for one self. I claim, that both <claim> and <toleration> are in our "mutual enlightened self-interest."

Then such rights cannot be inherent unless "mutual enlightened self-interest" is, in some fashion, inherent. And you've never even attempted to proved that.

You are, in fact, engaging in a form of the naturalistic fallacy. You suggest that rights are justified by "self-interest", but you don't explain how self-interest could be justified by self-interest (which you would need to do in order to claim that self-interest is anything but a form of prudential calculus). In sum, self-interest is relative and contingent, and any rights based on self-interest are likewise relative and contingent.

ican711nm wrote:

What I am saying is that if you claim the right to murder, then you thereby grant to all others the right to murder you too.

Once again, you're back to this version of the Kantian categorical imperative. But you've never justified this position with anything more than mutual self-interest, which cannot form the foundation for any kind of system of inherent, unalienable rights. After all, even according to you, ican, if I claim the right to murder -- thereby imbuing all others with the right to murder -- I can change my mind and renounce that right and thereby extinguish that right for everyone else. Under this system, therefore, all rights are without any foundation at all except that provided by the dictates of "mutual self-interest" and individual caprice.

Sofia wrote:

How can anyone say All Men are Created Equal--and disagree with the concept of inalienable rights.

Interesting question. I'll let Frank tackle this one.

0 Replies

"... think both ways are actually religious in nature..."

Well, that doesn't work, Ican. Perhaps you mean dogmatic in nature? Because religious means "imbued with religion, pious, god-fearing, devout..."

In each post, I see a desire to continue to believe whatever one was brought up to believe. Am I wrong?

0 Replies

Tartarin's interesting question was--

Quote:

In each post, I see a desire to continue to believe whatever one was brought up to believe. Am I wrong?

I do have a belief, central to my being, that is imbedded in my argument: All men/women (humans) are created equal. My argument about inalienable rights flows from that. If someone can separate the two in a way that makes sense to me, I would change my mind.

My contention is not rooted in religion.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Then such rights cannot be inherent unless "mutual enlightened self-interest" is, in some fashion, inherent. And you've never even attempted to proved that.

Right you are! I'll get to it ;or rather, I shall attempt to show that it is probably true.

joefromchicago wrote:

You are, in fact, engaging in a form of the naturalistic fallacy. You suggest that rights are justified by "self-interest", but you don't explain how self-interest could be justified by self-interest (which you would need to do in order to claim that self-interest is anything but a form of prudential calculus). In sum, self-interest is relative and contingent, and any rights based on self-interest are likewise relative and contingent.

I will soon begin developing this further. For now the following will have to suffice:

It is in our Enlightened Mutual Self-interest (EMS Smile

) for our posterity to thrive (i.e., live long, healthfully, honorably and prosperously) for the full term of existence of our observable/inferable universe (OOU).

I will argue a "prudential calculus" which I think increases the probability of that outcome.

I believe the proper paraphrase is: All people are born equally endowed with certain inalienable rights. I think those rights are those which serve our EMS. The identification of those rights and the securing of those rights is part of the "prudential calculus".

It is important for everyone to understand that I am a probabilist. My signature statement is borrowed from a definition of probabilist. Therefore, I readily concede that it is improbable that I will prove anything for certain. The best I can do is identify that "prudential calculus" I think will most probably achieve our EMS; and, I will argue why I think so. Furthermore, it will represent that "prudential calculus" on which I'm willing to bet my life.

0 Replies

Tartarin wrote:

"... think both ways are actually religious in nature..."

Well, that doesn't work, Ican. Perhaps you mean dogmatic in nature? Because religious means "imbued with religion, pious, god-fearing, devout..."

I disagree!

I favor the 4th definition from Merriam-Webster
www.m-w.com

Main Entry: re·li·gion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY
Date: 13th century
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
- re·li·gion·less adjective.

More accurately, I favor: religion is a system of beliefs based on faith.

Tartarin wrote:

In each post, I see a desire to continue to believe whatever one was brought up to believe. Am I wrong?

In my case you are wrong! You can't blame my folks or my formal religious training for what I think now. Neither of my folks were sure whether or not God existed. I had some formal religious training which I chose to end with my parent's consent after one year at the age of 11. I ended it in disgust because I refused to believe that God would actually direct people to kill non-believers (e.g., Jericho). I figured that if God were really God, God would never be dumb enough to invest humans with that kind of self-corrupting power. Besides, if God wanted it done right, God would do it Himself (as in deed, God was alleged by the Bible to have done on several other occasions).

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

... After all, even according to you, ican, if I claim the right to murder -- thereby imbuing all others with the right to murder -- I can change my mind and renounce that right and thereby extinguish that right for everyone else. ...

No you can't! You can't extinguish a right once tolerated as if you were merely canceling your subscription to some newspaper. It will take much time and persuasion to accomplish that. Think of it. You cause all others of the human race to consider murder of you ok, then after committing murder yourself, you attempt to withdraw that right. Huh! Lots of luck. You'd be dead by morning! (so to speak). Laughing

0 Replies

Ican -- that's a colloquial (4th) definition of religion. "Drinking is my religion!" That kind of thing. In a real conversation which is about religion, stick to the real definition, okay?

0 Replies

ARE WE ENDOWED WITH CERTAIN UNALIENABLE RIGHTS?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know