Do our rights come from nature and God as Paul Ryan says?

[Quantum Windbag]

"No, cutting off a thief's hand is legal in one country, and not another. It is either always moral or always immoral."

Your chosen definition differs from the dictionary and general use, but you have the right to project your vision onto the world, as everyone else does.


"I challenge you to find an example of anyone that argues it is morally wrong to feed the poor."

There are treatises that specifically say feeding the poor only leads to more suffering and, so, should not be done.

Morals are most certainly relative.

My definition differs from the dictionary? How, exactly?

The reference.com definition of moral.

1.of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.

2.expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct, as a speaker or a literary work; moralizing: a moral novel.

3.founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations.

4.capable of conforming to the rules of right conduct: a moral being.

5.conforming to the rules of right conduct ( opposed to immoral): a moral man.


Merrian-Webaster.com definition.

a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical <moral judgments>
b : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior <a moral poem>
c : conforming to a standard of right behavior
d : sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment <a moral obligation>
e : capable of right and wrong action <a moral agent>

Nothing in there about morals being different form country to country, is there?

No examples of your claims. Must be why you chose to not post in the clean debate zone.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

WE THE PEOPLE are the government. No entity gave us the rights we create for ourselves through the government. Is there something bigger than us? Sure. The Universe which is where we all came from but does that mean it or something bequeathed rights upon us? No. It means that we have gotten to the point in our existence that we can create documents like the Constitution which is the foundation for our rights and freedoms. But WE created it and ratified it and live by it.

And all sides have intolerance and narrow thinking but I find that more people who say they are religious seem to want to control things and people, which aren't in agreement with them more so than most others.

We the people did not create rights. Rights spring from our conscience, our innate sense of right and wrong, not our reason. That conscience is either a product of evolution, which explains why chimpanzees react negatively to unfair treatment, or it is something given us by God, however you want to define him.

Chimpanzees Prefer Fair Play To Reaping An Unjust Reward – The Primate Diaries

I actually have scientific evidence that rights come from nature, all you have is blather and a faulty logic that they come from reason because you object to the concept that we are more than the product of evolution. Since evolution has actually provided chimpanzees, and other primates, actually have a sense of fair play, and a concept of right and wrong. That makes it something that is part of us, not something we created.

That makes you wrong.

And Chimps can't at some level reason, is the only way this diatribe is relevant.

Can chimps think? That depends on how you define it, doesn't it?

You should read the article, chimpanzees were the second type of primate experimented on, not the first, Capuchins also have an innate sense of fair play. In order for me to look at the actual evidence and conclude that this sense of fair play is a product of reason I would have to believe that multiple species came to the exact same definition of fair. That alone destroys any argument that fair is subjective, it must actually be something that is outside of us.

That makes the argument that we created it look pretty silly, doesn't it?

 

[G.T.]

We the people did not create rights. Rights spring from our conscience, our innate sense of right and wrong, not our reason. That conscience is either a product of evolution, which explains why chimpanzees react negatively to unfair treatment, or it is something given us by God, however you want to define him.

Chimpanzees Prefer Fair Play To Reaping An Unjust Reward – The Primate Diaries

I actually have scientific evidence that rights come from nature, all you have is blather and a faulty logic that they come from reason because you object to the concept that we are more than the product of evolution. Since evolution has actually provided chimpanzees, and other primates, actually have a sense of fair play, and a concept of right and wrong. That makes it something that is part of us, not something we created.

That makes you wrong.

And Chimps can't at some level reason, is the only way this diatribe is relevant.

Can chimps think? That depends on how you define it, doesn't it?

You should read the article, chimpanzees were the second type of primate experimented on, not the first, Capuchins also have an innate sense of fair play. In order for me to look at the actual evidence and conclude that this sense of fair play is a product of reason I would have to believe that multiple species came to the exact same definition of fair. That alone destroys any argument that fair is subjective, it must actually be something that is outside of us.

That makes the argument that we created it look pretty silly, doesn't it?

No, not at all.

It just makes them simple conclusions for the best level of coexistence, as a species, and all it shows when other species come to the same said conclusion is that it's not that difficult to figure out (which I'd agree with).

 

[there4eyeM]

"No, cutting off a thief's hand is legal in one country, and not another. It is either always moral or always immoral."

Your chosen definition differs from the dictionary and general use, but you have the right to project your vision onto the world, as everyone else does.


"I challenge you to find an example of anyone that argues it is morally wrong to feed the poor."

There are treatises that specifically say feeding the poor only leads to more suffering and, so, should not be done.

Morals are most certainly relative.

My definition differs from the dictionary? How, exactly?

The reference.com definition of moral.

1.of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.

2.expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct, as a speaker or a literary work; moralizing: a moral novel.

3.founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations.

4.capable of conforming to the rules of right conduct: a moral being.

5.conforming to the rules of right conduct ( opposed to immoral): a moral man.


Merrian-Webaster.com definition.

a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical <moral judgments>
b : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior <a moral poem>
c : conforming to a standard of right behavior
d : sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment <a moral obligation>
e : capable of right and wrong action <a moral agent>

Nothing in there about morals being different form country to country, is there?

No examples of your claims. Must be why you chose to not post in the clean debate zone.

It is perplexing that you seem to disagree and then post a definition that proves what I said. Where is anything said about universality?

 

[there4eyeM]

My references are to the self evident.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And Chimps can't at some level reason, is the only way this diatribe is relevant.

Can chimps think? That depends on how you define it, doesn't it?

You should read the article, chimpanzees were the second type of primate experimented on, not the first, Capuchins also have an innate sense of fair play. In order for me to look at the actual evidence and conclude that this sense of fair play is a product of reason I would have to believe that multiple species came to the exact same definition of fair. That alone destroys any argument that fair is subjective, it must actually be something that is outside of us.

That makes the argument that we created it look pretty silly, doesn't it?

No, not at all.

It just makes them simple conclusions for the best level of coexistence, as a species, and all it shows when other species come to the same said conclusion is that it's not that difficult to figure out (which I'd agree with).

What evolutionary theory makes rejecting food because you got a better exchange rate a random monkey into a survival trait?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Founders did not as a group, invariably, equate "God" or "Creator" with the Christian God and faith. Jefferson, Franklin, Allen, Paine certainly did not; Madison and Washington and Adams used the terms in ways that were a mixture of deistic and Christian address.

The late 18th-century Founders certainly did not think of God, religion, and government in the ways our very conservative Christian Americans do today.

Rights from God, not man.

Again, rights from God, not man. Power to secure the rights which were given by God, is derived by man.

The constitution is not the bible and the founding fathers weren't infallible, just creatures of their time. Not to mention that "the creator" is not necessarily God.

Show me some documentation dating from our Founders, or Continental Congress, where they don't equate the word Creator to be any religion "faith". If faith was not important enough to those who carefully chose the specific type of wording to use in our Declaration of Independence or Constitution, then it wouldn't be important enough to be worth mentioning in the First Amendment. That small little section that says government has no right to establish A [single] denomination of religion for others to follow, but for the allowance of MULTIPLE religious denominations where the government couldn't .... nor prohibit the free exercise thereof. It's clearly written that government would in no way "stiffle" an individual's right to exercise their chosen belief [denomination].

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"No, cutting off a thief's hand is legal in one country, and not another. It is either always moral or always immoral."

Your chosen definition differs from the dictionary and general use, but you have the right to project your vision onto the world, as everyone else does.


"I challenge you to find an example of anyone that argues it is morally wrong to feed the poor."

There are treatises that specifically say feeding the poor only leads to more suffering and, so, should not be done.

Morals are most certainly relative.

My definition differs from the dictionary? How, exactly?

The reference.com definition of moral.

1.of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.

2.expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct, as a speaker or a literary work; moralizing: a moral novel.

3.founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations.

4.capable of conforming to the rules of right conduct: a moral being.

5.conforming to the rules of right conduct ( opposed to immoral): a moral man.


Merrian-Webaster.com definition.

a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical <moral judgments>
b : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior <a moral poem>
c : conforming to a standard of right behavior
d : sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment <a moral obligation>
e : capable of right and wrong action <a moral agent>

Nothing in there about morals being different form country to country, is there?

No examples of your claims. Must be why you chose to not post in the clean debate zone.

It is perplexing that you seem to disagree and then post a definition that proves what I said. Where is anything said about universality?

Of, or relating to, principles of right and wrong in behavior.

Gee, I don't know.

 

[G.T.]

Can chimps think? That depends on how you define it, doesn't it?

You should read the article, chimpanzees were the second type of primate experimented on, not the first, Capuchins also have an innate sense of fair play. In order for me to look at the actual evidence and conclude that this sense of fair play is a product of reason I would have to believe that multiple species came to the exact same definition of fair. That alone destroys any argument that fair is subjective, it must actually be something that is outside of us.

That makes the argument that we created it look pretty silly, doesn't it?

No, not at all.

It just makes them simple conclusions for the best level of coexistence, as a species, and all it shows when other species come to the same said conclusion is that it's not that difficult to figure out (which I'd agree with).

What evolutionary theory makes rejecting food because you got a better exchange rate a random monkey into a survival trait?

Weird sentence is weird.

 

[there4eyeM]

My definition differs from the dictionary? How, exactly?

The reference.com definition of moral.

1.of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.

2.expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct, as a speaker or a literary work; moralizing: a moral novel.

3.founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations.

4.capable of conforming to the rules of right conduct: a moral being.

5.conforming to the rules of right conduct ( opposed to immoral): a moral man.


Merrian-Webaster.com definition.

a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical <moral judgments>
b : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior <a moral poem>
c : conforming to a standard of right behavior
d : sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment <a moral obligation>
e : capable of right and wrong action <a moral agent>

Nothing in there about morals being different form country to country, is there?

No examples of your claims. Must be why you chose to not post in the clean debate zone.

It is perplexing that you seem to disagree and then post a definition that proves what I said. Where is anything said about universality?

Of, or relating to, principles of right and wrong in behavior.

Gee, I don't know.

That makes it unanimous.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No, not at all.

It just makes them simple conclusions for the best level of coexistence, as a species, and all it shows when other species come to the same said conclusion is that it's not that difficult to figure out (which I'd agree with).

What evolutionary theory makes rejecting food because you got a better exchange rate a random monkey into a survival trait?

Weird sentence is weird.

It is a question that is asking you to explain the basis of your position. What makes rejecting food a positive survival trait?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It is perplexing that you seem to disagree and then post a definition that proves what I said. Where is anything said about universality?

Of, or relating to, principles of right and wrong in behavior.

Gee, I don't know.

That makes it unanimous.

That you don't understand English?

 

[G.T.]

What evolutionary theory makes rejecting food because you got a better exchange rate a random monkey into a survival trait?

Weird sentence is weird.

It is a question that is asking you to explain the basis of your position. What makes rejecting food a positive survival trait?

Your sentence as worded made no sense.

I didn't say "rejecting food is a positive survival trait."

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Weird sentence is weird.

It is a question that is asking you to explain the basis of your position. What makes rejecting food a positive survival trait?

Your sentence as worded made no sense.

I didn't say "rejecting food is a positive survival trait."

You said that the study, which you obviously did not read, shows that coexistence as a species led the various monkeys to behave the way they did. since they actually rejected food if they got a better sample than another monkey that means you are arguing that rejecting food is a positive survival trait in a social setting. I still want you to explain that position.

 

[G.T.]

It is a question that is asking you to explain the basis of your position. What makes rejecting food a positive survival trait?

Your sentence as worded made no sense.

I didn't say "rejecting food is a positive survival trait."

You said that the study, which you obviously did not read, shows that coexistence as a species led the various monkeys to behave the way they did. since they actually rejected food if they got a better sample than another monkey that means you are arguing that rejecting food is a positive survival trait in a social setting. I still want you to explain that position.

No, I said that just because different species come to the same basic rights as their conclusions, doesn't mean the rights pre-exist their reason to reach such a conclusion - it can also mean that they're just the best means of cohabitation and very easy to figure out if you've got enough brain cells.

 

[there4eyeM]

I understand when a definition does not say something as well as when it does.