If rights, whither from?

[antagon]

Rights come from God. They can't come from anywhere else.

Is there any non-theological argument for human rights?

I'll take that as a 'no'. You realize, of course, that means you have no rights unless you can prove your particular god exists.

proving the existence of god or any rights due an individual is irrelevant to their existence. dealing with infinites of potential, rights exist before, during and after they are exercised or violated, no matter if any parties involved or bearing witness recognize their existence or can validate their origins. they are a constant. whether 'proven' or merely an object of faith, deity is constant.

the infinite or constant concept of rights is regarded to be discovered by humanity's greater intellect, not invented by it. these are the most basic observations of social science which existentialists argue have been 'wired' into our psyche. all social creatures seem to possess this sort of wiring which draws strength rather than chaos from numbers.

 

[G.T.]

Rights are what Humans say they are, and upheld by Humans, and taken away by humans.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'll take that as a 'no'. You realize, of course, that means you have no rights unless you can prove your particular god exists.

If rights come from God do you have to believe in Him to have rights, or does He give them to you anyway. In other words, if they are right about this do you have rights since you are clearly mocking their God? If you were intelligent that possibility would worry you more than the possibility that they are wrong and that they do not have rights. The simple fact is they do have rights, so your argument is void regardless of their ability to prove that God exists.

You axiomatically assert that which is only true conditionally (if your deity exists).


You assume the existence of your personal interpretation of the Jewish god despite all evidence to its non-existence.

Where did I do that?

I pointed out that if your logic is true, and they are right, you have a problem.

The truth is that it doesn't matter if they are right about rights coming from God or not, because rights exist, hat is recognized universally. So your assertion that they do not have rights if God does not exist is as silly as saying that if they are wrong about God being the creator of the universe negates the existence of the universe. In other words, your argument has no basis in logic.

 

[JBeukema]

If rights come from God do you have to believe in Him to have rights, or does He give them to you anyway. In other words, if they are right about this do you have rights since you are clearly mocking their God? If you were intelligent that possibility would worry you more than the possibility that they are wrong and that they do not have rights. The simple fact is they do have rights, so your argument is void regardless of their ability to prove that God exists.

You axiomatically assert that which is only true conditionally (if your deity exists).


You assume the existence of your personal interpretation of the Jewish god despite all evidence to its non-existence.

Where did I do that?

In red.

If rights come form God and they have Rights, god must exist. You axiomatically assert they have rights, which assumes the existence of your deity and the giving of rights by your deity.

The truth is that it doesn't matter if they are right about rights coming from God or not, because rights exist, hat is recognized universally.

No, it's not. If it were, these discussions wouldn't be taking place and world history would be a lot different. No is it universally agreed who or what possesses what rights- view any debate on abortion, war, or capital punishment.

So your assertion that they do not have rights if God does not exist

That's not what i said. That's what they said when they claimed rights come from their god.

is as silly as saying that if they are wrong about God being the creator of the universe negates the existence of the universe

It would negate the claim that the universe was created by god.

You fail o realize, of course, that I can point at the universe. You cannot point at 'rights'.

In other words, your argument has no basis in logic.

Once again, you fail completely.

 

[Modbert]

I do have rights. As an example there is no way you can take away my right to pursue happiness.

Sure I can. Lock you up in a basement and give you minimal food and water. You seem to not realize you have no rights, especially when they can be just as easily taken away.

 

[JBeukema]

I do have rights. As an example there is no way you can take away my right to pursue happiness.

Sure I can. Lock you up in a basement and give you minimal food and water. You seem to not realize you have no rights, especially when they can be just as easily taken away.

Not that either of you have demonstrated a thing to do with 'rights', but would he not still have the ability to pursue happiness in psychosis and what worlds his demented mind might create for itself?

Let alone if he turns out to be one hell of a masochist

 

[Epsilon Delta]

Yes, people do have rights. They come from the social contract, which is an answer that does not require the existence of some deity. Rights are a necessity for the functioning of a society, as the groundwork and rules between those who govern and those who are governed; they provide clear indications of the expectations of individuals in a society, and the freer, more inclusive, and more respected those rights, the better the functioning of that society. Can rights be then taken away? Yes, rights can be taken away, as similarly as they can be fought for and gained or regained. Are rights absolute and unchanging? Well, only insofar as they are universally recognized. Those who state something like "freedom of speech is a universal human right" are entitled to say so as it serves the purpose of actually making it a universal human right. Freedom of Speech is a good example as it is one of those rights that could basically called 'universal' in the sense that everyone agrees that it is or should be their right to say basically whatever they want. It is even enshrined in the constitutions of some of the most repressive states in the world, which pay lip service to a host of things that the population considers 'rights' but that the government prohibits and people have to fight for (one could make then the distinction between nominal rights and real rights). And then there's even the most liberal of 'democracies' that limit the right in certain cases; to that I would say that just as rights are socially determined they can be socially limited and changing according to social aggregates of opinion. I know this is a sloppy explanation, but I'm not much of a philosopher or a very good student of philosophy, and this is at the core a philosophical question.

 

[JBeukema]

Yes, people do have rights. They come from the social contract, which is an answer that does not require the existence of some deity.

If the only rights are social/legal/positive rights (as opposed to natural rights) , doesn't that make the entire concept of 'rights' pretty much meaningless?

Rights are a necessity for the functioning of a society, as the groundwork and rules between those who govern and those who are governed;

Did society not function when there were slaves? Injustice prevailed, but the world got along.

 

[FA_Q2]

Yes, people do have rights. They come from the social contract, which is an answer that does not require the existence of some deity.

If the only rights are social/legal/positive rights (as opposed to natural rights) , doesn't that make the entire concept of 'rights' pretty much meaningless?

No, they still exist at the time in question. They change and adapt but still exist.

Rights are a necessity for the functioning of a society, as the groundwork and rules between those who govern and those who are governed;

Did society not function when there were slaves? Injustice prevailed, but the world got along.

And people still had right at that time. Slaves may not have but everyone else did to a varying degree. The absence of any rights is essentially akin to anarchy. Anarchy never lasts long because people cannot survive in that setting.

 

[antagon]

Yes, people do have rights. They come from the social contract, which is an answer that does not require the existence of some deity.

If the only rights are social/legal/positive rights (as opposed to natural rights) , doesn't that make the entire concept of 'rights' pretty much meaningless?

Rights are a necessity for the functioning of a society, as the groundwork and rules between those who govern and those who are governed;

Did society not function when there were slaves? Injustice prevailed, but the world got along.

i contend that social contracts recognize natural rights and agree to confer them to the individuals in the 'contract'. the idea of a social contract itself is not one of a document, but one of a natural law which empowers government, and empowers citizens within it, based on natural rights.

where abominations like slavery exist, the social contract is crippled. such a society is volatile rather than stable, and requires force to maintain the denial of rights to a population within it. it requires force to fend off dissenters who organize to topple injustice or restore sustainable socio-economic stasis.

again, the rights of the slaves existed before, during and after their bondage. it was the recognition of their trespass which necessitated the draconian methods of slavery. it was the recognition of violated rights in a perverse society and the dissent which it caused that brought that system down in the end.

 

[editec]

1) Do people have rights?

2) If so, where do they come from?

Is there any non-theological argument for human rights?

Well...think about it logically

Rights within what context?

Did Robinson Crusie have any rights?

No?

Why not?

Because he was ALONE.

Hence "rights" used in this way suggest that we are talking about rights within a SOCIAL CONTEXT.

So if one has them, one ONLY has them within a society of men.

Ergo, rights exist as a result of that society granting them.

Social rights are, therefore, no more "inalienable" than the society is willing not to alienate you from them.

Do we have an inalienable right to live as we choose?

Of course not.

How many inalienable rights did Gary Gilmore have?

We have over a million prisoners in the USA.

Where is their rights to freedom of movement, freedom of association, freedom to own private property?

They don't have them, do they?

And if SOCIETY took away those rights, then doesn't it follow that rights are something that can be granted ONLY by society?

Show my any "inalienable right" you think you have, and I can show you how any idiot with a gun can take it away from you.

If it can taken away, then OBVIOUSLY it could not be inalienable.

 

[antagon]

Well...think about it logically

Rights within what context?

Did Robinson Crusie have any rights?

No?

Why not?

Because he was ALONE.

i thought you said logically.

crusoe or any lone individual isn't denied any rights. rather, he is in total possession of them. you present that a social paradigm constitutes our rights, but it is this paradigm which requires we relinquish rights to sovereignty of government and boundaries of other's rights.

essentially, your 'logic' is upside-down.

 

[L.K.Eder]

whither from?

 

[Epsilon Delta]

Yes, people do have rights. They come from the social contract, which is an answer that does not require the existence of some deity.

If the only rights are social/legal/positive rights (as opposed to natural rights) , doesn't that make the entire concept of 'rights' pretty much meaningless?

Rights are a necessity for the functioning of a society, as the groundwork and rules between those who govern and those who are governed;

Did society not function when there were slaves? Injustice prevailed, but the world got along.

i contend that social contracts recognize natural rights and agree to confer them to the individuals in the 'contract'. the idea of a social contract itself is not one of a document, but one of a natural law which empowers government, and empowers citizens within it, based on natural rights.

where abominations like slavery exist, the social contract is crippled. such a society is volatile rather than stable, and requires force to maintain the denial of rights to a population within it. it requires force to fend off dissenters who organize to topple injustice or restore sustainable socio-economic stasis.

again, the rights of the slaves existed before, during and after their bondage. it was the recognition of their trespass which necessitated the draconian methods of slavery. it was the recognition of violated rights in a perverse society and the dissent which it caused that brought that system down in the end.

Yeah, what he said.

 

[G.T.]

Defined by men, given and taken away by men, not timeless, and not inherent.

 

[editec]

Well...think about it logically

Rights within what context?

Did Robinson Crusie have any rights?

No?

Why not?

Because he was ALONE.

i thought you said logically.

crusoe or any lone individual isn't denied any rights. rather, he is in total possession of them.

Really?

Define what rights he had.

you present that a social paradigm constitutes our rights, but it is this paradigm which requires we relinquish rights to sovereignty of government and boundaries of other's rights.

essentially, your 'logic' is upside-down.

GIGO

YOu start out with an unproven given and from that point one can think logically and still arrive at a conclusion which makes no sense.

The given you have granted yourself, but have not proven, is that you have RIGHT which apparently you think exists in a vacum.

What RIGHT does one have at birth and where does it come from?

Show me that right and prove to me that I can not alienate you from it.

If its NOT inalienable, then it is NOT an inalienable right.

 

[antagon]

Well...think about it logically

Rights within what context?

Did Robinson Crusie have any rights?

No?

Why not?

Because he was ALONE.

Really?

Define what rights he had.

you present that a social paradigm constitutes our rights, but it is this paradigm which requires we relinquish rights to sovereignty of government and boundaries of other's rights.

essentially, your 'logic' is upside-down.

GIGO

YOu start out with an unproven given and from that point one can think logically and still arrive at a conclusion which makes no sense.

The given you have granted yourself, but have not proven, is that you have RIGHT which apparently you think exists in a vacum.

What RIGHT does one have at birth and where does it come from?

Show me that right and prove to me that I can not alienate you from it.

If its NOT inalienable, then it is NOT an inalienable right.

crusoe could take shits wherever he wished. in a civilized society, you ought to pick your dog's shit up when he lays it in a park. if you try to get down that way, you would be hauled off after fellow citizens call the law on you.

inalienable is a different argument than that of natural rights. it proposes that government defies the social contract by denying certain rights. some governments trample over these rights without apology.

my 'rights in a vacuum' concept states that there are rights whether or not advantage is taken of them, whether any party is aware of them, or whether access to them is obstructed or not. humans and some animals have a built-in awareness which reacts to violations of these whether we witness them, experience them, or are dishing the violations out in the first place. there is an economy of social capital which is transacted by way of these rights which garners favor and stability in societies which protect them. this is what social contracts are all about.

 

[JBeukema]

i contend that social contracts recognize natural rights

So some have more natural rights than others at different times throughout history?

where abominations like slavery exist, the social contract is crippled

How so? You assume there exists a singular social contract between all humanity, but history shows us that this simply isn't the case.

. such a society is volatile rather than stable, and requires force to maintain the denial of rights to a population within it.

Was Rome really much more volatile than any other society? All civilizations in history have eventually ended, but Rome lasted far longer than many.

it requires force to fend off dissenters

And do not all? Those dissenters who refuse to agree and comply with the common terms and seek to rob or kill you or me are me with force by those with whom we have conditions of mutual protection.

again, the rights of the slaves existed before, during and after their bondage.

And where did they come from, since you disagree with Epsilon about them coming from the social contract. And do all lifeforms have these same rights? Only intelligent life? Only humans? Only humans of your same race, nationality, socioeconomic class, or ideology?

 

[JBeukema]

1) Do people have rights?

2) If so, where do they come from?

Is there any non-theological argument for human rights?

Well...think about it logically

Rights within what context?

Did Robinson Crusie have any rights?

No?

Why not?

Because he was ALONE.

Hence "rights" used in this way suggest that we are talking about rights within a SOCIAL CONTEXT.

So if one has them, one ONLY has them within a society of men.

Ergo, rights exist as a result of that society granting them.

Social rights are, therefore, no more "inalienable" than the society is willing not to alienate you from them.

Do we have an inalienable right to live as we choose?

Of course not.

How many inalienable rights did Gary Gilmore have?

We have over a million prisoners in the USA.

Where is their rights to freedom of movement, freedom of association, freedom to own private property?

They don't have them, do they?

And if SOCIETY took away those rights, then doesn't it follow that rights are something that can be granted ONLY by society?

Show my any "inalienable right" you think you have, and I can show you how any idiot with a gun can take it away from you.

If it can taken away, then OBVIOUSLY it could not be inalienable.

And how do you respond to those who assert that to violate a right is not to take it away any more than to break the law is not the same as abolishing it?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

In red.

If rights come form God and they have Rights, god must exist. You axiomatically assert they have rights, which assumes the existence of your deity and the giving of rights by your deity.

Are you trying to argue that God exists because they have rights?

That is the stupidest thing I have ever hear anyone say.

It would negate the claim that the universe was created by god.

You fail o realize, of course, that I can point at the universe. You cannot point at 'rights'.

Sure I can. The fact that you are talking at all proves rights exist. If they didn't someone would have stuffed your obnoxious mouth with down a toilet and drowned you.

]Once again, you fail completely.

Only because your telepathy is failing you. Maybe you should call ET and ask him to stop by and give you another anal examination.