Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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.
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.
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.
Sure I can. The fact that you are talking at all proves rights exist.
Rights are unalienable, not inalienable.
i-ˈnāl-yə-nə-bəl, -ˈnā-lē-ə-nə-\
Rights are unalienable, not inalienable.
WordNet Search - 3.0
- S: (adj) inalienable, unalienable (incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another) "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights"
#editors-picks-promo { background: white; border: dotted 2px #D5DADE; cursor: pointer; float: right; margin: 0 0 0 5px; padding: 0; width: 174px; } #editors-picks-promo ol { list-style-type: none; margin: 0; padding: 0; } #editors-picks-promo li { clear: left; margin: 0; padding: 0; text-align: center; } * html #editors-picks-promo li { clear: left; } #editors-picks-promo li a { border: 0; color: #667DA9; font-family: arial, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-weight: bold; padding: 0; margin: 0; font-style: normal; text-decoration: none; } #editors-picks-promo li a em { color: #0E2C5D; font-family: arial, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; } #editors-picks-promo li img { display: block; margin: 0; padding: 0; } #editors-picks-promo li.see-all-lists { background: white; margin: 0; padding: 0; } #editors-picks-promo li.see-all-lists a { display: block; margin: 0; padding: 0; text-align: center; text-decoration: none; }
Main Entry: in·alien·able
Pronunciation: \(ˌ
Function: adjective
Etymology: probably from French inaliénable, from in- + aliénable alienable
Date: circa 1645
: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred <inalienable rights>
in·alien·abil·i·ty \-ˌnāl-yə-nə-ˈbi-lə-tē, -ˌnā-lē-ə-nə-\ noun
in·alien·ably \-ˈnāl-yə-nə-blē, -ˈnā-lē-ə-nə-\ adverb
Main Entry: un·alien·able
Pronunciation: \ˌən-ˈāl-yə-nə-bəl, -ˈā-lē-ə-\
Function: adjective
Date: circa 1611
: inalienable
retard
When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
Rights are unalienable, not inalienable.
WordNet Search - 3.0
- S: (adj) inalienable, unalienable (incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another) "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights"
#editors-picks-promo { background: white; border: dotted 2px #D5DADE; cursor: pointer; float: right; margin: 0 0 0 5px; padding: 0; width: 174px; } #editors-picks-promo ol { list-style-type: none; margin: 0; padding: 0; } #editors-picks-promo li { clear: left; margin: 0; padding: 0; text-align: center; } * html #editors-picks-promo li { clear: left; } #editors-picks-promo li a { border: 0; color: #667DA9; font-family: arial, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-weight: bold; padding: 0; margin: 0; font-style: normal; text-decoration: none; } #editors-picks-promo li a em { color: #0E2C5D; font-family: arial, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; } #editors-picks-promo li img { display: block; margin: 0; padding: 0; } #editors-picks-promo li.see-all-lists { background: white; margin: 0; padding: 0; } #editors-picks-promo li.see-all-lists a { display: block; margin: 0; padding: 0; text-align: center; text-decoration: none; }
Main Entry: in·alien·able
Pronunciation: \(ˌ
Function: adjective
Etymology: probably from French inaliénable, from in- + aliénable alienable
Date: circa 1645
: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred <inalienable rights>
in·alien·abil·i·ty \-ˌnāl-yə-nə-ˈbi-lə-tē, -ˌnā-lē-ə-nə-\ noun
in·alien·ably \-ˈnāl-yə-nə-blē, -ˈnā-lē-ə-nə-\ adverb
Main Entry: un·alien·able
Pronunciation: \ˌən-ˈāl-yə-nə-bəl, -ˈā-lē-ə-\
Function: adjective
Date: circa 1611
: inalienable
retard
The Declaration of Independence - TEXTWhen, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
1) Do people have rights?
2) If so, where do they come from?
Is there any non-theological argument for human rights?
I want more . I achieve more.
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.
You're an idiot.
To state that x comes form y and x exists assumes the existence of y
Actually, it simply demonstrated my ability. Using your 'reasoning', the fact that a rapes b proves a's right to do soSure I can. The fact that you are talking at all proves rights exist.
Once again, you fail completely
i contend that natural rights are a constant by definition. social contracts do indeed vary. the purpose of democracy is to facilitate the reciprocal exchange of rights between government and its constituents. as a republic, democracy facilitated the stability i speak of in rome's case. democracy can empower those inclusive in the social contract against those excluded. obviously in cases of slavery societies haven't felt the necessity to extend the contract to the slaves. nevertheless, were slaves in bondage under duress, or were they there on their free will, and pleased to be of service to their masters? because the former is the case, a volatility is created by virtue of trespass of natural rights.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.
Was Rome really much more volatile than any other society? All civilizations in history have eventually ended, but Rome lasted far longer than many.
the social contract is a promise or agreement; promises can be broken at any time. in doing so, again, there is volatility. if if this infidelity is pervasive among the constituents of government, you have anarchy - if by the government itself, you have tyranny.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?
It sounds like you are attesting that there are inherent rights. Under that guise I would ask what are those rights? Rights differ MASSIVELY depending on when and where you are. Even in present day there are huge differences in what are perceived rights from Americans and other nations particularly eastern nations. If there are inherent rights then they should be able to be identified. More importantly, I believe that the amount and scope of rights INCREASES as society becomes more mature and resources become more available at lesser cost.i contend that natural rights are a constant by definition. social contracts do indeed vary. the purpose of democracy is to facilitate the reciprocal exchange of rights between government and its constituents. as a republic, democracy facilitated the stability i speak of in rome's case. democracy can empower those inclusive in the social contract against those excluded. obviously in cases of slavery societies haven't felt the necessity to extend the contract to the slaves. nevertheless, were slaves in bondage under duress, or were they there on their free will, and pleased to be of service to their masters? because the former is the case, a volatility is created by virtue of trespass of natural rights.i contend that social contracts recognize natural rights
So some have more natural rights than others at different times throughout history?
How so? You assume there exists a singular social contract between all humanity, but history shows us that this simply isn't the case.
Was Rome really much more volatile than any other society? All civilizations in history have eventually ended, but Rome lasted far longer than many.
the social contract is a promise or agreement; promises can be broken at any time. in doing so, again, there is volatility. if if this infidelity is pervasive among the constituents of government, you have anarchy - if by the government itself, you have tyranny.
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?
these rights are constant. the subjects which interact with them and the basis of that interaction is not relevant. intelligent life seems to pick up on them in more sophisticated ways than simpler critters, but the instinctive fabrics of all social beings' cohabitation reflects this truth. evolutionary existentialists argue that these 'understandings' of natural rights were adapted into the psyche of animals which rely on a social structure for their survival.
humans understand these rights because of our intellect, but failing that, or in the case of a pack of wolves for example, the paradigm still exists: basic rights which determine volatility or stability of a social group. aren't ants and bacterial colonies subject to this law just as much as we are?
where did these rights come from? this is where your attribution to god or other comes in. if gravitation is another constant, but in the context of physics, from where did that come?
whither from cometh all ye laws of gaia?
Are you trying to argue that God exists because they have rights?
That is the stupidest thing I have ever hear anyone say.
You're an idiot.
To state that x comes form y and x exists assumes the existence of y
Actually, it simply demonstrated my ability. Using your 'reasoning', the fact that a rapes b proves a's right to do soSure I can. The fact that you are talking at all proves rights exist.
Once again, you fail completely
Keep trying.
Just because they think that rights come from God does not mean they do not have rights if God does not exist, anymore than it would mean that the universe does not exist if God does not exist.
You are speciously attempting to claim that their rights do not exist if God does not exist.
They have rights,
i contend that natural rights are a constant by definition.
social contracts do indeed vary. the purpose of democracy is to facilitate the reciprocal exchange of rights between government and its constituents
. as a republic, democracy facilitated the stability i speak of in rome's case. democracy can empower those inclusive in the social contract against those excluded. obviously in cases of slavery societies haven't felt the necessity to extend the contract to the slaves.
nevertheless, were slaves in bondage under duress, or were they there on their free will, and pleased to be of service to their masters?
the social contract is a promise or agreement; promises can be broken at any time.
in doing so, again, there is volatility. if if this infidelity is pervasive among the constituents of government, you have anarchy - if by the government itself, you have tyranny.
these rights are constant. the subjects which interact with them and the basis of that interaction is not relevant.[/quote]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?again, the rights of the slaves existed before, during and after their bondage.
intelligent life seems to pick up on them in more sophisticated ways than simpler critters, but the instinctive fabrics of all social beings' cohabitation reflects this truth. evolutionary existentialists argue that these 'understandings' of natural rights were adapted into the psyche of animals which rely on a social structure for their survival.
humans understand these rights because of our intellect, but failing that, or in the case of a pack of wolves for example, the paradigm still exists: basic rights which determine volatility or stability of a social group. aren't ants and bacterial colonies subject to this law just as much as we are?
where did these rights come from? this is where your attribution to god or other comes in. if gravitation is another constant, but in the context of physics, from where did that come?
yes, this is my position.i contend that natural rights are a constant by definition.
So there exist 'natural rights'? Rights do not come from society but re either recognized or not recognized by society? Is that pretty much your position?
What are these rights? Can you define them, test for them, demonstrate their existence?
so far you've been right about the failure. nevertheless, democracy helps to mitigate failure on the basis of my social volatility, by putting the constituents of government in the drivers seatsocial contracts do indeed vary. the purpose of democracy is to facilitate the reciprocal exchange of rights between government and its constituents
Not quite. Any system in which the government has rights is, imho, doomed to fail as it makes the government some mythical beast- an entity unto itself. That's why the Constitution grants no rights, but only powers and authority to the government. Only people are said to have rights in the Constitution and there is a very good reason for that.
the co-pilots seat, at least.well, slaves aren't in the social contract extended to the rest of the population. their contract is tyrannical. i never go as far as predicting failure or instantaneous rebellion, because tyranny, carefully crafted, can withstand my social volatility by force, disenfranchisement, misinformation, isolation, etc. that slaves were entertainment for the romans solidified the free population's support for the status quo. that slaves were a component of quality of life and economic prosperity in the US did the same.Have they? Is not the slave's acceptance of the status quo, regardless of whether he is happy with it, every bit the same implied consent the terms as any other man? Have not the slaves a social contract amongst themselves which makes it clear they are not in active combat for their freedom- a social contract which can change when the fervor of revolt runs through their veins?
Was it not their decision to accept the terms rather than to raise arms for their liberty, just as the Libertarian grudgingly accepts along with his comrades that they exist within this society? true, they could change those terms of contract into those of open violence, but would that not be exactly that: changing the terms of the contract, a social contract that they are already a part of?
yeah. an understanding is fine by me. a better word even.I'd not call it a promise so much as an understanding of the manner in which the parties involved are to behave towards eachother and their relation to one another in the social system, as well as societal ethics, codes of conduct, and the like.
Even in a tyranny, is it not true that the ruled have tacitly agreed that they are accepting-at least for the time being- of the status quo, rather than agreeing to take up arms together? You seem to make the fallacy of approaching the social contract from what you feel it ought to be when in reality it merely describes what is.
quite irrelevant to the rights, themselves. you asked if these rights extended to intelligent beings, certain ethnic groups etc., and i maintain that these are components of a social contract, and challenges to that contract's capacity to support natural rights of all of its constituents. in the US, we project these rights to pet animals now, whereas our history has shown we'd failed to extend them to black people.these rights are constant. the subjects which interact with them and the basis of that interaction is not relevant.
The subject that interact with the rights is not relevant? Could you clarify that statement, please?
certainly ants dont recognize rights as we do, but the social order which you recognize certainly has. juggle the pheromones in an ant colony, and the volatility mitigated by their evolved social order could result in the upheaval of their colony.I see no signs that ants, which rely on their own social order for survival,. recognize any such rights. Nor bees.intelligent life seems to pick up on them in more sophisticated ways than simpler critters, but the instinctive fabrics of all social beings' cohabitation reflects this truth. evolutionary existentialists argue that these 'understandings' of natural rights were adapted into the psyche of animals which rely on a social structure for their survival.
the common ethical sense within the human social paradigm? does this need to be answered? we sell lysol at stores.And since we both exist together? Does E.Coli have the same inherent rights as you do? Is it then murder* to kill such a bacterium when it has not harmed you, merely because its existence is not to your liking?humans understand these rights because of our intellect, but failing that, or in the case of a pack of wolves for example, the paradigm still exists: basic rights which determine volatility or stability of a social group. aren't ants and bacterial colonies subject to this law just as much as we are?
*in the common ethical sense, rather than the legal
where did these rights come from? this is where your attribution to god or other comes in. if gravitation is another constant, but in the context of physics, from where did that come?
So you assert that natural rights are on the same order as the basic forces? What particle carries these rights? Can you show me natural rights as I can show you the effects of gravitation? Can you capture a Right as I can capture a quark or an electron? Can these rights be detected and organized as the three generations of fermions? Tested for like a graviton, captured and converted like a photon?
Perhaps they are conveyed by the Higgs Boson?
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.
Rights are unalienable, not inalienable. Unalienable means I cannot give them away, sell them, or otherwise transfer them to others. There is no way you can take them from me because I cannot give them up.
un·al·ien·a·ble (n-
l
y
-n
-bl, -l-
-)
adj. Not to be separated, given away, or taken away; inalienable:
defined: the infinite faces of absolute freedom.
defined within a social contract of a functioning society
: those freedoms to the extent which they do not infringe on other's freedoms
, optionally: and to the extent they serve the order and function of society.
rights are concepts, thus they are abstract.
can one demonstrate the existence of good and evil?
so far you've been right about the failure. nevertheless, democracy helps to mitigate failure on the basis of my social volatility, by putting the constituents of government in the drivers seat
the distinction you've made about the rights of government in the constitution is semantic, isn't it?
if i go to your philosophy bookshop, you can charge me for books and coffee, but if i don't pay, you can't justifiably lock me away in your own private dungeon. if you come to this country, however, sell a bunch of philosophy books and don't pay taxes from the sales, justifiably, the government could lock you away in their dungeon.
well, slaves aren't in the social contract extended to the rest of the population
their contract is tyrannical
i feel a social contract ought to support the natural rights of the constituents an i'd roughly defined above
quite irrelevant to the rights, themselves. you asked if these rights extended to intelligent beings, certain ethnic groups etc., and i maintain that these are components of a social contract,
the rights remain the same irrespective to the contract.
certainly ants dont recognize rights as we do, but the social order which you recognize certainly has. juggle the pheromones in an ant colony, and the volatility mitigated by their evolved social order could result in the upheaval of their colony.
the common ethical sense within the human social paradigm? does this need to be answered? we sell lysol at stores.
the rights are independent from the contract.
the force which transfers good will in the 'you scratch my back, i'll scratch yours' axiom is deeper and more mysterious as to its source than gravity or electromagnetism
You fail again.
If the universe exists whether god exists or not, that means the assertion that the universe comes from god is false. Same with rights.
They can't have it both ways.
That is the case if rights come from god as they insist. If rights exist regardless of whether god exists, then the claim that rights come from god is false and they must try again.
It's not that complicated and if you can't grasp it you need to go back to remedial learning and master elementary logic.
demonstrate
Sure I can. I can take away your every right.
I can kill you as but one dramatic example of how that is done.
You might have a right UNDER THE LAW, QW
You might even have a right that GOD granted you.
But you do not have any right that cannot be taken away from you by any chowderhead with a gun and the will to use it.
Incidently...the distinction you're making between Unalienable and INalienable is wrong, I think/
UNALIENABLEun·al·ien·a·ble (n-ly-n-bl, -l--)
adj. Not to be separated, given away, or taken away; inalienable:
Pronunciation (US):
Dictionary entry overview: What does unalienable mean?
UNALIENABLE(adjective)
The adjective UNALIENABLE has 1 sense:
1. incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another
Familiarity information: UNALIENABLE used as an adjective is very rare.
Dictionary entry details
UNALIENABLE (adjective)
Sense 1unalienable [BACK TO TOP]
Meaning:
Incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another
Synonyms:
inalienable; unalienable
Context example:
endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights
Similar:
absolute; infrangible; inviolable (not capable of being violated or infringed)
non-negotiable (cannot be bought or sold)
nontransferable; unassignable; untransferable (incapable of being transferred)
Also:
intrinsic; intrinsical (belonging to a thing by its very nature)
demonstrateRights exist, they have them
Yet you are trying to claim that rights do not exist, and that this prove God does not exist
. The burden of proof in this argument lies on you
That is the case if rights come from god as they insist. If rights exist regardless of whether god exists, then the claim that rights come from god is false and they must try again.
It's not that complicated and if you can't grasp it you need to go back to remedial learning and master elementary logic.
Until you prove that God does not exist
demonstrate
