If rights, whither from?

[FA_Q2]

Hit the nail on the head here editc

 

[Intense]

8th amendment

Prisoners' Rights | American Civil Liberties Union

On paper, yes. The same source that is supposed to protect innocent life, but too often comes up short, even if by no fault of it's own.

You are wrong. just admit it. You assert that I have no rights, but the Law disagrees.

I would never assert that you have no rights. I do argue that there are those that would and do obstruct those rights. I would argue that there are people in positions of power that choose to selectively and arbitrarily enforce what they will, sometimes at the expense of truth and justice. That is why my position is that no controlling authority should be all powerful. You see bad in certain systems, certain ideologies, I see human nature contributing to abuse in all systems. We need oversight, transparency, accountability, because of our nature. Our Federalist Republic was designed with this in mind, from the top down, with this in mind. Arbitrary law is an offense to true justice. Impartiality is too often corrupted by the powers that be.

 

[Intense]

•RELATION OF THE QUESTION TO DIFFERENT BRANCHES OF PHILOSOPHY
•HISTORY
◦Free Will in Ancient Philosophy
◦Free Will and the Christian Religion
■Catholic Doctrine
■Thomist and Molinist Theories
■Free will and the Protestant Reformers
◦Free Will in Modern Philosophy
•THE ARGUMENT
◦Proof
◦Objections
•NATURE AND RANGE OF MORAL LIBERTY
•CONSEQUENCES
The question of free will, moral liberty, or the liberum arbitrium of the Schoolmen, ranks amongst the three or four most important philosophical problems of all time. It ramifies into ethics, theology, metaphysics, and psychology. The view adopted in response to it will determine a man's position in regard to the most momentous issues that present themselves to the human mind. On the one hand, does man possess genuine moral freedom, power of real choice, true ability to determine the course of his thoughts and volitions, to decide which motives shall prevail within his mind, to modify and mould his own character? Or, on the other, are man's thoughts and volitions, his character and external actions, all merely the inevitable outcome of his circumstances? Are they all inexorably predetermined in every detail along rigid lines by events of the past, over which he himself has had no sort of control? This is the real import of the free-will problem.

Relation of the question to different branches of philosophy
(1) Ethically, the issue vitally affects the meaning of most of our fundamental moral terms and ideas. Responsibility, merit, duty, remorse, justice, and the like, will have a totally different significance for one who believes that all man's acts are in the last resort completely determined by agencies beyond his power, from that which these terms bear for the man who believes that each human being possessed of reason can by his own free will determine his deliberate volitions and so exercise a real command over his thoughts, his deeds, and the formation of his character.

(2) Theology studies the questions of the existence, nature and attributes of God, and His relations with man. The reconciliation of God's fore-knowledge and universal providential government of the world with the contingency of human action, as well as the harmonizing of the efficacy of supernatural grace with the free natural power of the creature, has been amongst the most arduous labours of the theological student from the days of St. Augustine down to the present time.

(3) Causality, change, movement, the beginning of existence, are notions which lie at the very heart of metaphysics. The conception of the human will as a free cause involves them all.

(4) Again, the analysis of voluntary action and the investigation of its peculiar features are the special functions of Psychology. Indeed, the nature of the process of volition and of all forms of appetitive or conative activity is a topic that has absorbed a constantly increasing space in psychological literature during the past fifty years.

(5) Finally, the rapid growth of sundry branches of modern science, such as physics, biology, sociology, and the systematization of moral statistics, has made the doctrine of free will a topic of the most keen interest in many departments of more positive knowledge.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Free Will

 

[Intense]

variety of choice draws sufficient contrast to stand as evidence that rights exist outside a social contract

So by that definition you believe that all sentient creatures have unalienable rights?

Interesting definition of the term

Which means this whole debate is about semantics, not about rights.

What is Sin in relation to neglect or abuse, regardless of social contract???

Not all sin may be recognized by social contract or law. That is a matter of perspective, awareness, yet it does not transform a wrong into a right. There are laws that govern creation, whether we are aware of them or not. Convincing a majority to decree otherwise does not change what is.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The Law proves only that social rights exist. TBoR does nothing to bolster your assertion that natural rights exist.

Show me where I ever made a distinction.

Fail.

It's the entire discussion.

Only if I accept your assertion that proving the origin of something is the only way to prove it exists. As rights exist, even if you only want to define them as social rights, their origin is irrelevant. If we were required to prove the origin of the universe before we could accept it's existence then we would be in big trouble, as no one has yet done that, at least not by your standards.

So now you not only keep insisting natural rights exist, but now that repetition proves your god exists?

No, I insist rights exist. You are the one that is trying to introduce the concept of natural rights into the discussion, not me. I am just pointing out that your logic leads to the inevitable conclusion that God exists.

 

[antagon]

What are you babbling about? We're talking whether a word has meaning, a definition - that is whether 'psnvoidnvolsnv' has any meaning whatsoever until it is properly defined and whether a concept such as 'the presence of photons' has any meaning unless it is defined in such a manner that allows it to be distinguished from something that is not itself- eg the absence of photons.

It's that simple. Stop trying to make it needlessly complicated and twist my words around.

son, by arguing the meaning of a word you are dabbling in semantics, and that is for dummies. i have pointed that out several times, several ways, but you persist. this discussion is digressing. furthermore, 'a meaning' and 'meaning' are to very different concepts which you interchange as if the same. again, the entire argument about definition and meaning is entirely beside the point; it have no bearing as to whether or not rights as i have defined them exist.

can you redress an argument, or is a semantic approach the best you can muster? i could just as easily say that 'freedom' has no meaning in fukienese.

 

[JBeukema]

On paper, yes. The same source that is supposed to protect innocent life, but too often comes up short, even if by no fault of it's own.

You are wrong. just admit it. You assert that I have no rights, but the Law disagrees.

I would never assert that you have no rights.

Yet, you did.

The dead have no rights, sport.

Neither do convicted felons.

So, clearly, when you insist you would never do something you just did, you are lying. That, by definition, makes you a liar. How, then, you you expect to be taken seriously or respected from this point on, since you are known liar?

You are dismissed, liar.

 

[JBeukema]

the inevitable conclusion that God exists.

Not only can you not keep track of the discussion and your own assertions, now you think that the social contract proves your god exists

 

[JBeukema]

What are you babbling about? We're talking whether a word has meaning, a definition - that is whether 'psnvoidnvolsnv' has any meaning whatsoever until it is properly defined and whether a concept such as 'the presence of photons' has any meaning unless it is defined in such a manner that allows it to be distinguished from something that is not itself- eg the absence of photons.

It's that simple. Stop trying to make it needlessly complicated and twist my words around.

son, by arguing the meaning of a word you are dabbling in semantics, and that is for dummies.

Semantics can be very important, such as in this very discussion, when you insist that natural rights exist yet repeatedly prove that the only rights are social or positive rights. It's like I, a moderate social democrat advocating a decentralized system, confront the democratic socialists and communists on this and other forums when they go on about how much they love Stalin and things will be different next time. Words have meanings; if they they didn't, written language and speech would be impossible. When two words or terms have two different meanings, referring to different concepts or things, such as natural- versus positive/social rights or liberalism and progressivism, the difference between the two can be a very important distinction. Indeed that distinction is the heart of this very subject: you insist natural rights exist but can only demonstrate that positive/social rights exist. They are two different things.

i have pointed that out several times, several ways, but you persist. this discussion is digressing. furthermore, 'a meaning' and 'meaning' are to very different concepts which you interchange as if the same. again, the entire argument about definition and meaning is entirely beside the point; it have no bearing as to whether or not rights as i have defined them exist.

They do not. You have shown that the only logical concluding is that they do not, as you have now taken eight pages to present zero evidence supporting your claims of the existence of a thing
and have instead repeatedly presented compelling evidence only of the existence of a wholly different thing. You have totally failed to support your assertions but have argued well the opposing view. The two are not mutually exclusive, but you present evidence for one and can present no evidence for the other. Hence, your 'natural rights' rest beside the celestial teapot and the pixies in the garden.

Now, unless you intend to present some actual evidence that x ('natural rights') exists, just stop wasting everyone's time.

 

[antagon]

variety of choice draws sufficient contrast to stand as evidence that rights exist outside a social contract

So by that definition you believe that all sentient creatures have unalienable rights?

Interesting definition of the term

Which means this whole debate is about semantics, not about rights.

for starters, in our brief and open-ended crusoe discussion, i cautioned your slackness with terms:

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.

i do believe that all creatures possess these natural rights. in social contracts in many developed nations, we endow domesticated animals with legal rights, recognizing these natural rights to make choices, to be free. the social contract is what draws a line as to what rights are forfeit to what parties, to what extent, and under what conditions.

while the rights themselves remain intact - constant - a social contract associates consequences and creates barriers to action outside their agreed use. one of these barriers to the social contract is the concept of inalienable rights. not all contracts recognize these rights at all. not all barriers are sufficient to protect their infringement within contacts in which they are recognized.

semantic argument can be avoided by putting forth definitions and distinctions as i have between natural rights and inalienable rights. or these natural rights and the context of social contracts. failing a substantive argument, Beukema seems to have seized a semantic argument in the discussion which you quoted, ironically.

 

[editec]

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.

If rights are individual, they are created within one's own being. That means that everyone has whatever rights they feel are right for them. (whose morals are right?)

True

If rights are societal, then a society can determine what rights who has, and there can be no vote, or choice on the part of the individual because if there has to be a vote, or people have a right to determine what their rights are then it is not societal. (Can a society have moral correctness?)

Also true

If rights are detemined universally then societies that don't agree with the universal list of rights don't have any rights, and individuals have no rights, and some universal power determines what rights people have. (Is there a universal moral code?)

Not really

If the Constitution is correct, our rights come from the Creator. Is it possible that the Creator might have the absolute moral standards?)

The Founding Fathers didn't believe that God defended yourt rights, ergo, them calling them unalienable was nothing but hyperbole. I wish list of how they thought we ought to ACT, not how the world really is.

If we had unalienable rights, we would not need government, and none of us would own guns, lock our doors, or worry about anyone taking AWAY our rights.

Jesus! how hard is this really for some of you people to get? Rights either mean something tanglible or they're political hyperbole

UNALIENABLE rights is something we'd like to have, not something we have in reality, and therefore the FF's created a goverment to help us keep those rights.\


You have to be brain dead to think you have rights any idiot with a gun and the will to kill you cannot ALIENATE from you.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

the inevitable conclusion that God exists.

Not only can you not keep track of the discussion and your own assertions, now you think that the social contract proves your god exists

Show me where I ever asserted that God exists as the basis of any of my arguments.

 

[antagon]

What are you babbling about? We're talking whether a word has meaning, a definition - that is whether 'psnvoidnvolsnv' has any meaning whatsoever until it is properly defined and whether a concept such as 'the presence of photons' has any meaning unless it is defined in such a manner that allows it to be distinguished from something that is not itself- eg the absence of photons.

It's that simple. Stop trying to make it needlessly complicated and twist my words around.

son, by arguing the meaning of a word you are dabbling in semantics, and that is for dummies.

Semantics can be very important,

and very annoying.

such as in this very discussion, when you insist that natural rights exist yet repeatedly prove that the only rights are social or positive rights.

i have a suspicion that you are attempting to project your argument above on to me, however, you've never floated a single argument yourself, so its hard to say. together with your 'there's no evidence', which you have borrowed from retiredgysargeant's evolution hackery, you've repeatedly asserted that i have supported the argument above, now quote how so.

It's like I, a moderate social democrat advocating a decentralized system, confront the democratic socialists and communists on this and other forums when they go on about how much they love Stalin and things will be different next time.

can i borrow your 'what are you babbling about?' for a moment?

Now, unless you intend to present some actual evidence that x ('natural rights') exists, just stop wasting everyone's time.

what about total self-determination fails to vindicate the existence of natural rights before a social contract is agreed to constrain them? whose wasting time? you cant get out of the starting blocks, kid.

ps. it's noted that you dropped the inane 'meaning' semantics to your credit.

 

[JBeukema]

i do believe that all creatures possess these natural rights.

That's nice.


Evidence?

 

[antagon]

i do believe that all creatures possess these natural rights.

That's nice.


Evidence?

must i keep referring back to shitting? this most natural process is a superb demo of exercising rights under a presumption of freedom. outside a social context, in a metaphysical vacuum even, this act - like any other where a party determines its own action - is made of free choice and free will. such decision making is a right which is taken advantage of at the point an action is taken. the subject... a critter... is exercising a right, the verb... shitting.

now, because this has been a point of confusion, i have to warn you that i am going to show this right in a context other than this vacuum. there should be no deficit in comprehension on your part which might avail you the conclusion that i have ever claimed rights exist only in a social context, hereby. this is because, as i have defined them several times earlier, they predate context; rights are constant. lemme draw a line so that you can understand that the exercise above is distinguished from what is to follow:
------------------------------------------

ok.

now, within the context of a social contract, this right to shit at will is curtailed: for humans, we have almost universally decided that shitting is one of those acts which should be done in designated areas. for dogs, which we grant many protections of rights in such social contracts as the US, the obligation to keep shit away from everyone else falls on the owners often times. recognizing their social contract, a trained (contracted) dog may scratch at the door as to shit in his designated spot outside, whereas the critter above the dotted line - one outside the social contract - would make no compromise to its right to shit at will.

------------------------------------------

the line above separates another paraphrasing of my contentions regarding natural rights and natural rights in the context of a social contract from my latest paraphrasing of the argument dissenting the fallacy i think you cling to.

presuming that you hold that social contracts actually offer the rights, and simply fear arguing the point, i'll rebut that claim.

i contend that because of the impact which social contracts have on shitting, that they serve to curtail, obstruct and eliminate the use of rights which existed outside their influence, and were unobstructed in such a contractual vacuum.

 

[JBeukema]

i do believe that all creatures possess these natural rights.

That's nice.


Evidence?

must i keep referring back to shitting? this most natural process is a superb demo of exercising rights under a presumption of freedom.

Actually, our performing an action merely demonstrates our ability to do so. Society recognizes no right to break into a woman's house, raper her, and stab her to death, but Ricardo Ramirez did so anyway. Ability does not equal 'right', social or otherwise.


Now, you insist a thing exists. Where is your evidence?

outside a social context, in a metaphysical vacuum even, this act - like any other where a party determines its own action - is made of free choice and free will

The ability to make a decision or perform an action merely demonstrates that ability.


Now, you insist that something exists. Where is your evidence? like all metaphysical assertions, yours is totally baseless and you have only your own assertions and ignorant self-assuredness.

Now, where is your evidence?

. such decision making is a right

Demonstrate.

which is taken advantage of at the point an action is taken.

Again, ability =/= metaphysical 'right'

Now, where is your evidence?

the subject... a critter... is exercising a right, the verb... shitting.

Actually, it's performing an action: to shit. You keep trying to inject meaningless and baseless metaphysical bullshit and doing everything in your power to avoid addressing the simple fact that you have zero evidence to support your assertion that 'natural rights' exist.

Now, you assert that a thing exists. What evidence do you have? Show me the experiment by which these 'natural rights' can be detected. Show me the mathematical formula that demonstrates that these 'natural rights' must exist and what their properties must be. What is there composition and how do they interact with other things?

Where is your evidence?

i have ever claimed rights exist only in a social context, hereby. this is because

No, that's what you've shown time and again.

, as i have defined them several times earlier, they predate context; rights are constant.

Demonstrate.

now, within the context of a social contract, this right to shit at will is curtailed: for humans, we have almost universally decided that shitting is one of those acts which should be done in designated areas.

Show me that these natural rights exist at all.

Rather, limits are placed on men's liberties and he is denied the freedom to do certain things and granted freedom in society to do other things.

 

[xotoxi]

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

God gives us the Right to Bear Arms, but does not give us the Right to Food?

 

[Sky Dancer]

Rights schmights.

 

[antagon]

That's nice.


Evidence?

must i keep referring back to shitting? this most natural process is a superb demo of exercising rights under a presumption of freedom.

Actually, our performing an action merely demonstrates our ability to do so. Society recognizes no right to break into a woman's house, raper her, and stab her to death, but Ricardo Ramirez did so anyway. Ability does not equal 'right', social or otherwise.

you're thinking like a four year old. does your definition of rights involve a barrier to actions not enumerated among them? that is a joke, indeed, and a product of your not having considered what rights are at all - as i have defined them - t. hobbes, j. locke - anyone older than 7, i'd say. this is what is implied when you claim that richard ramirez didn't have a natural right to rape, however, i strongly doubt by now that you would ever lay a considered argument to reveal that this implication is core to your understanding. that you ostensibly hold no opinion on the matter before reading mine precludes your consideration of your fresh opinion's implications or validity - like children's conclusions about life. so far, i've had to dispatch these passive, juvenile assertions with logic which better accounts for rights and their implications to a social contract. i continue:

actions for creatures capable of self-determination of those actions, constitute a seizure of advantage of a natural right. any choice, regardless of ability, which arises in action does equal an exercise of a natural right... it can be taken as evidence of such rights... your recognition of 'ability' is irrelevant to the issue of rights, and is more a matter of metaphysics. a human who might care to take advantage of a right to fly, might in fact only take advantage of a right to jump from a cliff and flap his cardboard wings. thusly, ability is entirely outside the consideration of whether natural rights exist. in turn, r ramirez' actions are evidence of a seizure of a natural right to self determination - even to rape and murder. while these actions have consequences outside a social contract, within our social contract, the consequences and response of contract enforcement is more robust, as you could glean from ramirez' fate.

you've got a long way to go in terms of understanding what a rights might mean if you could acknowledge them in the first place. there's been further and further digression in your logic at every post.

i suggest starting with digesting some philosophy on the matter. in the least, i welcome you to digest my own, but that would require a more sophisticated consideration than quoting a line, making a lame conjecture, and moving on to quote and assert without taking in a complete concept... another indication of intellectual pubescence.

 

[editec]

i do believe that all creatures possess these natural rights.

That's nice.


Evidence?

Animals (human included) have whatever facilities (which I suppose we could mangle the meaning of into meaning "rights ") that they are naturally endowed with UNTIL events take them away.

As to this having anything whatever to do with the unalienable rights that the founding fathers were talking about?

Not a bit.

No founding father was dumb enough to think that they had even a single "right" that wasn't coming from a social contract. If they thought that, they would not have bothered to form a giovernment to begin with

But the literalists (read: people trying to read doocuments that are way beyond their ability to truly understand) think these words can be interpreted LITERALLY.

How one can imagine THAT, I surely don't know.

How can one truly believe that the FF believed that all men were created equal when many of them owned SLAVES?

How could the FF believe that people are born with unalienable rights, when many of them completely ALIENATED the rights of other men by OWNING them?

Now the FF weren't stupid, and they certainly didn't think that their political hyperbole was meant to be taken literally.

Their noble documents were targets at best.

For surely, if a people's reach cannot exceed their grasp then what's a CONSTITUTION for?​