Do Natural Rights Actually Exist?

[LeroyDumonde]

Isn't Life Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness natural law?

~S~

If people have an inalienable right to life then we must all be immortal, otherwise that right to life seems to be pretty inalienable.

 

[zaangalewa]

... Will nature punish if natural laws are ignored? ..

Better to say: Will human beings be punished if they ignore the natural laws of the nature? Sure they will. We call this "learning from the consequences". But there are exceptions. Take a bath in aqua regia ("king water") and you will not learn from this consequence. The question not is "king or no king?".

„Mitleid mit den Tieren hängt mit der Güte des Charakters so genau zusammen, dass man zuversichtlich behaupten darf, wer gegen Tiere grausam ist, könne kein guter Mensch sein.“
Arthur Schopenhauer
"Compassion for animals is so closely related to goodness of character that one can confidently claim that anyone who is cruel to animals cannot be a good person."

 

[zaangalewa]

If people have an inalienable right to life then we must all be immortal, otherwise that right to life seems to be pretty inalienable.

First law in Germany: Human dignity is untouchable. Respecting and protecting it is the duty of every state authority.

Background of this law is the idea that within every human being exists a god given (=natural) human dignity which no one is able to touch. Nevertheless this basic idea had been ignored from the Nazis. That's why this "untouchable dignity" needs to be protected. We like to make it visible that every human being owns dignity.

The way how you use the word "unalienable" is similiar. Another word for "unalienable" or "untouchable" could perhaps be "essential".

Your view onto the problem 'natural right "to live"' causes by the way a heavy problem meanwhile. Unborn human beings have in the eyes of many people today no natural right to live any longer. But in this case no unalienable human right at all is valid any longer. A human right "abortion" kills not only human beings - it also kills all other natural human rights by ignorance.

Concrete example: the natural consequence of abortion in the USA means the average life span in the USA sinks because of abortion from 80 years down to 60 years (=natural consequence). An unbelievable high loss of lifetime. So if "abortion" would be caused from a virus we would have major alarms all over the world. Solution of this problem? "We" ignore it and somehow "we" try to make even laws - in Europe for example - which try to force everyone to ignore this problem by saying "who criticizes abortions defames women" - what's blatant nonsense. With every abortion dies a human being and this human being is the child of a hopeless future mother who has to agree that her baby will be killed. This hopelessness - perhaps we have also to say "this slavery of death" - is the real problem. Why creates our world such an unbelievable mass of hopeless future mothers? What's going on? But who likes really to ask - who likes to do real research?













.

 

[Dante]

Isn't Life Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness natural law?

~S~

Some people claim that to be so. But they offer what proof? It is opinion.

 

[Dante]

Better to say: Will human beings be punished if they ignore the natural laws of the nature? Sure they will.

Look up "punished"

 

[Dante]

First law in Germany: Human dignity is untouchable. Respecting and protecting it is the duty of every state authority.

Background of this law is the idea that within every human being exists a god given (=natural) human dignity which no one is able to touch. Nevertheless this basic idea had been ignored from the Nazis. That's why this "untouchable dignity" needs to be protected. We like to make it visible that every human being owns dignity.

The way how you use the word "unalienable" is similiar. Another word for "unalienable" or "untouchable" could perhaps be "essential".

Your view onto the problem 'natural right "to live"' causes by the way a heavy problem meanwhile. Unborn human beings have in the eyes of many people today no natural right to live any longer. But in this case no unalienable human right at all is valid any longer. A human right "abortion" kills not only human beings - it also kills all other natural human rights by ignorance.

Concrete example: the natural consequence of abortion in the USA means the average life span in the USA sinks because of abortion from 80 years down to 60 years (=natural consequence). An unbelievable high loss of lifetime. So if "abortion" would be caused from a virus we would have major alarms all over the world. Solution of this problem? "We" ignore it and somehow "we" try to make even laws - in Europe for example - which try to force everyone to ignore this problem by saying "who criticizes abortions defames women" - what's blatant nonsense. With every abortion dies a human being and this human being is the child of a hopeless future mother who has to agree that her baby will be killed. This hopelessness - perhaps we have also to say "this slavery of death" - is the real problem. Why creates our world such an unbelievable mass of hopeless future mothers? What's going on? But who likes really to ask - who likes to do real research?

So a state, states there is a duty? Sounds pretty man-made to me.

 

[zaangalewa]

Look up "punished"

Wrong word? ... One moment ... "punished"="bestraft, gestraft"... hmm ... What did I like to say ... Hmm ... I said what I liked to say ... What did you not understand? ... Nature is not punishing. Nature is nature. A tiger who hunts and eats you likes not to pubsih you. You are just simple a steak for him.

 

[Dante]

Wrong word? ... One moment ... "punished"="bestraft, gestraft"... hmm ... What did I like to say ... Hmm ... I said what I liked to say ... What did you not understand? ... Nature is not punishing. Nature is nature. A tiger who hunts and eats you likes not to pubsih you. You are just simple a steak for him.

Your poor usage of "punished" deserves to be punished.

 

[zaangalewa]

So a state, states their is a duty?

Eh? ... I do not understand what you like to say here with this statement. In my own words: "Life is holy". I have not any idea what you like to say with the word "duty" in this context. Without life you will be unbelievable alone.

Sounds pretty man-made to me.

What's exactly the problem. No freedom, no dignity, no equal rights, no right to live and so on and so on. Everything of this rights is only man made for you. The declaration of independence of the USA only a myth. Do you celebrate this day - or is it only a day like all others for you? Means "enlightenment" or "rationality" anything for you? Everyhting only man made? But how did we make the universe? How do we create "the world"? How do you create my world for example, although you do not speak my language and nothing here in my own world follows your will?

It's for me on my own for example totally unimportant whether you agree or disagree with any of my thoughts. What I like to hear from you is a thought which could be true. That's the moment I will start to try to think about a concept from you - independnet how many people agree or disagree with this concept. In the moment I see only the concept "nihilism" behind your thoughts. And with this concept I'm not able to do anything. It justifies everything and nothing.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal" - what means this sentence for you? Nothing? Are we equal? Are we not equal? How long are we able to speak now about this two questions? What will change such a discussion with whatever hypothetic result in the end?

 

[Dante]

Eh?



What's exactly the problem. No freedom, no dignity, no equal rights, no right to live and so on and son on .. Everything of this rotghs ios oyl man made for you. The declaration of independence of the USA only a myth. Do you celebrate this day - or is it only a day like all others for you?

If you couldn't figure out a type:

So a state, states there is a duty? Sounds pretty man-made to me.

You're a bit confused here. One can believe in concepts and even myths and remain intelligent as long as one does not take all things literally. The declaration of indie, is usually misread. The first 55 words are like an intro .. later comes the lists of grievances that the committee that decided what would be in the actual document, actually argued and debated over.

 

[zaangalewa]

Your poor usage of "punished" deserves to be punished.

Summary: You are an arrogant asshole - and you like to become a superarrogant superasshole! Are punishing you this words?

 

[zaangalewa]

If you couldn't figure out a type:

So a state, states there is a duty? Sounds pretty man-made to me.

You're a bit confused here. One can believe in concepts and even myths and remain intelligent as long as one does not take all things literally. The declaration of indie, is usually misread. The first 55 words are like an intro .. later comes the lists of grievances that the committee that decided what would be in the actual document, actually argued and debated over.

I guess it makes no sense to try to speak with each other. You are far from anything what could touch me.

 

[sparky]

Some people claim that to be so. But they offer what proof? It is opinion.

It's a question Crusty

the onus of proof would be in those answering up

~S~

 

[Dante]

Summary: You are an arrogant asshole - and you like to become a superarrogant superasshole! Are punishing you this words?

Loser

 

[sparky]

What's exactly the problem. No freedom, no dignity, no equal rights, no right to live and so on and so on. Everything of this rights is only man made for you.

when the guy down the street looses his freedoms, so do the rest of us Zaang

one might say it's a collectivist concept , others might claim it democracy

~S~

 

[zaangalewa]

Loser

That's what I "hate" in discussions with fake-modern people who have not an traditional ideas from where their moderness comes from into their murderness. You have not any concrete idea what you try to speak about - and afterwords (=after your words) , when you wil have won yourselve to death, you have to live with the results of your daily wars.

Undear English speaking "enemy" mine: You will win less than nothing when you prefer to support all forms of blindness in context of the so called "natural laws". You do just simple do an extendend suicide with all mankind who believes in you, that's it. That's not my problem. Another species will overtake your role in some hundred million years when all mankind will be forgotten, "winner". This is an inevitable consequence if every "human" idiot will start to think he is like a "human" - allknowing and allmighty. To be a child of god - a human being - not means to be god.

 

[Dante]

That's what I "hate" in discussions with fake-modern people who have not an traditional ideas from where their moderness comes from into their murderness. You have not any concrete idea what you try to speak about - and afterwords (=after your words) , when you wil have won yourselve to death, you have to live with the results of your daily wars.

Undear English speaking "enemy" mine: You will win less than nothing when you prefer to support all forms of blindness in context of the so called "natural laws". You do just sikmepoe an extendend suicide with all mankind who believes in you, that's it. That's not my problem. Another species will overtake your role in some hundred million years when all mankind will be forgotten, "winner".

You: Mistaking myths and metaphors for what they are not.

If you think I give two craps what will happen to our species hundreds of millions of years from now... you are retarded. When will the Sun end? Will we even be around for it's ending? The Denial of Death is fascinating.


btw, "The Denial of Death is a 1973 book by American cultural anthropologist Ernest Becker which discusses the psychological and philosophical implications of how people and cultures have reacted to the concept of death. The author argues most human action is taken to ignore or avoid the inevitability of death."

The Denial of Death - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[zaangalewa]

Procrustes Stretched

I guess it makes no sense to ask you why you are happy and laugh now.

 

[Dante]

@Procrustes

I guess it makes no sense to ask you why you are happy and laugh now.

I am happy and laugh often. I even laugh at most tragedy. Life can be a joke.

You're just not very bright.

 

[dblack]

Do Natural Rights Actually Exist? If they do not then it's all intellectual bs. If they do, what are they? Can and do people who believe natural rights actually exist, agree on them -- what they are and are not?

I often see things similar to this Wikipedia entry:
Natural rights are those that are not dependent on the laws or customs of any particular culture or government, and so are universal, fundamental and inalienable (they cannot be repealed by human laws, though one can forfeit their enjoyment through one's actions, such as by violating someone else's rights).

Do natural rights trump laws? If so...

Natural rights, inalienable rights, etc - are merely a recognition of human capacity for volition. All of them originate from the right to think, and act, for yourself. Which is "endowed by the creator", or otherwise innate to the human mind. It's just a feature of human intelligence. Governments can choose to either honor these rights, or violate them. But they can't take them away. Short of killing or imprisoning someone, every human will have the capacity to think for themselves.