Quantum Windbag
Gold Member
- May 9, 2010
- 58,308
- 5,103
- 245
Which is such a rare event that it deserves special notice.
Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ?
- Thread starter Listening
- Start date
Quantum Windbag
Gold Member
- May 9, 2010
- 58,308
- 5,103
- 245
Cognito ergo sum.
Damn, it seems that the logical argument and deductive reasoning behind natural rights actually predates the people you claim invented the concept.
Quantum Windbag
Gold Member
- May 9, 2010
- 58,308
- 5,103
- 245
No, the problem is you are missing the entire concept of what unalienable rights are. Unalienable means they cannot be taken or transferred. All you have to do to prove that these rights are not unalienable is provide examples of any person or agent taking these rights and granting them to another person. If you are correct, and they don't actually exist, prove it.
Quantum Windbag
Gold Member
- May 9, 2010
- 58,308
- 5,103
- 245
Because you cannot give it to anyone else.
End of argument, or are you going to insist that unalienable doesn't mean "incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred?"
Quantum Windbag
Gold Member
- May 9, 2010
- 58,308
- 5,103
- 245
We haven't gone anywhere, we have always been talking about free will. I made that argument really early in the thread, and it was dismissed by you, and others.
Quantum Windbag
Gold Member
- May 9, 2010
- 58,308
- 5,103
- 245
Then you should have no problem addressing the actual arguments in this thread instead of trying to prove you are smart by linking to another thread.
Nope.
emilynghiem
Constitutionalist / Universalist
No, these two are not related in that way, I agree, and that is NOT my point.
My point is that the SAME principles that others express in terms of "natural rights"
CAN be explained in other terms that are relevant to you. That is what I mean
by being universal to all people.
If you believe in instinct, it can be explained in those terms.
If not, what terms do you use for human behavior patterns.
No, we DON'T have to believe in or prove terms of moral or rights
to AGREE on basic patterns or rules of human behavior.
Do you believe there are rules or laws of psychology that govern human behavior?
Those can be used to describe the same "mechanism".
It's the PRINCIPLES or CONCEPTS that are universal.
Of course we are not all going to agree how to express them
because every person I know sees it differently!
I will make a separate thread to list different applications or examples
of these patterns of behavior, and ask other people also.
We may never be able to prove, and don't have to agree,
if these are internal or external, self-existent or man-made.
As long as we find terms and rules WE AGREE describe what we believe is
effective and constructive to follow in society, that is what is important in practice.
What are the principles we agree on?
None of the theory is as important as agreeing how to operate in real life.
Regarding universal laws: I believe all people's views or systems can "align" because the core concepts are UNIVERSAL even where our perceptions or terms are diverse, relative and unique to each person. We still follow the same basic patterns because we're human.
My point is that the SAME principles that others express in terms of "natural rights"
CAN be explained in other terms that are relevant to you. That is what I mean
by being universal to all people.
If you believe in instinct, it can be explained in those terms.
If not, what terms do you use for human behavior patterns.
No, we DON'T have to believe in or prove terms of moral or rights
to AGREE on basic patterns or rules of human behavior.
Do you believe there are rules or laws of psychology that govern human behavior?
Those can be used to describe the same "mechanism".
It's the PRINCIPLES or CONCEPTS that are universal.
Of course we are not all going to agree how to express them
because every person I know sees it differently!
I will make a separate thread to list different applications or examples
of these patterns of behavior, and ask other people also.
We may never be able to prove, and don't have to agree,
if these are internal or external, self-existent or man-made.
As long as we find terms and rules WE AGREE describe what we believe is
effective and constructive to follow in society, that is what is important in practice.
What are the principles we agree on?
None of the theory is as important as agreeing how to operate in real life.
Regarding universal laws: I believe all people's views or systems can "align" because the core concepts are UNIVERSAL even where our perceptions or terms are diverse, relative and unique to each person. We still follow the same basic patterns because we're human.
gnarlylove
Senior Member
Natural rights do not exist intrinsically. They are inventive descriptions to aide in equal treatment of human beings. It's akin to "law." Law is a rigid set of precepts that can be changed.
Natural rights were invented in the Enlightenment period, during which time they were being formulated. Now we accept them as written in stone as an intellectual bench mark. But what humans do on a daily basis to each other sometimes fails to live up to these natural rights. Indeed, virtually all people struggle to bridge the gap between what they hold to be true intellectually and what they actually do.
The most recent rights declaration and certainly the most universally accepted version comes from the UN Human Rights Declaration back in the 40s.
So to answer the OP, natural rights do not exist without a system (in this case government) that defines and enforces them. Moreover, they must have the ability to remove those who behave against natural rights as we currently understand rights.
Does this mean I or you are guaranteed to be treated according to our natural rights? Well, there are subtleties which are not so subtle once they actively target you. Take the Naturalization of Defense Authorization Act wherein the government defines terrorism any way it pleases and is able to detain any American citizen without respect of natural rights so it can protect "national security." In other words these "terrorists" are sent to where US law doesn't apply and thrown into an effective legal black hole where they are held for years and likely tortured without an inkling of a trial. However, the Human Rights Declaration the US signed 60+ years ago is fundamentally opposed to this.
But "doublethink" as Orwell called it, is essential to comprehend US government's actions or any power system. Doing one thing and saying another keeps those not actively targeted in cahoots and believing their nonsensical rhetoric.
Lastly, I want to say ask does this mean natural rights do not exist? They do and they don't. They are not inherent but it doesn't mean we shouldn't take them seriously. The UN Rights have been monumental in establishing justice where it had not been.
Furthermore, there are[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Elements-Moral-Cognition-Linguistic-Cognitive/dp/0521855780"] studies being enumerated[/ame] that demonstrate moral behavior that is consistent throughout all cultures. So hard-wired into us are something like principles or natural rights that enable us to fairly treat each other without having to sign the UN Declaration. But as we all know, it's easy to deny someone fundamental rights and indeed, power systems rarely operate any other way. It is up to the people to keep fighting for just treatment and for us to keep expanding the parameters where rights apply, including economic rights or changing the whole concept altogether. One way to look at it is that we are held back by our narrow understanding of rights. We need to step back further and examine what a human life is and what is must have in order to be and basing a society on these findings, not on the profit motive that annihilates equal treatment.
Natural rights were invented in the Enlightenment period, during which time they were being formulated. Now we accept them as written in stone as an intellectual bench mark. But what humans do on a daily basis to each other sometimes fails to live up to these natural rights. Indeed, virtually all people struggle to bridge the gap between what they hold to be true intellectually and what they actually do.
The most recent rights declaration and certainly the most universally accepted version comes from the UN Human Rights Declaration back in the 40s.
So to answer the OP, natural rights do not exist without a system (in this case government) that defines and enforces them. Moreover, they must have the ability to remove those who behave against natural rights as we currently understand rights.
Does this mean I or you are guaranteed to be treated according to our natural rights? Well, there are subtleties which are not so subtle once they actively target you. Take the Naturalization of Defense Authorization Act wherein the government defines terrorism any way it pleases and is able to detain any American citizen without respect of natural rights so it can protect "national security." In other words these "terrorists" are sent to where US law doesn't apply and thrown into an effective legal black hole where they are held for years and likely tortured without an inkling of a trial. However, the Human Rights Declaration the US signed 60+ years ago is fundamentally opposed to this.
But "doublethink" as Orwell called it, is essential to comprehend US government's actions or any power system. Doing one thing and saying another keeps those not actively targeted in cahoots and believing their nonsensical rhetoric.
Lastly, I want to say ask does this mean natural rights do not exist? They do and they don't. They are not inherent but it doesn't mean we shouldn't take them seriously. The UN Rights have been monumental in establishing justice where it had not been.
Furthermore, there are[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Elements-Moral-Cognition-Linguistic-Cognitive/dp/0521855780"] studies being enumerated[/ame] that demonstrate moral behavior that is consistent throughout all cultures. So hard-wired into us are something like principles or natural rights that enable us to fairly treat each other without having to sign the UN Declaration. But as we all know, it's easy to deny someone fundamental rights and indeed, power systems rarely operate any other way. It is up to the people to keep fighting for just treatment and for us to keep expanding the parameters where rights apply, including economic rights or changing the whole concept altogether. One way to look at it is that we are held back by our narrow understanding of rights. We need to step back further and examine what a human life is and what is must have in order to be and basing a society on these findings, not on the profit motive that annihilates equal treatment.
Last edited:
Poop
TakeAStepBack
Gold Member
- Mar 29, 2011
- 13,935
- 1,742
- 245
Ah, a deterministic argument. yuk yuk yuk
emilynghiem
Constitutionalist / Universalist
Don't you mean freedom?
Hypothetically you have free will to do something within your ability.
As for rights, by natural laws they come with responsibilities.
This is like the natural law of justice or karma, cause and effect, the reactions to your actions.
So if you abuse your freedom to violate someone else's right or freedoms, you will be protested or petitioned to redress grievances or pay restitution to resolve the conflict.
emilynghiem
Constitutionalist / Universalist
Yes, the slaves have rights as the slaves do today.
Just because we don't fight for equal rights of slaves in Asia
as we do workers in America, doesn't mean rights aren't being violated.
Because of economic structures dependent on slave labor right now,
India could not even ban child labor or more children would starve to death
than would be saved. Human rights are violated on a daily basis.
Doesn't mean they don't exist.
In practice, the defense of human rights depends on our ability to set up alternatives.
We need to convert more of the factories into schools, to create sustainable
jobs for the women and children in education, to break the cycle of poverty
while still letting the students work, to keep their economy going, but
manage these programs where nobody is being abused.
There are more programs today doing more to eradicate poverty
and trafficking, but the demand is still greater. So we still have slavery
in the meantime, where these people do not have EQUAL ACCESS
to resources and programs to meet equal standards on human rights.
and yes, slavery has been going on a long time.
you can see the progression to eradicate poverty to reduce war, oppression and crime,
but you can see we are not there yet. people are not yet treated as equal
because we don't have equal access to sustainable systems of education and services.
Last edited:
emilynghiem
Constitutionalist / Universalist
yes and no.
man did not create human nature and the rules we respond to.
yes we did create the expression of these patterns and principles as statutory laws.
but the concepts behind them, and why they work to govern people
are not just because people are taught or conditioned to follow them.
it is because the laws follow the principles of human nature.
it is like cutting hair to follow the natural pattern that it grows in.
if you go against the grain, then people do not follow.
so it is with free will and the natural desire to petition to redress grievances
when people feel our interests or consent are being imposed upon or excluded.
systems of laws work where the follow the natural patterns of human behavior.
these laws and religions are expressions of the principles so we can agree what procedures to follow; but we did not make up the pscyhology of human behavior,
and what works and what does not work with people. We are just trying to "figure it
out" and perfect our models so we can manage our populations on a sustainable basis.
it's not just the profit motive but the relationships between people and groups.
if we do not "trust or forgive" certain people or groups, the relationship becomes competitive instead of collaborative.
also look up the difference between scarcity mentality and abundance mentality.
people who operate by fear and negative or divisive mindsets
are less effective than people who work in positive, inclusive ways.
this mentality makes the difference between corruption and conflicts in situations
or pooling resources and teamwork together to solve problems instead.
it isn't the system to blame but what approach people take, if it is divisive,
negative, or unforgiving
any system can be made to work, it depends on the people and what they do with it.
man did not create human nature and the rules we respond to.
yes we did create the expression of these patterns and principles as statutory laws.
but the concepts behind them, and why they work to govern people
are not just because people are taught or conditioned to follow them.
it is because the laws follow the principles of human nature.
it is like cutting hair to follow the natural pattern that it grows in.
if you go against the grain, then people do not follow.
so it is with free will and the natural desire to petition to redress grievances
when people feel our interests or consent are being imposed upon or excluded.
systems of laws work where the follow the natural patterns of human behavior.
these laws and religions are expressions of the principles so we can agree what procedures to follow; but we did not make up the pscyhology of human behavior,
and what works and what does not work with people. We are just trying to "figure it
out" and perfect our models so we can manage our populations on a sustainable basis.
it's not just the profit motive but the relationships between people and groups.
if we do not "trust or forgive" certain people or groups, the relationship becomes competitive instead of collaborative.
also look up the difference between scarcity mentality and abundance mentality.
people who operate by fear and negative or divisive mindsets
are less effective than people who work in positive, inclusive ways.
this mentality makes the difference between corruption and conflicts in situations
or pooling resources and teamwork together to solve problems instead.
it isn't the system to blame but what approach people take, if it is divisive,
negative, or unforgiving
any system can be made to work, it depends on the people and what they do with it.
M.D. Rawlings
Classical Liberal
Sorry for the delay. I had to take care of some things.
The irrelevancies of supposed social constructs vs. the realities of self-preservation and self-interest
Uh, currently, the reigning opinion in the epistemological literature, due to recent advances in the neurological sciences, asserts that along with a universal baseline of geometric-logistic predilections: humans are born with a universally innate moral code latently embedded in the structures and consequent biochemical processes of the human brain. The traditional, Aristotelian blank slate of Empiricism, at least in this respect, is dead.
But there's no need to linger on that as the imperatives of natural law are extrapolated from the self-evident exigencies of human nature and historical experience.
In short, I'm not raising "a God debate." You missed my point entirely.
My contention has absolutely nothing to do with any empirical proof of God's existence. There is no such thing anyway, beyond what is, nevertheless, a very powerful teleological argument backed by a very powerful ontological argument.
I have no interest in proving the existence of God to anyone or getting into any theological discussion as such. I don't have to prove Gods' existence in order to demonstrate the actualities of innate, inalienable rights, as I have already demonstrated in the above . . .
here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...-exist-without-government-19.html#post8868367
. . . and again here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...s-exist-without-government-6.html#post8863497
This is the point that matters, once again and more specifically: You're making a bald assertion that is actually contingent upon a relativistic-materialistic, metaphysical presupposition. Good luck providing a credible argument in the face of the law of contradiction for that.
Like Rabbi, whose mind is as closed as a slammed-shut door precisely because he's never gotten beyond the first principles of things in his entire life, you have yet to demonstrate the validity of your underlying presupposition that certain rights or principles are merely the stuff of social constructs.
Any one can say that, but merely stating that as if it were an argument, rather than what it is, a bald statement hanging in midair, is tiresome.
What's this argument of yours that demonstrates that the realities of human conduct and interaction are not governed by any absolute, universal imperative at some level of being or another?
My observations concerning the realities of human conduct and interaction, and the consequences thereof are concrete, not abstract. Your claim, in the face of these things, that certain rights and principles are merely social constructs is sheer abstraction. It's not the other way around at all and never has been!
Pragmatically, what difference does it make whether these things be ontologically real in the sense that they be ultimately bottomed on a transcendent authority or not . . . in the face of the fact that, due to the inescapable exigencies and consequences related to self-preservation and self-interest, human beings throughout history have conducted themselves as if they were?
For the most part, the only persons around here making hay over an abstract distinction that makes absolutely no difference in terms of real-world actions and outcomes are you and Rabbi.
Frankly, beyond establishing a baseline for the sake of the academics of the matter, I don't give a hoot about such abstractions in the face of the practical demands of self-preservation and self-interest, on which the rudiments of natural law and natural rights are immediately predicated, but since you guys insist that this distinction is so important. . . .
Once again, what is this argument of yours which demonstrates that the realities of human conduct and interaction are not governed by any absolute, universal imperatives at some level of being or another?
Last edited:
gnarlylove
Senior Member
I had a hunch that you had poop on your screen and all my posts were truncated by the smeared poop. It also explains why half your posts are, well, poop. JK! Everybody poops!
gnarlylove
Senior Member
My unabridged post above was not intended to say we are a tabula rasa as Locke called it, a blank slate. Some call it a behaviorist model or determinism.
I was merely denoting our understanding of natural rights is not in direct correspondence with our nature, however, they do represent parts of our nature. It is foolish to think humanity can achieve complete knowledge of our innate structures or nature. The best we have are external formulations (language) that arise due to internal principles of our biological system that are programmed, not conscious decisions. This is very different than saying we precisely know what all our internal principles are. I tried to make this known by referencing moral case studies that attempt to draw out our innate structure of moral behavior that is cross cultural. In doing such studies we can confirm what are universal behaviors and thus approximate their principle. From these facts we can extrapolate natural rights.
I was merely denoting our understanding of natural rights is not in direct correspondence with our nature, however, they do represent parts of our nature. It is foolish to think humanity can achieve complete knowledge of our innate structures or nature. The best we have are external formulations (language) that arise due to internal principles of our biological system that are programmed, not conscious decisions. This is very different than saying we precisely know what all our internal principles are. I tried to make this known by referencing moral case studies that attempt to draw out our innate structure of moral behavior that is cross cultural. In doing such studies we can confirm what are universal behaviors and thus approximate their principle. From these facts we can extrapolate natural rights.
Last edited:
emilynghiem
Constitutionalist / Universalist
I don't think we need to get ALL the factors going on, but we can know enough to manage it effectively.
We can know the overall system of karma or cause and effect carried from past generations, and understand the healing and recovery process.
We don't have to know each and every instance of every factor and reason affecting people, to follow and facilitate the process of reaching peace in order to get there.
I do believe we can establish a central, unified understanding of the process of human nature in making decisions and keeping relations and institutions in harmonic balance.
I don't think we have to know everything to do this, I agree that is impossible.
But it's not like we can't figure out how human psychology works, and resolve most issues.
It's like can't cure all instances of addiction, but we can figure out how healing works and apply that to more situations earlier on to improve the rates of recovery and prevention.
Yes because free will no more equals rights than an elephant equals a mouse.
Poop.
Similar threads
- Locked
New Topics
-
-
-
A song criticizing draft dodgers played numerous times at DC Military Parade- Started by frigidweirdo
- Replies: 3
-
-
Man charged with murdering baby he wanted to adopt- Started by el midgetron
- Replies: 2
Latest Discussions
-
-
-
-
So why am I seeing so many divorced woman on Match.com????- Latest: shockedcanadian
-
A song criticizing draft dodgers played numerous times at DC Military Parade- Latest: Silent Warrior