Is Democracy Compatible with Natural Rights?

[Oddball]

What I mean is that these rights are not prevalent in nature. They aren't "natural." They may be just and right, and they may be necessary for the preservation and flourishing of society, but they don't exist in nature, and they cannot be implied to be conferred to us by God, since we don't know God exists. Your argument, which is a good one, is in fact what I am trying to point out. Rights come from the well-reasoned mind.

Interesting that you should inject reason into the situation.

Why would self-preservation and ownership of ourselves and that which we create not be a natural extension, stemming from natural beings of reason?

The converse, according to reason, would be that "rights" per se would be supernatural.

When is reason subservient to the Supernatural?

Well, that's kinda where I was goin' with that one.

 

[JBeukema]

IHHF, repeatedly making the assertion that something exists does not equal demonstrating its existence.

 

[JBeukema]

There is even debate about what rights people have. You often speak of liberty. I'll ask again, should people be free to engage in prostitution, smoking marijuana, and gambling? Should people be allowed to consume alcohol and smoke cigarettes? Where do you draw the line - and why?

The just society values liberty and restricts it only insomuch as it is necessary to protect men's lives and liberty or to create a more just and peaceable society.

Take marijuana, gambling, and prostitution - so long as no person is harming another, what justification is there for the curtailing of liberty?

 

[Madeline]

According to the concept of natural rights a person's rights are unremoveable from them hence the term inalienable rights but is democracy compatible with that? Consider that these rights belong to you and can't be removed from you then how is it possible that they can be voted on by everyone else? When everyone else decides you don't have those rights anymore and uses the democratic process to remove them from you then how can you say that those rights were inalienable to begin with?

I'll be ready to reply to your Op when you name even one "natural right".

Humanoids are under no warranty; we receive no guarantees from The Universe that I am aware of.

 

[Intense]

IHHF, repeatedly making the assertion that something exists does not equal demonstrating its existence.

Thats about as likely as you proving God doesn't exist, huh.

 

[Intense]

There is even debate about what rights people have. You often speak of liberty. I'll ask again, should people be free to engage in prostitution, smoking marijuana, and gambling? Should people be allowed to consume alcohol and smoke cigarettes? Where do you draw the line - and why?

The just society values liberty and restricts it only insomuch as it is necessary to protect men's lives and liberty or to create a more just and peaceable society.

Take marijuana, gambling, and prostitution - so long as no person is harming another, what justification is there for the curtailing of liberty?

How can you prove what is just?

Corruption does do harm, it may or not be illegal, but it does cause suffering to those directly involved and those around them.

 

[Intense]

According to the concept of natural rights a person's rights are unremoveable from them hence the term inalienable rights but is democracy compatible with that? Consider that these rights belong to you and can't be removed from you then how is it possible that they can be voted on by everyone else? When everyone else decides you don't have those rights anymore and uses the democratic process to remove them from you then how can you say that those rights were inalienable to begin with?

I'll be ready to reply to your Op when you name even one "natural right".

Humanoids are under no warranty; we receive no guarantees from The Universe that I am aware of.

Expression is a natural right.

We may not receive warranties, but there is consequence. Who is to say what does or doesn't come next with authority? .... Do I hear a pin dropping? ... Thought so.

 

[JBeukema]

IHHF, repeatedly making the assertion that something exists does not equal demonstrating its existence.

Thats about as likely as you proving God doesn't exist, huh.

Let me google that for you

 

[Oddball]

 

[JBeukema]

And you expect to be taken seriously?

 

[Intense]

IHHF, repeatedly making the assertion that something exists does not equal demonstrating its existence.

Thats about as likely as you proving God doesn't exist, huh.

Let me google that for you

Faith existed before science. How do I prove that God exists to a non believer? Why need I prove God exists to a nonbeliever? What changes whether God's existence is proved? Show the source of right action, morality, ethics, without an authority higher than ourselves. The path has been laid out JB, it is up to us to discover it, with or without the acknowledgment of our creator. That is more the object than your need of a burden of proof. Try feeding your conscience more, I know that it is in there somewhere. Work on that stumbling block, and you will shine more for it.

I support 100% that God is not limited to the Descriptions or claims of others. Who are we to limit such power, or package and sell it, or act like we have the only patent. let's distinguish between that and denying the source of our being. Your worth is more than what society can bleed out of you. each matters, whether realized or not. Burden of proof? That is the core of true religion JB. I believe, it is an individual and internal matter first. Yet the nonbelievers are still outnumbered. Math is based on theory. Sciences are based on theory. The forces of the Universe and their authority await.

 

[Intense]

I guess there is no global warming seeing the burden of proof has not been met.

 

[nraforlife]

According to the concept of natural rights a person's rights are unremoveable from them hence the term inalienable rights but is democracy compatible with that? Consider that these rights belong to you and can't be removed from you then how is it possible that they can be voted on by everyone else? When everyone else decides you don't have those rights anymore and uses the democratic process to remove them from you then how can you say that those rights were inalienable to begin with?

Democracy is NOT compatable with Natural Rights.

 

[JBeukema]

How do I prove that God exists to a non believer?

The same way you prove Bigfoot, the atom, or the Kepler Belt exists: evidence.

Why need I prove God exists to a nonbeliever?

You people keep insisting your 'natural rights' come from god. Nothing can be granted by a non-existent thing.

What changes whether God's existence is proved?

Prove your god exists and you'll be 1/3 the way proving you have god-given rights

Show the source of right action, morality, ethics, without an authority higher than ourselves.

Clarify

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.html

. Yet the nonbelievers are still outnumbered

Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[JBeukema]

I guess there is no global warming seeing the burden of proof has not been met.

I'm on record in a number of threads as a skeptic regarding the extent to which human actions effect global climate pattern.

 

[Intense]

I guess there is no global warming seeing the burden of proof has not been met.

I'm on record in a number of threads as a skeptic regarding the extent to which human actions effect global climate pattern.

Sincerity is a plus.

 

[Intense]

How do I prove that God exists to a non believer?

The same way you prove Bigfoot, the atom, or the Kepler Belt exists: evidence.

Why need I prove God exists to a nonbeliever?

You people keep insisting your 'natural rights' come from god. Nothing can be granted by a non-existent thing.


Prove your god exists and you'll be 1/3 the way proving you have god-given rights

Show the source of right action, morality, ethics, without an authority higher than ourselves.

Clarify

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.html

. Yet the nonbelievers are still outnumbered

Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There were those that believed in God before societies were born, unless you count two or more, or a few or more. The belief in God, so we are told, is from the beginning. It was that recognition and the subservience to it that created the moral and ethical codes that the codes of conduct are rooted in today. Take Hammurabi's Code and compare it to Moses. Compare it to Muhammad. You will find similarities in Hinduism, Buddhism, in relation to right and wrong. Why? Why is it generally unethical to kill or steal, to behave wrongly? The people who brought you their version of God, brought you the moral code. If one is wrong, why not the other? Prove morality. Is it the majority that decides, the Tyrant, or something greater. Life is a puzzle JB. Who designed it?

I realize that you can't get beyond your burden of proof. the next best thing is positive intent and action based on the only part of you that can discern, while the rest of you denies the source of creation, your conscience. Do right because you recognize the necessity of it, with out regard, as to why you are where you are, or what's in it for you. Stick to principle, motive, intent, reason, stay in the physical application. Dreams, Vision, Discovery, Invention, all start from somewhere. Can You prove where. I'm not asking for a burden of proof, just the recognition of Gift.

 

[Intense]

Just out of curiosity JB, what is your vision of a more perfect "Declaration Of Independence" and "Constitution"?

 

[JBeukema]

Take Hammurabi's Code and compare it to Moses.

People have similar desires and interests. They also have similar concerns (being robbed, murdered, etc). It follows that they would settle on a similar set of basic rules when forming the social contract.

Why is it generally unethical to kill or steal, to behave wrongly?

Because people generally don't want to be robbed or killed and behaving 'wrongly' is wrong by definition- that it's considered 'wrong' is what makes it 'behaving wrongly'

Prove morality.

Clarfiy

 

[Intense]

Take Hammurabi's Code and compare it to Moses.

People have similar desires and interests. They also have similar concerns (being robbed, murdered, etc). It follows that they would settle on a similar set of basic rules when forming the social contract.

Why is it generally unethical to kill or steal, to behave wrongly?

Because people generally don't want to be robbed or killed and behaving 'wrongly' is wrong by definition- that it's considered 'wrong' is what makes it 'behaving wrongly'

Prove morality.

Clarfiy

From what authority is right and wrong behavior determined? you are rightly hitting on the effect, of cause and effect, and how it makes us feel, but not why.

From your premise that there is no God, who is to say that in some parallel universe, Murder and Rape, and Theft, are all virtues? By what authority is virtue deemed virtue, and vice deemed vice? What is it instilled in us that makes it so, so much that it transcends Culture and Language? Why are we designed the way we are, and who is responsible for our nature? What is justice, an imagined concept, or a rule that governs nature? Did we create it or learn to recognize it through intuition, experience and conscience.

Does God exist? Prove it. Does time exist? Prove it.

Do Good and Evil exist? Prove it.

To what end? What does it change about you or I? Path? Direction? We are each set in our ways.

Either one believes or one doesn't. Maybe that is a part of the test.

Maybe it's really about choosing sides. Sides you say don't exist, if I may presume so.