What Constitutes a "Right?"

[Setarcos]

Diuretic, What amazes me is that Anyone in Australia being so remote, even considering the history of your Country with England, could be so far removed from Natural Law, and Natural Rights. You will always be limited to what Others dictate that You may have or Keep, or Use, until You Open both Your Eyes and Your Mind. You are Your Own Being. Think about that. You exist as an Individual first, and have nothing of Value to contribute until You Live Self Reliance. You need to be able to stand with the Group and You need to learn to Stand alone when Truth Requires it. Then You have Something to Share out of Conviction. Until You understand the Value of Standing for What You believe to be True, against the Flow of the Mob, You have no Moral Compass, worth contributing. It is damaged goods, damaged for the Expediency of the Totalitarian. I pray You get it, with or without recognizing It's Source. You put not just Yourself, but Everyone around You at the Mercy of Tyranny, by Your Denial of Self, with Your Own Consent, The Dictator's Fantasy and Dream.

Intense - I'm always alert for the slightest indication of totalitarianism. I may not subscribe to others' ideas about natural law and natural rights but I've spent my career defending and protecting social rights and talking and thinking about them. My moral compass is functional - and also nice and shiny

What is the Source of that Moral Compass ...Grass-hopper????

Noone. It was forged by evolutionary pressures and later honed through philosophy.

 

[Setarcos]

I say we agree that Morality is a function of the natural order; what God says it is.

Whoe god?

God...

Which?

Well the laws are there and you've assuradely, the free will to respect and ignore them as you choose; for which you'll most assuraedly be held to account.

Are you confessing to being a serial killer? Or just a lying hypocrite?

Have you slain the unbelievers? Have you washed your feet in the blood of the wicked? Have you killed all who worship other gods?

How many slaves do you own? How many wives do you have?

Have you considered using spellcheck?

Oh yeah...

It's not complicated RH... There's God's law; which is the natural order which rests on the highest authority;

Ok... God endows life...

demonstrate.

Where is god in this video? Is your god an Indian doctor?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNF-zGsxPyc]YouTube - Fertilisation of the egg with sperm in the IVF lab[/ame]

thus it follows that such a gift is advanced to be used to one's benefit

No, it doesn't.

following that such would include the rightful entitlement to pursue the fulfillment of that life;

Demonstrate

the authority of which rests with the highest possible authority

which would be...?

Who granted authority to this authority?

Need anything else?

a demonstration that any of your assertions are valid, but you don't seem capable of demonstrating such.

 

[Setarcos]

Society doesn't take away rights either.

The right to own slaves was revoked in the U.S.


Try again

Rights can be agreed upon. Those which can be agreed upon by all are natural rights.

Wrong. look up the definitions of positive and natural rights, since you obviously don't know what you're talking about.

Please think before you post.

You do the same

 

[Setarcos]

Yeah, which way is North on that compass? The magnetic poles in the moral world will lead you to the definition of natural rights.

So natural rights = instinct?

Then I have the natural right to bash your head in with a rock while angry?

The poles may shift as the parameters of human existence change.

So they're 'natural' but subject to human perception?

 

[Setarcos]

Intense - I'm always alert for the slightest indication of totalitarianism. I may not subscribe to others' ideas about natural law and natural rights but I've spent my career defending and protecting social rights and talking and thinking about them. My moral compass is functional - and also nice and shiny

What is the Source of that Moral Compass ...Grass-hopper????

Society of course. I learned about the values of my society as a developing human being.

Ethics =/= Morality

 

[Setarcos]

rights: those things to which people are naturally entitled

demonstrate. You've only highlighted your own failnigs

liberties: those actions which people are free to perform

define: free

Note: certain liberties are rights. Namely those which don't deprive others of their rights.

demonstrate

 

[Setarcos]

What is the Source of that Moral Compass ...Grass-hopper????

Society of course. I learned about the values of my society as a developing human being.

Begging the question: What guides society's compass?

shared self-interest and the influence of philosophers and of tyrants.

There must be something. Clearly it is the members of society, but they do not merely randomly and individually choose how to shift the accepted ethos. There is something guiding them. Pray tell, what is it?

self-interest, instinct, and philosophy

 

[Diuretic]

What is the Source of that Moral Compass ...Grass-hopper????

Society of course. I learned about the values of my society as a developing human being.

Begging the question: What guides society's compass? There must be something. Clearly it is the members of society, but they do not merely randomly and individually choose how to shift the accepted ethos. There is something guiding them. Pray tell, what is it?

Humans are great experimenters. We learn by various means, mostly social, but a solitary human can learn by using trial and error methods, just like other animals do. We adopt what works, we discard what doesn't work. We, if we are members of even the smallest social grouping, learn from each other as well as learning from our individual experiences.

Before we developed language we (humans collectively) learned by observation and we learned (as individuals) by classical and operant conditioning methods (delivered by others external to us as individuals, usually parents). We learned what helped us to survive as individuals and as collectives.

After language and writing were invented humans could more effectively share the collective knowledge gained from trial and error methods. And importantly we could develop codes of behaviour that were recorded. Having them recorded meant that they could be revised and improved as necessary. What worked was recorded, what didn't work was extinguished. What worked was venerated and passed down from generation to generation, being amended as necessary.

What guides us is the biological imperative. It guides us as individuals. In societies the biological imperative drives individuals and given societies are collectives of individual humans it follows that arrangements must be made to manage the behaviours that are driven by the biological imperative.

 

[Intense]

A "right" is something that you have naturally. You have a right to your life, your liberty, your property, and your personal pursuit of happiness. The word "right" is thrown around too loosely in politics. If you believe you have a right to something then look at the situation deeper. Does your supposed "right" require the government's force to back it up? Does your "right" require the government to take from one person through taxation to supply you with your "right?" If the answer is yes then your "right" is clearly not a right at all because it violates somebody else's right to their own property. You cannot have a right to something that violates somebody else's rights.

You have no rights.

Rights are something that cannot be taken from you.

You cannot name a single thing that cannot be taken away from you.

Conscience.

 

[Diuretic]

And what's "conscience"?

 

[Setarcos]

A "right" is something that you have naturally. You have a right to your life, your liberty, your property, and your personal pursuit of happiness. The word "right" is thrown around too loosely in politics. If you believe you have a right to something then look at the situation deeper. Does your supposed "right" require the government's force to back it up? Does your "right" require the government to take from one person through taxation to supply you with your "right?" If the answer is yes then your "right" is clearly not a right at all because it violates somebody else's right to their own property. You cannot have a right to something that violates somebody else's rights.

You have no rights.

Rights are something that cannot be taken from you.

You cannot name a single thing that cannot be taken away from you.

Conscience.

you don't think amorality exists?

it can be lost or infringed, btw, bu damaging the brain

Brain injury impairs moral judgement: Study

 

[Intense]

You have no rights.

Rights are something that cannot be taken from you.

You cannot name a single thing that cannot be taken away from you.

Conscience.

you don't think amorality exists?

it can be lost or infringed, btw, bu damaging the brain

Brain injury impairs moral judgement: Study

Conscience! You may surrender Your Own but have no power over another.

First, You'd better study your link better. It is not Conclusive.

Second, It is an Assault and a Crime.

Third, the Day it becomes Acceptable behavior in Society, I will exclude Myself from that Society.

You are free to Your own actions as far as I'm Concerned, You have Zero say over Mine.

 

[Setarcos]

Conscience.

you don't think amorality exists?

it can be lost or infringed, btw, bu damaging the brain

Brain injury impairs moral judgement: Study

Conscience! You may surrender Your Own but have no power over another.

Sure I do, as I've shown. All i need is a hammer or loud radio

The Effects of 53 Hours of Sleep Deprivation on Moral Judgment

Want more proof? Look at religion

 

[Setarcos]

CiteULike: Damage to the prefrontal cortex increases utilitarian moral judgements.

X Abstract

The psychological and neurobiological processes underlying moral judgement have been the focus of many recent empirical studies. Of central interest is whether emotions play a causal role in moral judgement, and, in parallel, how emotion-related areas of the brain contribute to moral judgement. Here we show that six patients with focal bilateral damage to the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (VMPC), a brain region necessary for the normal generation of emotions and, in particular, social emotions, produce an abnormally 'utilitarian' pattern of judgements on moral dilemmas that pit compelling considerations of aggregate welfare against highly emotionally aversive behaviours (for example, having to sacrifice one person's life to save a number of other lives). In contrast, the VMPC patients' judgements were normal in other classes of moral dilemmas. These findings indicate that, for a selective set of moral dilemmas, the VMPC is critical for normal judgements of right and wrong. The findings support a necessary role for emotion in the generation of those judgements.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Morality manages the very natural manifestations of the biological imperative in humans.

ROFLMNAO... As concessions go... that was a BEAUTY!

So we can dispense with the whole 'Theism is not essential to morality' tripe.

All that notion bears is that morality can be defined as being representative as anything to anyone... AKA: Moral relativism: OKA: Pure Evil...

The gasps of the religious absolutist upon realising that morality doesn't depend on religion for its existence.

ROFLMNAO...

Isn't that cute... it's OPPOSITE DAY on USMB. Prove that moral relativism is not morality and the humanist returns to proclaim that the OPPOSITE was established.

Again, there's a reason for that... With actual, valid and sustainable morality in play... Leftism is untenable. Leftism requires flexibility in terms of morality... and immutable rights endowed by the Creator; inspeparable from the rightful holder; who are duty bound to destroy those who contest those rights... is a REAL problem for Left-think and the sheeple; the weak-minded; the lowest common cultural denominator; the malcontents; the 10%... who feel that they simply need that Nanny-state crutch.

 

[Setarcos]

Does PubliusInfinitum always get sidetracked with sad partisan attacks?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

you don't think amorality exists?

it can be lost or infringed, btw, bu damaging the brain

Brain injury impairs moral judgement: Study

Conscience! You may surrender Your Own but have no power over another.

Sure I do, as I've shown. All i need is a hammer or loud radio

The Effects of 53 Hours of Sleep Deprivation on Moral Judgment

Want more proof? Look at religion

ROFL... what judgment? You deprive me of my sleep for 53 hours and you become a threat to my life... as a result, it becomes my duty to destroy such threats.

It's not a complicated issue... bear the responsibility intrinsic in your natural human rights or suffer the consequences of the failure to do so. Rejecting those rights, thus failing to respect and bear the intrinsic responsibilities inherent in your human rights; will not be accepted as a viable defense; and may result in death or serious bodily injury.

 

[Intense]

Researchers, however, emphasised that the study was small and the moral decisions hypothetical. And the results cannot predict how people with or without brain injuries will act in real life (or death) situations. Yet, the findings which appeared on Wednesday in the journal Nature, confirm the central role of the damaged region—the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, which is thought to generate social emotions like compassion.

Brain injury impairs moral judgement: Study

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Does PubliusInfinitum always get sidetracked with sad partisan attacks?

I've never engaged in a sad partisan attack. I don't give a red rats ass what party you attend... but if advance left-think in my presence... you're apt to leave the party in tears; with your most closely held beliefs having been exposed as addle-minded bullshit.

 

[rubberhead]

Society doesn't take away rights either.

The right to own slaves was revoked in the U.S.

It was never a right retard! Are you paying attention to what I'm saying?

Try again

No need, you haven't really demonstrated the validity of your original point.

Rights can be agreed upon. Those which can be agreed upon by all are natural rights.

Wrong. look up the definitions of positive and natural rights, since you obviously don't know what you're talking about.

Why don't you enlighten me instead?
Please think before you post.