What "rights" does nature give us?

[Quantum Windbag]

I've read it.

No laws are derived from it.

And King George is dead.

So..it was a one shot deal.

That explains why we keep a copy of it preserved under glass in the National Archives.

I thought is was so tourists would think we were cool.

That is a possibility.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Can you define life?

Didn't think so, yet we all agree it is real.

Here is my silliest post of the day.

Scientific. According to Daniel Koshland, it is the "characteristic that distinguishes objects that have signaling and self-sustaining processes from those that do not."

Biblical. All I can tie into a Biblical definition of "life" is from Leviticus: "the life of all flesh is in the blood." So, that which has blood has life I guess. Plants have no life. F-ing losers.

This begs the question, if God said life is in the blood, and rights are derived from God, does that mean that animals have rights according to God?

I am so glad you took the time to self label your post so I did not have to do it myself.

Am appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. If we were to use the "scientific" definition of life you supplied I could write a computer program that is, to all intents and purposes, alive. In fact, lots of people already have done so, and even built machines that are alive.

Keep trying though.

Sorry, but if you're entertaining my post as even remotely serious then I'm afraid the joke's on you.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

That explains why we keep a copy of it preserved under glass in the National Archives.

I thought is was so tourists would think we were cool.

That is a possibility.

Now, Q, here you got the joke but in the other you didn't. Come on, man.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Here is my silliest post of the day.

Scientific. According to Daniel Koshland, it is the "characteristic that distinguishes objects that have signaling and self-sustaining processes from those that do not."

Biblical. All I can tie into a Biblical definition of "life" is from Leviticus: "the life of all flesh is in the blood." So, that which has blood has life I guess. Plants have no life. F-ing losers.

This begs the question, if God said life is in the blood, and rights are derived from God, does that mean that animals have rights according to God?

I am so glad you took the time to self label your post so I did not have to do it myself.

Am appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. If we were to use the "scientific" definition of life you supplied I could write a computer program that is, to all intents and purposes, alive. In fact, lots of people already have done so, and even built machines that are alive.

Keep trying though.

Sorry, but if you're entertaining my post as even remotely serious then I'm afraid the joke's on you.

Then I owe myself a good laugh.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I thought is was so tourists would think we were cool.

That is a possibility.

Now, Q, here you got the joke but in the other you didn't. Come on, man.

If I was perfect I wouldn't be here. give me a break.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Sounds like you're importing a lot with your definitions. 'Natural' in this context just means "innate". And "right" means freedom. Freedoms exist, conceptually, whether or not they are protected.

I'm using 'natural' is in "in nature". If you're using a different definition, who's doing the importing? Just saying they're "innate" doesn't mean a thing, IMO. Concepts aren't enforceable, which to me is the bottom line. It sounds good, but that's about it.

Nonetheless, that's what they were talking about. Natural rights are conceptual. It's just a classification of a type of freedom - in the context of the constitution, the type of freedom we want government to protect.

It's frustrating that we get so tripped up by grammar and time, but I think most here are doing just that. Even many of the scholarly articles on the topic seem to treat 'natural rights' as something else, but I'm convinced they are missing the point.

Jefferson wasn't calling out natural rights as some magical aspect of nature that protects our freedom, he was merely making the point that freedom is our initial condition as thinking creatures. Until, and unless, someone else comes along and violates it, we are free to think and decide for ourselves how to live. Living in a pluralistic society, however, virtually guarantees that someone will threaten to violate that basic state of freedom and we need government to protect it.

At least one of our Founding Fathers thought our government would not work for an immoral people. I wonder if they realized it also wouldn't work for an ignorant people?

It simply amazes me how many Americans consider knowing anything about what our basis of government is or why irrelevant, and yet somehow think they're going to be able to maintain it and use it effectively.

 

[Toro]

Wrong. Let me help you with your failing memory.

You said our rights are not granted by God, because God cannot be proven.

Which is patently illogical.

For rights to be granted from God -->

1. God must exist and
2. God must have communicated those rights to man

Otherwise, we are just guessing.


IF God does not exist, THEN God cannot have given us rights.

IF God does exist, THEN God may have given us rights.

IF God exists and did not give us rights, THEN God did not give us rights.

IF God exists and did give us rights, THEN God gave us rights.

IF God exists and gave us rights, THEN we must be able to verify that God gave us those rights.

IF we cannot verify the existence of God, THEN we cannot verify that God communicated those rights to us.

Otherwise, we are just guessing.


Concepts of rights changed fairly dramatically over the 1700 years from the birth of Christ to The Enlightenment and The Bill of Rights. If it were self-evident that God truly did give us those rights, then why wasn't it self-evident to the hundreds of millions of people who lived over those 1700 years? And why not to all men?

I'm very happy that it became self-evident late in the 18th century that these rights were self-evident, such as it created the most noble document that shaped the greatest nation on earth. But we are just guessing that they came from God.

I just want to point out the flaws in your argument here.

It is entirely possible for the Being we call God to have existed in the past and to have ceased to exist in the present without invalidating the claim that our rights were endowed to us by this Being. It is also entirely possible for those rights to exist without the exact nature of those rights to have been communicated to us by God. The simple fact that we cannot verify every single step of the process does not prove that the process did not occur anymore than the fact that we cannot verify every single step of evolution proves that evolution is not real.

Please note that my intent here is simply to point out that you aren't actually thinking your position through, not to argue that you are wrong.



PS:

My personal belief is that at least some of our rights come from God, but I am being careful to keep my argument here to the concept of rights emanating from the fact that we are alive, not the source of our life itself.

Fair enough. But in the same realm, one could argue that this Supreme Being may have been an alien beamed down from a distant galaxy and conferred these rights upon us. We don't know. That's my argument.

I believe in God but I do not know if He exists because He cannot be verified. If He could be verified and communicated these rights, of course I'd be more than happy to say I'm wrong!

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

That is a possibility.

Now, Q, here you got the joke but in the other you didn't. Come on, man.

If I was perfect I wouldn't be here. give me a break.

One break, comin' uuuuup!

(Thank you, David Lee Roth)

 

[Quantum Windbag]

For rights to be granted from God -->

1. God must exist and
2. God must have communicated those rights to man

Otherwise, we are just guessing.


IF God does not exist, THEN God cannot have given us rights.

IF God does exist, THEN God may have given us rights.

IF God exists and did not give us rights, THEN God did not give us rights.

IF God exists and did give us rights, THEN God gave us rights.

IF God exists and gave us rights, THEN we must be able to verify that God gave us those rights.

IF we cannot verify the existence of God, THEN we cannot verify that God communicated those rights to us.

Otherwise, we are just guessing.


Concepts of rights changed fairly dramatically over the 1700 years from the birth of Christ to The Enlightenment and The Bill of Rights. If it were self-evident that God truly did give us those rights, then why wasn't it self-evident to the hundreds of millions of people who lived over those 1700 years? And why not to all men?

I'm very happy that it became self-evident late in the 18th century that these rights were self-evident, such as it created the most noble document that shaped the greatest nation on earth. But we are just guessing that they came from God.

I just want to point out the flaws in your argument here.

It is entirely possible for the Being we call God to have existed in the past and to have ceased to exist in the present without invalidating the claim that our rights were endowed to us by this Being. It is also entirely possible for those rights to exist without the exact nature of those rights to have been communicated to us by God. The simple fact that we cannot verify every single step of the process does not prove that the process did not occur anymore than the fact that we cannot verify every single step of evolution proves that evolution is not real.

Please note that my intent here is simply to point out that you aren't actually thinking your position through, not to argue that you are wrong.



PS:

My personal belief is that at least some of our rights come from God, but I am being careful to keep my argument here to the concept of rights emanating from the fact that we are alive, not the source of our life itself.

Fair enough. But in the same realm, one could argue that this Supreme Being may have been an alien beamed down from a distant galaxy and conferred these rights upon us. We don't know. That's my argument.

I believe in God but I do not know if He exists because He cannot be verified. If He could be verified and communicated these rights, of course I'd be more than happy to say I'm wrong!

Like I said, I just saw some major flaws in your logic, don't really have a beef with the concept itself. Ultimately, it doesn't matter if the source of our rights is God or if they are just innate to us because we are alive, all that matters is that government not infringe on them.

 

[AVG-JOE]

This Nation was indeed FOUNDED and thrives under the notion of our inalienable rights granted us by our Creator. They are explicitly supernatural, and America is a defacto theocracy.

Now all that's left is to properly define 'God'.

Good luck with that... I think I'll stick to promoting a dynamic Civil Law and adherence to the First Amendment.

No.

All you need to know is that the single most important tenet of the founding of America is the recognition of the inalienable rights granted by God.

Look it up.

Bullshit. 'God' can kiss my ass. The best thing about America is the secular government.

Like I said, step one is to define 'God'.

 

[AVG-JOE]

It's illogical to suggest otherwise.

It's only illogical if God exists. Then, you have to prove rights were conferred onto us by God.

But since we cannot prove God exists and thus cannot verify His existence, we cannot know that God gave us rights. And even if He does exist, we would have to prove that He gave us these rights. We can't do either.

Man infers that God gave us rights, and uses the authority of God and religion to impose a legal structure on society. But man believing God gave us rights is not the same things as God actually giving us rights.

Truth exists independently of any burden of proof. It either is or it is not true.

For you to make the claim something does not exist, but in the same breath admit you cannot prove it, is an illogical position.

And you come across looking like a damn fool.

Hope that helps!

I never said God doesn't exist. I said we can't prove the existence of God.

It should be an easy concept to discern. If you can't, you come across looking like a damn fool.

Hope that helps!

I still say that step one is to define 'God'.

The only thing worse than Christians pushing their social agenda and defining list of God given rights and responsibilities is Sharia Law. What a social pain in the ass THAT would be. I'd be fracturing a few of those bad boys...

 

[regent]

A committee of five congressmen were appointed to create the Declaration of Independence and the the committee then selected Jefferson to do the writing. Jefferson wrote it alone. When Jefferson finished, the committee and the congress then edited Jeffersons document and made 86 changes removing 480 words.
Jefferson was a Deist as were some other framers; they believed there was a God but after God had created the earth God left, job done. Of course the Declaration has no power and was written for propaganda purposes.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Truth exists independently of any burden of proof. It either is or it is not true.

For you to make the claim something does not exist, but in the same breath admit you cannot prove it, is an illogical position.

And you come across looking like a damn fool.

Hope that helps!

I never said God doesn't exist. I said we can't prove the existence of God.

It should be an easy concept to discern. If you can't, you come across looking like a damn fool.

Hope that helps!

I still say that step one is to define 'God'.

The only thing worse than Christians pushing their social agenda and defining list of God given rights and responsibilities is Sharia Law. What a social pain in the ass THAT would be. I'd be fracturing a few of those bad boys...

And I am still waiting for a definition of life.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Nonetheless, that's what they were talking about. Natural rights are conceptual. It's just a classification of a type of freedom - in the context of the constitution, the type of freedom we want government to protect.

It's frustrating that we get so tripped up by grammar and time, but I think most here are doing just that. Even many of the scholarly articles on the topic seem to treat 'natural rights' as something else, but I'm convinced they are missing the point.

Jefferson wasn't calling out natural rights as some magical aspect of nature that protects our freedom, he was merely making the point that freedom is our initial condition as thinking creatures. Until, and unless, someone else comes along and violates it, we are free to think and decide for ourselves how to live. Living in a pluralistic society, however, virtually guarantees that someone will threaten to violate that basic state of freedom and we need government to protect it.

Really?

Have you ever read the Declaration of Independence?

Yeah. Beginning to wonder whether anyone else here has.

I think it is fairly obvious at this point that the vast majority of people on this thread are not only uneducated in the area of political philosophy, they are offended by the very idea that they SHOULD be educated in it, or that their narrow, elementary-school understanding of words and concepts might not be enough to carry them through.

I wish it was surprising to see how prevalent this is on BOTH sides of the aisle, but I've known for a while now how many putative "conservatives" have really just fallen accidentally into the correct positions, with no idea WHY they're correct or how to explain that correctness to anyone else.

 

[Sallow]

Yeah. Beginning to wonder whether anyone else here has.

I've read it.

No laws are derived from it.

And King George is dead.

So..it was a one shot deal.

That explains why we keep a copy of it preserved under glass in the National Archives.

And?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Define "rights".

The way I define them, "rights" is just a nice way of saying "this is what society allows you to do".

 

[Sallow]

Define "rights".

The way I define them, "rights" is just a nice way of saying "this is what society allows you to do".

It's more..

This is what society is not allowed to do to me.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Define "rights".

The way I define them, "rights" is just a nice way of saying "this is what society allows you to do".

It's more..

This is what society is not allowed to do to me.

I understand the sentiment, yet nearly every "society" that's ever existed has, in one way or another, violated nearly everything considered a "right".

 

[Cecilie1200]

About the only thing useful I've seen come out of this thread was the invitation by somebody to read John Locke. I hope a few people at least took the poster up on that.

Wouldn't do about half these people any good even if they did. They can't be bothered to understand what he's talking about.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Really?

Have you ever read the Declaration of Independence?

Yeah. Beginning to wonder whether anyone else here has.

I've read it.

No laws are derived from it.

And King George is dead.

So..it was a one shot deal.

Whereas "******* moron" just goes on forever, as you so amply demonstrate every time you open your cakehole.