 |
| |
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:29
|
|
What are they and from where did they originate?
1) Natural rights are expressions of shared, universal desires.
1a) Not wanting to be enslaved and murdered are universal desires.
2) Natural rights are moral claims of ownership beginning with oneself and his labor, but moral claims consistent with universal desires.
2a) If you "own" yourself, then you own your labor.
3) Natural rights are limited to human interaction, not interactions with other life forms.
3a) If a lion eats you, we don't say the lion has deprived you of your natural right to life.
4) They come from existence, i.e., by virtue of your existence, you have natural rights given by that which created the universe and life. In other words, the only evidence we have of this creator's "will" or "design" is what we can see in nature, and since we don't see chains around us leading to those self-appointed "leaders" of our destiny, they have no moral claim to make our decisions about how we live.
If you see a flaw, please post it so I can fine tune my philosophy. Just make sure the flaw is not negated by one of the other criterion. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:29
|
|
UR - quote:
You need to make an argument, not by simply stating your position. |
That was a somewhat humorous response to Diss who did the same thing. I was hoping to show him that what he did was what you noticed.
quote:
1. You failed to show how "natural rights" come from these "universal, shared desires." |
I don't need to, their origin was dealt with in #4. These universal desires simply show that natural rights are "expressions" of shared desires.
quote:
4. I am not sure what you are trying to get to. Since there are no rights in nature, appealing to nature to support your argument of "natural rights" does not work. |
I'm not appealing to nature, but nature's creator. Since natural rights are moral claims, we don't attribute their recognition to less sentient creatures that may not be able to understand them.
quote:
Complex Question Berzerker. Tripping over so soon? |
No answer?
quote:
Just because we hold that humans should have rights does not mean we see these rights the same way you do. |
No, but from where do they originate? You said "society" but didn't answer my question about societies that ignore these rights.
Sava - quote:
the "right" to life is granted by society... not nature. |
Then "society" can take it away and murder people free from moral condemnation, true? Upon what would you base your condemnation of human rights violations in a society that denied these rights?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
loinburger
|
 |
Sweet Sauce Jones
Jul 1999
time: 00:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Hi loin, long time no see. How was your b-day? |
My birthday went pretty well, I consumed many a margarita . I even gave my grandparents a call, but they hung up on me. Typical.
Gotta disappear again soon, though. Well, after one more thread...
Last edited by loinburger on 08-07-2003 at 08:23
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Urban Ranger
|
|
Apolyton Duke of Off-Topic
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
I don't need to, their origin was dealt with in #4. These universal desires simply show that natural rights are "expressions" of shared desires. |
First of all, this seems to be quite circular. Secondly, even #4 is not an argument, it's just stating a premise.
quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
I'm not appealing to nature, but nature's creator. Since natural rights are moral claims, we don't attribute their recognition to less sentient creatures that may not be able to understand them. |
1. Appealing to "nature's creator" turns the argument into a metaphysical one instead of remaining a philosophical one.
2. Why are natural rights moral claims? For if these rights are "natural," they must be amoral - there are no morals in nature, afterall.
3. If rights are natural, there's no need to "understand" them, no? Isn't it a bit like eat, sleep, and pee?
quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
No answer? |
No need to answer, Berz. Afterall, Complex Question is a logical phallacy.
quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
No, but from where do they originate? You said "society" but didn't answer my question about societies that ignore these rights. |
Societies don't "ignore" rights, some just grant less to their citizens. Asserting rights as "natural" means that they are intrinsic, which is something you still need to establish.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
I learned something interesting watching TV a few weeks ago. There was a show on called "Walking with Cave Men". Judging from collections of fossilized bones the earliest hominids seem to have had a socal structure similar to that of most of the other higher anthropoids, i.e., they lived in groups of about a dozen individuals consisting of a dominant male, a few subservient males, a somewhat larger number of females, and their children. Our most direct ancestor, Homo ergaster (or was it Homo erectus?) seems to have made the switch to monogamy based upon the shift to a one-to-one ratio of adult males to females in their groups. This in turn allowed larger groups, and probably reduced internal friction. These larger, more cohesive groups probably shoved the old single dominant male groups right off the map.
I believe that the validity of natural rights can be traced to this human property, that sharing and empowerment within a group of people permits a more productive group. If you look through human history I think you'd find that prior to the evolution of civilization people generaslly lived essentially without much in the way of formal leadership. As humans adopted a stationary form of agriculture, which permitted and perhaps even demanded the evolution of larger communities more definitive social hierarchies evolved. I'm not sure whether this occured because at this stage a dictatorial structure was required in order to keep order, or because the structure of society at this level simply made such power structures possible. Regardless, from about the time of the evolution of the first cities (though there may have been a few exceptions), until just before the industrial age dictatorial government was the general rule. What began to reverse this trend at the end of the eighteenth century?
Of course it goes without saying that there is still a need to lock up gun toting, dope smoking wild men.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29.
Apolyton Time is 00:29. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
08-07-2003 07:35
|