Thread: Do You Believe In Natural Rights?

Originally Posted by Unrepresented

It's prudent to have a peaceful society. Killing doesn't increase productivity or peace.

Sometimes, eh? Not always? There are times in which general mayhem promotes increased productivity and it's imprudent to have a peaceful society? When might that be?

Originally Posted by Ahlevah

Sometimes, eh? Not always? There are times in which general mayhem promotes increased productivity and it's imprudent to have a peaceful society? When might that be?

General mayhem doesn't increase productivity of desirable resources.

Originally Posted by Ahlevah

You said, "Actions speak louder than words." The way I took that was "Don't listen to these guys because what they did goes way beyond being hypocrites" or something to that effect. So, if you're not attempting to poison the well, what's your point as it relates to natural rights? Some of these guys held slaves. So what? I mean, even Mao was right once in a while. He certainly knew how to kick the Kuomintang's ass.

What I am doing is illustrating the purpose of the Declaration and attempting to educate the naive and gullible.

The "so what" your refer to is central and key in any determination as to IF the Founders truly believed in natural rights as stated in the Declaration. And they obviously did not rendering the statement to simple public relations hype.

Originally Posted by haymarket

The "so what" your refer to is central and key in any determination as to IF the Founders truly believed in natural rights as stated in the Declaration.

I don't concede your point, but, regardless, it has no bearing on the validity of the argument concerning the existence or not of natural rights. It's faulty logic, whether you want to admit it or not. I mean, if you're arguing that "There is no such thing as natural rights because the founders were hypocritical scumbags who clearly didn't believe in them" then my retort is "There are natural rights because Honest Abe and Martin Luther King did believe in them."

Originally Posted by Ahlevah

Let me stop you there. ANY right can be "taken away" in the sense that a person can be deprived of it. The issue, though, is whether someone who isn't the grantor of the right can "take it away" in the ethical or legal sense. In the case of natural rights, we're talking about a moral or ethical state of affairs. Perhaps you don't believe in morality; you just assume that life exists and there's no point to it. Whatever rights you get come only from a beneficial human. If that's the case, then our discussion is over, because no amount of moral proselytizing on my part will sway you. But from a legal standpoint if the state says, for example, that you have a right to be repaid for a debt and I just say, "Screw it. I'm not repaying you," according to your logic your right to repayment ends there. I mean, if you're going to argue that someone other than the grantor of a right can "take it away" then, well, I just took your right away.

Ethics are subjective and even ethics of a group are agreed upon by the group. Laws are relative and can be changed by a number of different means.

Originally Posted by Thrilla

so your of the mind that man simply created these rights out of thin air, absent reasoning or premise?

Reasoning is involved in how our rights came about. It is not because they are "natural" rights. It is what is seen as best and fair for the majority people, at least when speaking about those rights that many view as "natural". Although our ability to reason is "natural", that does not make those rights that people view as important or ones "everyone" has or should have as "natural".

Humans are pretty intelligent and create a lot of things "out of thin air", especially abstract concepts such as rights. These things also seem to change, hence "abstract".

Originally Posted by roguenuke

Reasoning is involved in how our rights came about. It is not because they are "natural" rights. It is what is seen as best and fair for the majority people, at least when speaking about those rights that many view as "natural". Although our ability to reason is "natural", that does not make those rights that people view as important or ones "everyone" has or should have as "natural".

Humans are pretty intelligent and create a lot of things "out of thin air", especially abstract concepts such as rights. These things also seem to change, hence "abstract".

oh, so you have it within you to create a right?