View Poll Results: Are Rights Natural?

Voters
67. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes.

    27 40.30%
  • No.

    32 47.76%
  • Other.

    6 8.96%
  • Rootabega.

    16 23.88%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 10 of 36 FirstFirst ... 8910111220 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 352

Thread: Are Rights Natural?

  1. #91
    Doesn't go below juicy
    tacomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Cleveland
    Last Seen
    05-20-16 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    31,781

    Re: Are Rights Natural?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    I mean, if we start allowing for the absurd, that's where the conversation will head. So maybe you should choose before we go on. Are we taking the absurd route or not? There are no natural means by which I can transfer my consciousness, thus ownership of my body is innate. You can't take my thoughts, you can't take my ideas, you can't take my feelings. These are all innate to me and naturally exist within me. So too do natural rights. You cannot take them from me. You can not force me to believe or not believe a religion. You can not force me to accept certain candidates, to believe in their platforms. In the end, there is a base from which everything else is constructed; and that base is composed of natural rights.
    I will attempt to settle this theoretical concept with something that exists in nature.

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgAEeisfHW8"]YouTube- Parasitic Mind Control[/ame]

    If nature can do it, man will be able to do it some day.

  2. #92
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Are Rights Natural?

    Quote Originally Posted by megaprogman View Post
    A lot of Christians believe that morality can only be measured against an objective standard. They argue that atheists cannot be moral because they don't have the same standards. You are basically giving the same argument right here.

    A slave wants to be free because it would make his life better, but that is the same as a guy working his way up the corporate ladder because he wants more money. We all want our lives to continually get better. This stems from our instinct, not a philosophical concept.

    What I am curious about is why you think you need something outside of you to try and make things more to your preference? Ultimately, whether you believe it or not, it comes from within you. You have some ideas and an emotional bond to those ideas and that is the only source of your (or anyone else's) fight for a better world.
    It's whether you are justified in that anger, if you can justly take action. If there are no natural rights, then everything is a construct of the current government and society. If they say, for instance, that slavery is legal then slavery is legal and there's nothing you can do about it. A slave is a slave and must accept that lot. Because the slave has no natural right, the slave has no just reason to be upset over being a slave. The slave has no justifiable reason to revolt or fight back because natural rights do not exist. Thus if the slave is not assigned rights by anyone, the slave has no rights. And without rights, then he has no recourse to fight against that designation. The right gives the limitations to the government and offers legitimacy for acting against it should it err too greatly against our rights. If we do not have rights, we do not have the legitimacy. If everything is privilege granted to us by law or society, then the slave has no legitimate reason to rise up against the government or his owners. He has no rights. According to you.

    If instead, there is a base of natural rights which include life, liberty, and property, then the situation is different. Getting upset is justified because your rights have been violated. Fighting back is justified because your rights have been violated. So ask yourself, is getting upset over being a slave justified or not? Is it reasonable? If your answer is yes, then why? Is it just because someone wants a better life? Or is it because the act of slavery is fundamentally wrong. Not just by our social or legal standards. But that when one is enslaved, you have acted against their rights. That one is right to act out; not just because they want a better life; but because they deserve to be able to live for themselves. Because that is their right.

    This is not likened to Christians saying that atheists can't be moral.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  3. #93
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:03 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,983

    Re: Are Rights Natural?

    I voted other, I believe some rights are given to us by society, and others given to all by God.

  4. #94
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Are Rights Natural?

    Quote Originally Posted by megaprogman View Post
    I will attempt to settle this theoretical concept with something that exists in nature.

    If nature can do it, man will be able to do it some day.
    Nature can do a lot of things. Including controlled fusion. We can only make it in bomb form. It does nothing to argue against the existence of natural rights, however. It just shows that maybe there is another way to infringe upon rights. The legitimacy of rights especially as it relates to the restrictions and controls of government are not partial to the existence of parasites. It's a fundamental question over whether or not humans contain rights.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  5. #95
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

    Re: Are Rights Natural?

    Quote Originally Posted by megaprogman View Post
    Society is defined as a set of relations between people. You cannot argue as if there were no other people and then mention people.
    False, society is defined by the social contract it agrees upon. Anarchists don't want a social contract, even though there would be people, it wouldn't necessarily be a society.



    In other words, other people's morals are not compatible with your morals. This doesn't really prove or disprove anything. In fact I could use it to argue that it is not self evident or more people would have come to the same conclusions as Locke, but it remains a uniquely European and American concept.
    You are arguing using morals, I was attempting to show the fallacy of appeal to one sector of it.



    When slavery was abolished in the US, many slaves did not leave their plantations because they liked it there. Wanting freedom is not always natural.
    They chose freely not to leave, key word is chose.
    Many animals have to go through rehabilitation after living with humans to relearn how to life in the wild and be free. Wanting freedom is a learned behavior. Wanting a better life is innate. Some animals and people will put up with a lot of stuff if their food and survival is insured.
    Wrong, captivity is a learned behavior, but if there was no captivity the desire for freedom would be innate.


    Having an emotional bond to a concept and wanting it realized can be used to justify any philosophy.
    On the one hand you are trying to argue that captivity and rights have to be learned, then you appeal to philosophy, your points aren't compatible here.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  6. #96
    Doesn't go below juicy
    tacomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Cleveland
    Last Seen
    05-20-16 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    31,781

    Re: Are Rights Natural?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    It's whether you are justified in that anger, if you can justly take action. If there are no natural rights, then everything is a construct of the current government and society. If they say, for instance, that slavery is legal then slavery is legal and there's nothing you can do about it. A slave is a slave and must accept that lot. Because the slave has no natural right, the slave has no just reason to be upset over being a slave. The slave has no justifiable reason to revolt or fight back because natural rights do not exist. Thus if the slave is not assigned rights by anyone, the slave has no rights. And without rights, then he has no recourse to fight against that designation. The right gives the limitations to the government and offers legitimacy for acting against it should it err too greatly against our rights. If we do not have rights, we do not have the legitimacy. If everything is privilege granted to us by law or society, then the slave has no legitimate reason to rise up against the government or his owners. He has no rights. According to you.
    Its not what I think that's important, its what the slave thinks. If the slave wants to be free and this person believes that they have a moral right to it, for whatever reason, than I say go for it. The slave next to him might be satisfied with their life, If that's their choice, than that is fine too. Whether you and I agree with either person does not matter, except to us. We will apply our own moral codes (which is unique from person to person) to our view of the situation and react accordingly.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    If instead, there is a base of natural rights which include life, liberty, and property, then the situation is different. Getting upset is justified because your rights have been violated. Fighting back is justified because your rights have been violated. So ask yourself, is getting upset over being a slave justified or not? Is it reasonable? If your answer is yes, then why? Is it just because someone wants a better life? Or is it because the act of slavery is fundamentally wrong. Not just by our social or legal standards. But that when one is enslaved, you have acted against their rights. That one is right to act out; not just because they want a better life; but because they deserve to be able to live for themselves. Because that is their right.

    This is not likened to Christians saying that atheists can't be moral.
    Actually it is, because you are applying an external standard to human behavior. You are saying that people are good and are permitted to do things because some standard says its OK. I am saying it is based on a person's personality. I am not interested in justifying actions because that is something people already do (unless they are a sociopath or something). I will use my moral criteria, others will use theirs. I see nothing wrong with this and I see nothing that would prevent people from acting based on their moral criteria, even if it doesn't agree with Locke's.

    But yeah, if the people in the Middle East reject the idea of democracy or natural rights because it is not compatible with Islam, than they will, whether it is good (from our perspective) or not. There is no greater moral criteria in which to judge that than what exists in your own mind. If you want to use Locke's ideas than fine, just don't expect others to. That would be you imposing yourself on them.

  7. #97
    Doesn't go below juicy
    tacomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Cleveland
    Last Seen
    05-20-16 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    31,781

    Re: Are Rights Natural?

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    False, society is defined by the social contract it agrees upon. Anarchists don't want a social contract, even though there would be people, it wouldn't necessarily be a society.
    so·ci·e·ty (s-s-t)
    n. pl. so·ci·e·ties
    1.
    a. The totality of social relationships among humans.



    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    You are arguing using morals, I was attempting to show the fallacy of appeal to one sector of it.
    I don't understand, sector of morals? Parse error ...

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    They chose freely not to leave, key word is chose. Wrong, captivity is a learned behavior, but if there was no captivity the desire for freedom would be innate.
    I disagree. You cannot easily say which is learned behavior since they would learn the behavior of whatever situation they were born in.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    On the one hand you are trying to argue that captivity and rights have to be learned, then you appeal to philosophy, your points aren't compatible here.
    That's because captivity vs freedom has no relation to morals unless those morals involve that concept. Either way, I misunderstood your argument. You seem to be saying that we have a freedom of something if we can imagine it though, that doesn't make sense.

  8. #98
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Are Rights Natural?

    Quote Originally Posted by megaprogman View Post
    Its not what I think that's important, its what the slave thinks. If the slave wants to be free and this person believes that they have a moral right to it, for whatever reason, than I say go for it. The slave next to him might be satisfied with their life, If that's their choice, than that is fine too. Whether you and I agree with either person does not matter, except to us. We will apply our own moral codes (which is unique from person to person) to our view of the situation and react accordingly.
    Well you're starting to confuse individual case with aggregated effect. It does come down to what you think. If the slave wants to be free, do they have the right to fight to be free? That's the fundamental. You're doing a lot of tap dancing to get around answering the question. I think cause maybe you know the answer. Is the slave justified in fighting for his freedom? Regardless of law, or what the slave himself thinks? These are beyond moral codes and go to the heart of what rights are. The slavery issue is the easiest. But if the government comes down on us, say, and starts throwing people in prison for dissent; are those people justifiably pissed off? Do we have justification to stand against it? By that point the 1st amendment would be gone, the government would have "made" other "rights" in its place. So according to you, we wouldn't have the right to fight back or be pissed off by it. But do we have that justification?

    This is where the rights are from. If you think we are justified in fighting back, then there has to be something at the base which provides that justification. That is what natural rights are. They are something so far of limits, that not even government can take them. And if government (or any outside entity) should infringe upon those rights, we are justified in defense and response to that initial aggressive action. If rights are merely as some of you suggest, those situations cannot exist. People may get pissy, but they have no proper justification to fight back.

    Quote Originally Posted by megaprogman View Post
    Actually it is, because you are applying an external standard to human behavior. You are saying that people are good and are permitted to do things because some standard says its OK. I am saying it is based on a person's personality. I am not interested in justifying actions because that is something people already do (unless they are a sociopath or something). I will use my moral criteria, others will use theirs. I see nothing wrong with this and I see nothing that would prevent people from acting based on their moral criteria, even if it doesn't agree with Locke's.
    I'm saying that there is a base untouchable by government. A set of laws which are above the grasp of government or others to modify; those are natural laws.

    Quote Originally Posted by megaprogman View Post
    But yeah, if the people in the Middle East reject the idea of democracy or natural rights because it is not compatible with Islam, than they will, whether it is good (from our perspective) or not. There is no greater moral criteria in which to judge that than what exists in your own mind. If you want to use Locke's ideas than fine, just don't expect others to. That would be you imposing yourself on them.
    Infringe upon my natural rights, and see how far I'm willing to go to impose myself and protect my rights. The people of the ME may reject the idea of natural rights because it interferes with government power and theocratic rule. But that doesn't mean the natural rights do not exist. All the people in the ME still have the same base rights as me or any other human on this planet.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  9. #99
    Doesn't go below juicy
    tacomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Cleveland
    Last Seen
    05-20-16 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    31,781

    Re: Are Rights Natural?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Well you're starting to confuse individual case with aggregated effect. It does come down to what you think. If the slave wants to be free, do they have the right to fight to be free? That's the fundamental.
    They do if they believe they do. They don't if they believe they don't. Just like the slave owner has the right of ownership if he believes he does. That matter is between the slave and the owner. Our beliefs, morals, etc are the only thing that can answer this question. So it depends on the slave and what the owner believes.

    If there is a disagreement between parties, some method of resolution will be used, probably based on force, but maybe a contract, or an exchange of value, or some other mechanism, such as the slave running away. Society might or might not impose their view on the situation as well which will also affect how the disagreement is resolved.

    Sorry, I thought I addressed it. Does that help?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    You're doing a lot of tap dancing to get around answering the question. I think cause maybe you know the answer. Is the slave justified in fighting for his freedom? Regardless of law, or what the slave himself thinks?
    See above.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    These are beyond moral codes and go to the heart of what rights are. The slavery issue is the easiest. But if the government comes down on us, say, and starts throwing people in prison for dissent; are those people justifiably pissed off? Do we have justification to stand against it? By that point the 1st amendment would be gone, the government would have "made" other "rights" in its place. So according to you, we wouldn't have the right to fight back or be pissed off by it. But do we have that justification?
    Again, see above, it depends on how we feel about the situation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    This is where the rights are from. If you think we are justified in fighting back, then there has to be something at the base which provides that justification. That is what natural rights are. They are something so far of limits, that not even government can take them. And if government (or any outside entity) should infringe upon those rights, we are justified in defense and response to that initial aggressive action. If rights are merely as some of you suggest, those situations cannot exist. People may get pissy, but they have no proper justification to fight back.
    Our rights are what we take from nature and what we can defend by force.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    I'm saying that there is a base untouchable by government. A set of laws which are above the grasp of government or others to modify; those are natural laws.
    Nope, see above.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    I'm saying that there is a base untouchable by Infringe upon my natural rights, and see how far I'm willing to go to impose myself and protect my rights. The people of the ME may reject the idea of natural rights because it interferes with government power and theocratic rule. But that doesn't mean the natural rights do not exist. All the people in the ME still have the same base rights as me or any other human on this planet.
    Natural rights don't exist unless you can defend them.

    I say Sharia Law is the best because I believe it is the best, its about equally as valid are your concept of natural rights (Disclaimer, I am not a Muslim, so that was hypothetical). This goes back to having a moral code you believe in and fighting for it. I applaud you for it, but I don't have to agree (at least until mind control does happen, which I hope it never will, but marketing folk would simply love for you to buy their product, by any means necessary, so it probably will).
    Last edited by tacomancer; 03-02-10 at 02:38 PM.

  10. #100
    Sage
    scourge99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    The Wild West
    Last Seen
    01-27-12 @ 02:50 AM
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    6,233

    Re: Are Rights Natural?

    Please define "right" in less than 4 sentences.

    Then define "natural right" as well.

    What is a "non-natural" right?

    I think that will clear things up a bit.
    If you believe in the Supernatural then you can become a millionaire!

    Questioning or criticizing another's core beliefs is inadvertently perceived as offensive and rude.

Page 10 of 36 FirstFirst ... 8910111220 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •