I am beginning to see why you are so far off track Lursa, of course there are natural rights. Do you not have the right to your life Lursa, or is that something which is granted to you only by statue?
Clearly you must believe you have the right to defend your life don't you? If someone came at you with a knife you could use whatever necessary force you needed to in order to defend your life--- TO SURVIVE.
Only as
recognized and enforced by the govt ("man", an authority). And thru due process...or random act of violence...anyone can take it away.
So no, I do not recognize any natural right to life.
Did you not study philosophy in college? Never took an ethics or reasoning class? Rights are more than just concepts subject to the definition of men; there is a substance to the quality of nature and survival-- including survival within a society of rational human beings capable of reason. If there are no natural rights, and every action is subject to the individual whim, then what prevents anyone from just bursting into your home and eating your liver with a side of fava beans?
I sure did, 2 degrees and several courses. My first BS was biology, so I know pretty much what's 'natural' and what's not. Lots of human evolution, ethics, sociology, anthro, philosophy, etc too.
And nothing prevents anyone from breaking into your home and doing anything, not even laws.
Many other species have social, hierarchical orders and dont kill at random, nurture young and each other, etc. Wow, you dont know how to connect these dots at all, do you? Your conclusions are terrible.
"Rights" have nothing to do with use of force and violence. Animals use it against others all the time. And rights dont stop a single human from deciding to use force or violence against others.
From a natural/biological perspective we humans are capable of a higher order of reason in order to sustain or own existence; therefore it is NATURAL for us to follow after a system which seeks to recognize and support our natural rights--- otherwise we would as a species be in a constant state of war.. in which we would eventually cease being a species.
Still doesnt account for the existence of rights...just the use of force, violence agaisnst, cooperation with, etc others, which in your example of wolves, is what's used. They are instinctive traits. Just like reproducing and protecting young.
Wolves recognize nothing but might over right of the alphas. There are no rights...when another is stronger and motivated, it takes that status.
And which other species live in a constant state of war? None...because it would significantly reduce reproduction and the successful raising of offspring, so such instincts are selected against. Again, your conclusions are all wrong.
Does the the wolf not live, hunt, reproduce in packs (a social order)-- and in order to survive and assure the existence of it's species? Traits which are genetically embedded it it's DNA which is it's nature... similar to how it is in a human society.
Already covered.
I'm not basing my position on defending human life on religion. I have consistently advocated that at the moment of conception the fertilized ovum (zygote) is a blueprint for a new human life in the form of new individual genome. Sorry if you don't see that as science.
It is science, and as I've already written, science is objective, it applies no value to anything. In science, that human zygote has no more meaning or value than that wolve's zygote.
Please explain what authority recognizes a right to life for the unborn? Something outside a religion. And of course any religion, philosophy, or individual is welcome to believe in such...just not impose it on a secular society and women that do not believe the same.
Nature is a higher authority is it not?
No, of course not. Is chemistry a higher authority? Is evolution a higher authority? :doh
Nature is the physical world and everything in it.