• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Unalienable rights: Let those flatter who fear; it is not an American art.

29A said:
They were "given" by philosophers in that it was they who first articulated them. To assert unalienable rights existed prior to their articulation would be an anachronism. It is similar to asserting heliocentrism as having existed prior to Copernicus' development of his predictive mathematical model...or denying spontaneous generation before it was debunked by Pasteur. Neither can one blame unalienable rights, such as those listed in the DOI, on God, because they don't exist in the Sacred Texts of any religion.
Click to expand...

In order for something to have been 'asserted' or 'discovered', it must, by necessity have had to exist prior to its discovery, else it wouldn't have been there to discover.

Your logic fails ...
 
29A said:
I would disagree, and consider the 1st to be far more definite and based in reality than the soaring language of the DOI.
Click to expand...

Given that the Constitution is the application of those concepts presented in the Declaration of Independence, it is only logical that it is "far more definite and based in reality". It is impossible for it to be otherwise.
 
GBFAN said:
In order for something to have been 'asserted' or 'discovered', it must, by necessity have had to exist prior to its discovery, else it wouldn't have been there to discover.

Your logic fails ...
Click to expand...

I do hear what you're saying...but there is theoretical support. In quantum mechanics, what is known as the Copenhagen Interpretation, basically states, "Nothing is real until it has been observed. "
 
TNAR said:
Rights are a fundamental part of the human condition. They are only labelled and brought to our awareness by philosophers. This is akin to saying gravity or the speed of light did not exist until they were elucidated by scientists.
Click to expand...

So if someone writes it down...it's true? We can prove the speed of light. We cannot prove the existence of such rights. We can test gravity. We cannot test how such rights are fundamental to the human condition.

No, they are observed and respected by society. Some individuals do not respect the right of life. Does this mean that it does not exist?
Click to expand...

Pretty much. Rights are created and enforced by force. Without force, there are no rights. Hence why in chaos, might makes right. We do not accept that as a moral principle, but in actuality, it's how it works. No species in nature has such qualms as we do and no species in nature has such observable rights. Nor does nature "observe" and "respect" our "fundamental" rights. An elephant creates its right to life by killing a lion trying to attack it. A hunter dispells that right by killing the elephant. Rights are constructs that exist only in the context of force or the threat of force. They are not fundamental. Nor were they ever.

Furthermore, ideologically, someone who is in favor of guns to protect their rights should logically conclude this.
 
Cephus said:
Rights are an INVENTED part of the human condition, they were created by societies as a short cut to having to justify common treatment. That doesn't mean they actually exist, only that they are implied by the society in question and societies across the globe and throughout history have had entirely different ideas of what constituted basic human rights. There simply is no universally agreed upon set of rights, it doesn't exist. It wasn't brought to anyone's awareness, it was made up and irrationally justified by philosophers.
Click to expand...

If I justify human rights with body sovereignty how exactly is my argument irrational? It is however true that Locke contradicted himself when he wrote about his social contract theory.
 
Henrin said:
If I justify human rights with body sovereignty how exactly is my argument irrational? It is however true that Locke contradicted himself when he wrote about his social contract theory.
Click to expand...

Because body sovereignty is still just made up. It's all made up.
 
Does your right to life exist before, or AFTER I murder you?





Answer that, and you'll pretty much understand the nature of human "rights".
 
GBFAN said:
... but is the inherent anthema of the liberal left ... to presume that they do not have control, that they must answer to a greater authority (the rule of law) violates their precious ego.
Click to expand...

Wotta crock...
 
29A said:
I do hear what you're saying...but there is theoretical support. In quantum mechanics, what is known as the Copenhagen Interpretation, basically states, "Nothing is real until it has been observed. "
Click to expand...

Familiar with it ... the Shrodinger's Cat paradigm states much the same, but is inherently false. The cat is dead when it dies ... not when you discover it's dead. The same applies here ... the fact that we didn't know about oxygen does not negate its existence.

But, you must admit ----- it DOES make for an interesting philosophical discussion.
 
KevinKohler said:
Does your right to life exist before, or AFTER I murder you?

Answer that, and you'll pretty much understand the nature of human "rights".
Click to expand...

Yes and no. Does your right to life intrinsically exist independent of anything else? Not a chance.

Does your right to life exist because the state has laws that have punishments behind them for violations? Yes.

That does not mean we can stop someone from killing you, it just means that as society, we have granted such rights under force of law. They exist because we will enforce them with violence if necessary. You have an artificial construction that exists because of force saying you have a right to life. You do not actually have such an intrinsic right to life.
 
29A said:
I do hear what you're saying...but there is theoretical support. In quantum mechanics, what is known as the Copenhagen Interpretation, basically states, "Nothing is real until it has been observed. "
Click to expand...

In the early universe, say when it was five minutes old and far too hot for life there were presumably no observers. Was the universe real back then?
 
obvious Child said:
Yes and no. Does your right to life intrinsically exist independent of anything else? Not a chance.

Does your right to life exist because the state has laws that have punishments behind them for violations? Yes.

That does not mean we can stop someone from killing you, it just means that as society, we have granted such rights under force of law. They exist because we will enforce them with violence if necessary. You have an artificial construction that exists because of force saying you have a right to life. You do not actually have such an intrinsic right to life.
Click to expand...

Exactly.
 
TNAR said:
Rights are a fundamental part of the human condition. They are only labelled and brought to our awareness by philosophers. This is akin to saying gravity or the speed of light did not exist until they were elucidated by scientists.



No, they are observed and respected by society. Some individuals do not respect the right of life. Does this mean that it does not exist?



Democracy is no less slavery than is a totalitarian regime. Voting for your master in no way avoids creating a ruling class.
Click to expand...


Other than basic biological functions, can you show that to be true??? Can you give an example of this, and then show it is 'human nature'.
 
RAMOSS said:
Other than basic biological functions, can you show that to be true??? Can you give an example of this, and then show it is 'human nature'.
Click to expand...

No. No he can't.
 
GBFAN said:
In order for something to have been 'asserted' or 'discovered', it must, by necessity have had to exist prior to its discovery, else it wouldn't have been there to discover.

Your logic fails ...
Click to expand...


So, the watch existed before it's discovery? How very odd. And democracy existed before is was asserted?? Really??
 
RAMOSS said:
So, the watch existed before it's discovery? How very odd. And democracy existed before is was asserted?? Really??
Click to expand...

Well, to be fair, we didn't discover a watch, we invented it. Your democracy example is closer though, we came up with a political system with specific characteristics and called it democracy. The same is true of rights. We came up with them and gave them a name and form. It was something we invented, mostly based on wishful thinking and enlightened self-interest. However, there are a lot of people who are convinced that these things were magically floating around in the ether, waiting for some clever man to find them. That's just not how it worked.
 
RAMOSS said:
So, the watch existed before it's discovery? How very odd. And democracy existed before is was asserted?? Really??
Click to expand...

There is a significant difference between 'discovered', and 'invented' or 'created'.

Not even a nice try .... just a FAIL.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom