• 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!

Do You Believe In Natural Rights?

Do You Believe in Natural Rights?

  • Yes

    Votes: 36 41.4%
  • No

    Votes: 51 58.6%

  • Total voters
    87
Why should anyone care what Jefferson believed when we're trying to establish what actually exists in objective reality? Jefferson's opinions mean exactly what everyone else's opinions do. Jack squat.

your concept of "existence" is flawed. you are trying to apply existence as it pertains to say a Building or a car or a court case to the existence of something like Catholicism, Communism, Confucianism or Natural rights
 
Tell it to Turtle as he keeps insisting it applied to only white men of property. What you seem to minimize by simply calling him a 'hypocrite' does not do justice to the actual events of Jeffersons life where he owned over 100 slaves for decades. that sort of actions goes far far far beyond mere hypocrisy. It shows he never believed the hollow words that others want to deceive themselves in believing matter more than actual daily actions for his entire adult life.

Keep in mind these men had already achieved varying degrees of success under British rule. Some of them became tremendously wealthy. It's certainly not like they would have been destitute if they hadn't risen up against the British. Not all of them were slave holders, and some of them only reluctantly agreed to commit what amounted to treason. One notable example is John Adams, who was on the committee to draft the Declaration. So whether you wish to acknowledge it or not, these men did risk everything, including their lives, to gain independence for the colonies from Britain. And before you lambaste people like Adams who agreed to permit slavery in the new union, there wouldn't have been one without out it. They needed votes, and the only way to get them was compromise with the hope that slavery would one day become a thing of the past, which it ultimately did only at great cost.
 
Many would be wrong.

well, I'm not one that believes they are synonymous, but i'm also not one to positively declare those who do are wrong.

from my understanding , Human rights are a more comprehensive list of rights that primarily stem from, or are intimately related to, natural rights...but i haven't put much time into direct comparisons of the two.
 
your concept of "existence" is flawed. you are trying to apply existence as it pertains to say a Building or a car or a court case to the existence of something like Catholicism, Communism, Confucianism or Natural rights

But I can define Catholicism, communism, Confucianism and show that those things actually exist in the real world. You can't do that with natural rights. You cannot show in any way, shape or form that they are real. Come on, this is getting ridiculous, at least try to limp away with some modicum of self-respect intact.
 
But I can define Catholicism, communism, Confucianism and show that those things actually exist in the real world. You can't do that with natural rights. You cannot show in any way, shape or form that they are real. Come on, this is getting ridiculous, at least try to limp away with some modicum of self-respect intact.

how does "catholicism" exist you are going to lose this argument. natural rights are something the founders believed in. this country and the constitution are based on those beliefs as surely as the vatican is based on the belief the that pope is God's bishop on earth

how do you prove the existence of that?
 
Why should anyone care what Jefferson believed when we're trying to establish what actually exists in objective reality? Jefferson's opinions mean exactly what everyone else's opinions do. Jack squat.

I think we first got on the subject when someone mentioned Jefferson owned slaves. Yeah, he owned slaves. He was also a brilliant writer. That's why the committee tasked to come up with the Declaration of Independence asked him to draft it.
 
well, I'm not one that believes they are synonymous, but i'm also not one to positively declare those who do are wrong.

from my understanding , Human rights are a more comprehensive list of rights that primarily stem from, or are intimately related to, natural rights...but i haven't put much time into direct comparisons of the two.
It's easy to know if someone is wrong. Compair their statment with the facts, and if the two don't match, the statement is wrong. Very simple.

Human Rights, Natural Rights, and Civil Rights all have diferent definitions, which means they're not synonymous. Anyone claiming they are is not stating the truth.

You don't need to be a super-human or even well educated to make such an observation, just an avarage person of reasonable intelligence. If you don't think you're qualified to make such an observation then you are insulting yourself.
 
Last edited:
But I can define Catholicism, communism, Confucianism and show that those things actually exist in the real world. You can't do that with natural rights. You cannot show in any way, shape or form that they are real. Come on, this is getting ridiculous, at least try to limp away with some modicum of self-respect intact.

they are enumerated in the DiO, and the US Constitution... they have been recorded, explained, and argued for thousands of years through the philosophical writings of numerous philosophers and political thinkers.

soooo.. now that we have cleared up, in the affirmative, the question of "are they real?"... we can move on.
 
You're talking about Human Rights, and I agree, but this thread is about Natural Rights.
My description applies to both, and I don't really see a distinction as far as my comment applies between the two. A better contrast would be natural rights vs. legal rights. A natural right is one that is claimed to exist even when it is not enforced by the government or society as a whole, while a legal right is a right specifically created by the government or society, for the benefit of its members. A person has a natural right to life, but depending on the type of society/government (or lack thereof) the legal right may not exist, rending the natural right rather meaningless in practice.
 
My description applies to both, and I don't really see a distinction as far as my comment applies between the two.
The only diference between a Natural Right and a Human Right is that a Natural Right cannot be taken away or given up. Other than that they are identical.

A better contrast would be natural rights vs. legal rights. A natural right is one that is claimed to exist even when it is not enforced by the government or society as a whole, while a legal right is a right specifically created by the government or society, for the benefit of its members. A person has a natural right to life, but depending on the type of society/government (or lack thereof) the legal right may not exist, rending the natural right rather meaningless in practice.
You're talking about Civil Rights, which are not the topic of this thread.

A Natural Right is any Human Right which cannot be forcibly denied by any means whatsoever. That distinction is the reason for the diferent lables. Can you think of any Human Rights which cannot be given up or forcibly denied?
 
they are enumerated in the DiO, and the US Constitution... they have been recorded, explained, and argued for thousands of years through the philosophical writings of numerous philosophers and political thinkers.

soooo.. now that we have cleared up, in the affirmative, the question of "are they real?"... we can move on.
Some people wrote them down, yes. Those people were wrong, provably so.
 
I think we first got on the subject when someone mentioned Jefferson owned slaves. Yeah, he owned slaves. He was also a brilliant writer. That's why the committee tasked to come up with the Declaration of Independence asked him to draft it.

None of which proves that what he wrote was factually true.
 
they are enumerated in the DiO, and the US Constitution... they have been recorded, explained, and argued for thousands of years through the philosophical writings of numerous philosophers and political thinkers.

soooo.. now that we have cleared up, in the affirmative, the question of "are they real?"... we can move on.

That still doesn't prove they're real, it just proves they've been popular. Try again.
 
rejected as contrary to reality. its a silly argument. Even if Jefferson did not believe that those rights applied to ALL MEN so what. Your silly attempt to try to undermine the scope of the BIll of Rights based on that claim is beyond bogus

There is indeed something going on here that is contrary to reality. Sadly for you it is your posts in which you continually claim that Jefferson believed in something that he did not believe. And to support you change the actual words that Jefferson wrote in his clear statement about what you would call natural rights in the Declaration of Independence.

You are attempting to substitute your own version of what you want reality to be for the real words and action of Jefferson.


Why do you insist upon denying reality and dwelling in the delusion that the words Jefferson wrote are different than the actual words I have quoted many many times from the Declaration of Independence?

Why do you insist upon constructing your own false convenient mental refuge which is contrary to the actual statement Jefferson made?
 
such as the belief that natural rights do not exist ?

If anyone wants to push forward their belief about the existence of something - the full and total responsibility to prove that existence is upon that individual to prove it with verifiable evidence . A person denying that belief has absolutely no responsibility to prove anything in the absence of verifiable evidence offered by the proponent of the belief system - in this case the existence of natural rights.

You can assert and claim that there are three inch blue monkeys made of flame who play a version of professional basketball underneath the surface of Uranus. The responsibility to have that accepted as fact is entirely upon the proponent of such a claim. In fact, neither nor anyone else can disprove such a claim since it would involve proving a negative.
 
Keep in mind these men had already achieved varying degrees of success under British rule. Some of them became tremendously wealthy. It's certainly not like they would have been destitute if they hadn't risen up against the British. Not all of them were slave holders, and some of them only reluctantly agreed to commit what amounted to treason. One notable example is John Adams, who was on the committee to draft the Declaration. So whether you wish to acknowledge it or not, these men did risk everything, including their lives, to gain independence for the colonies from Britain. And before you lambaste people like Adams who agreed to permit slavery in the new union, there wouldn't have been one without out it. They needed votes, and the only way to get them was compromise with the hope that slavery would one day become a thing of the past, which it ultimately did only at great cost.

Yes indeed, Adams and the others did compromise. The sad reality is that your claim that they had to compromise involved nothing of their own.

They compromised with the lives of others that they claimed others had a natural right to. And in doing so betrayed their own statement of natural rights in their document the Declaration of Independence.

They compromised with the liberty of others that they claimed others had a natural right to. And in doing so betrayed their own statement of natural rights in their document the Declaration of Independence.

They compromised with the pursuit of happiness that they claimed others had a natural right to. And in doing so betrayed their own statement of natural rights in their document the Declaration of Independence.

And in the case of Jefferson and the other signers who were slave owners, they continued to engage in an activity which denied the so called natural rights they had signed a statement of day after day, week after week, month after month, and year after year.

So we have the words of Jefferson and the others and we have the actions and deeds of Jefferson and the others to hold up and compare.

So do we reject the time old adage that ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS and now accept the premise that ones actions for a lifetime mean precious little or even nothing compared to one statement to the contrary given to justify separating from England?

Yes, perhaps the extremely naive would accept such a ridiculous claim.

Yes, the hopelessly gullible would accept such a ridiculous claim.

Yes, perhaps the political virgin would accept such a ridiculous claim.

Yes, perhaps the blind zealot so shut out from reality would accept such a claim because to do otherwise threatens to destroy his entire self imposed belief system as reality takes a sledge hammer to its foundations.

So which of those apply here?
 
Then how are people not entitled to the 'right' to self-defense? You claim we dont, that we MUST let a judge and jury decide.
You're conflating "natural rights" with rights dictated by society.
 
Keep in mind these men had already achieved varying degrees of success under British rule. Some of them became tremendously wealthy. It's certainly not like they would have been destitute if they hadn't risen up against the British. Not all of them were slave holders, and some of them only reluctantly agreed to commit what amounted to treason. One notable example is John Adams, who was on the committee to draft the Declaration. So whether you wish to acknowledge it or not, these men did risk everything, including their lives, to gain independence for the colonies from Britain. And before you lambaste people like Adams who agreed to permit slavery in the new union, there wouldn't have been one without out it. They needed votes, and the only way to get them was compromise with the hope that slavery would one day become a thing of the past, which it ultimately did only at great cost.

just a bit of info for you:), slavery did not end in the British Empire until 1833
 
None of which proves that what he wrote was factually true.

Remember this: A critical word in the title of the tread is "believe." I believe the 50-60 million people Mao wiped off the planet had a right to live because I think man's ability to reason, experience, and feel places him above things. You apparently don't believe they did. Can you prove your belief with facts? I'm gonna take a stab and say no. :2wave:
 
So do we reject the time old adage that ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS and now accept the premise that ones actions for a lifetime mean precious little or even nothing compared to one statement to the contrary given to justify separating from England?

Yes, perhaps the extremely naive would accept such a ridiculous claim.

If you want to engage in faulty reasoning by poisoning the well, thus ignoring the merits of their argument, be my guest. And since when does treason not place one at personal risk of losing everything, including one's life? :confused:
 
Remember this: A critical word in the title of the tread is "believe." I believe the 50-60 million people Mao wiped off the planet had a right to live because I think man's ability to reason, experience, and feel places him above things. You apparently don't believe they did. Can you prove your belief with facts? I'm gonna take a stab and say no. :2wave:

So you admit that you have blind faith in natural rights. Gotcha. :roll:
 
That still doesn't prove they're real, it just proves they've been popular. Try again.

nah, i'm not gonna try again.. .you're far too invested in ignoring recorded history and philosophy... that's a wall nobody is going to be able to pierce.
 
Back
Top Bottom