• 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
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.

Because it's all a conspiracy not to pay attention to libertarian stupidity. Gotcha. :roll:
 
Because it's all a conspiracy not to pay attention to libertarian stupidity. Gotcha. :roll:

ahhh... now I can see why you decided to throw up the anti-intellectual wall....you falsely believe natural rights are solely a libertarian "thing".
 
You're conflating "natural rights" with rights dictated by society.

There are no such thing as 'natural rights.' All are something that are determined and then recognized by man.
 
There are no such thing as 'natural rights.' All are something that are determined and then recognized by man.
I'm not a believer in natural rights either, hence the quotation marks around them. I generally support most of the application of the theory because I believe in a more equal society, but I don't see any epistemological reasoning for supporting the theory.
 
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:

That response makes no sense to the post from me that you produced as its lead in.
 
There are no such thing as 'natural rights.' All are something that are determined and then recognized by man.

so your of the mind that man simply created these rights out of thin air, absent reasoning or premise?
 
I'm not a believer in natural rights either, hence the quotation marks around them. I generally support most of the application of the theory because I believe in a more equal society, but I don't see any epistemological reasoning for supporting the theory.

wait a minute..... how can one support the application of something that does not exist?.... and can something that does not exist even be applied?

additionally... why do you believe in a "more equal society"?.. what drives this particular belief?
 
all rights are based upon the "asserter" of a give rights ability/willingness to kill or harm those who would usurp those rights. If you lack the ability or the willingness, in a generation or so, you'll have lost that right (and all the others) to somebody who's killed or enslaved you
 
so your of the mind that man simply created these rights out of thin air, absent reasoning or premise?

Enlightened self-interest. There's your reasoning.
 
That response makes no sense to the post from me that you produced as its lead in.

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.
 
wait a minute..... how can one support the application of something that does not exist?.... and can something that does not exist even be applied?
The same way I can support "Thou shalt not kill" even if I don't attribute it to any divine being proclaiming it.
additionally... why do you believe in a "more equal society"?.. what drives this particular belief?
Redistributing liberties in a society makes them more equal. That's what "natural rights" do. They proclaim everyone is entitled to certain basic liberties and redistributes them from those who would take them to those who wouldn't otherwise be able to claim them.
 
So you admit that you have blind faith in natural rights. Gotcha. :roll:

No, I don't admit I have blind faith. I have 2,300 years of logic and ethics on my side. I also have reason to believe that human life has value because people can reason, experience, and feel. Your faith in the absence of "factual" evidence (such as a right bitch-slapping you upside your head) is evidence of blindness.
 
Last edited:
The same way I can support "Thou shalt not kill" even if I don't attribute it to any divine being proclaiming it.
we aren't talking about attribution....we're talking existence.
why on earth would you even support such a notion of "thou shalt not kill"... if there is no right to live, there is no duty not to kill.

Redistributing liberties in a society makes them more equal. That's what "natural rights" do. They proclaim everyone is entitled to certain basic liberties and redistributes them from those who would take them to those who wouldn't otherwise be able to claim them.
what the holy ****?... redistributing liberties?
where are you coming up with this stuff?... i'm curious to read your sources, if only so i can figure out just what you are talking about.
 
The same way I can support "Thou shalt not kill" even if I don't attribute it to any divine being proclaiming it.

What way is that? Enlighten us to why you think you can support "Thou shalt not kill" but others shouldn't (since there is, in your view, no universal, natural right to life).
 
Enlightened self-interest. There's your reasoning.

odd how a single reasoning could be behind 2500 years of philosophical arguments in which men from different times, cultures, and enviroments all came to rather similar conclusions on the premise of certain rights eh?

i mean it's almost as if "enlightened self interest" could be described as ... i dunno.. natural? ;)
 
we aren't talking about attribution....we're talking existence.
why on earth would you even support such a notion of "thou shalt not kill"... if there is no right to live, there is no duty not to kill.
There is advantage to peace. It's prudent to discourage killing, even if it's not provided by supernatural decree.
what the holy ****?... redistributing liberties?
where are you coming up with this stuff?... i'm curious to read your sources, if only so i can figure out just what you are talking about.
This is fundamental political theory stuff. All men are not created equal, their collective capabilities are pooled together in society and divided by society, according to the liberties that society grants. Without such redistribution, we'd be all subject to the single Goliath of a society. Instead, the Goliath relinquishes some of his might, and the David is given access to it.
 
What way is that? Enlighten us to why you think you can support "Thou shalt not kill" but others shouldn't (since there is, in your view, no universal, natural right to life).
It's prudent to have a peaceful society. Killing doesn't increase productivity or peace.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
we aren't talking about attribution....we're talking existence.
why on earth would you even support such a notion of "thou shalt not kill"... if there is no right to live, there is no duty not to kill.


what the holy ****?... redistributing liberties?
where are you coming up with this stuff?... i'm curious to read your sources, if only so i can figure out just what you are talking about.
Firstly, it's "murder", not kill. The prohibition is against unjust killing, not killing per-se.

Second, be it from a god or a government the command is one to maintain order, not to protect a right. All authority comes from violence and this comand places the violence within the pattern of behavior the god or government desires.
 
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."
 
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.
 
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".
 
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?
 
Back
Top Bottom