• 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
If humans had a natural right to life, then God could never have killed anyone since natural rights cannot be alienated.

Are you saying natural rights don't exist, or that God doesn't exist?

As I said, some understand the concept and some, either deliberately or because of some kind of cognitive disconnect, cannot understand the concept. I have never said that natural rights don't exist or that God doesn't exist. I am saying that it is not necessary to accept or believe in one in order to believe in the other.
 
I get that we don't do that sort of thing here, but that is because we have laws based upon the concept of innate, individual rights. The problem is, the governing authority in Mosul Iraq has declared that throwing gays from tall buildings is a just and proper act. Why are they wrong? Or aren't they?

Sure we have laws based on rights. Where would you get the impression we do not?

And laws range from nation to nation and culture to culture.

I would NOT support a government which allows what you describe? Is that "wrong"? I guess that would depend on whose definition you are using - ours or the nation you described.
 
WRONG!

the bill of rights do not grants any right at all...and since no rights are granted by the bill of rights, you cannot repeal such.

Anything in the US Constitution can be changed via Amendment unless it states clearly that it cannot. There is NO provision it it which prevents that.

Read your Constitution

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

there are only two protections and one of them has a time expiration which has already seen it expire.

Any of the rights in the Bill of Rights or later can be changed or repealed via the process outlined in Article V.
 
Anything in the US Constitution can be changed via Amendment. There is NO provision it it which prevents that.

that is correct....no doubt about it!

BUT!!!,.......the bill of rights does not grant any rights.......so how can you repeal what has not been granted....
 
that is correct....no doubt about it!

BUT!!!,.......the bill of rights does not grant any rights.......so how can you repeal what has not been granted....

Go back and read your post and your own glaring error should scream out at you like 50,000 fans cheering on their teams grand slam home run in the bottom of the ninth.
 
Go back and read your post and your own glaring error should scream out at you like 50,000 fans cheering on their teams grand slam home run in the bottom of the ninth.

i already know my own words,


you can repeal the restrictions which are placed on the federal government by the bill of rights, but you cannot repeal rights, since the bill of rights is not granting any at all.
 
I get that we don't do that sort of thing here, but that is because we have laws based upon the concept of innate, individual rights. The problem is, the governing authority in Mosul Iraq has declared that throwing gays from tall buildings is a just and proper act. Why are they wrong? Or aren't they?

From their perspective, they aren't wrong, that's why they're doing it. We have a different perspective. Neither side is objectively right or objectively wrong. Welcome to reality.
 
The dictionary.


The dictionary.


I don't know any philosophers who have written modern dictionaries.
There are many English dictionaries. I checked Merriam-Webster, and you definition is not listed under "natural right." Which are you reading that states "A Natural Right is any Human Right which cannot be forcibly denied by any means whatsoever"? Please provide a quote.

Again, your distinction is one you have created yourself. You made up a definition of natural rights, rendering your argument semantic nonsense with no basis in how the term has been or is used and understood.
 
From their perspective, they aren't wrong, that's why they're doing it. We have a different perspective. Neither side is objectively right or objectively wrong. Welcome to reality.

The reality I live in is objective. And I have no difficulty of declaring that what they are doing is not only wrong, but objectively so. That you struggle with it is really your problem, not mine.
 
Sure we have laws based on rights. Where would you get the impression we do not?

And laws range from nation to nation and culture to culture.

I would NOT support a government which allows what you describe? Is that "wrong"? I guess that would depend on whose definition you are using - ours or the nation you described.
But that's the point. Once you accept that fact that rights are an objective aspect of human nature, there is no confusion as to who is right and who is wrong on the issue.
 
The reality I live in is objective. And I have no difficulty of declaring that what they are doing is not only wrong, but objectively so. That you struggle with it is really your problem, not mine.

Then you ought to be able to objectively produce evidence that your argument is so. Go ahead.
 
i already know my own words,


you can repeal the restrictions which are placed on the federal government by the bill of rights, but you cannot repeal rights, since the bill of rights is not granting any at all.

Go back and read your post and your own glaring error should scream out at you like 50,000 fans cheering on their teams grand slam home run in the bottom of the ninth.
 
But that's the point. Once you accept that fact that rights are an objective aspect of human nature, there is no confusion as to who is right and who is wrong on the issue.

I am sorry but I have no idea what that means.
 
Of course not. Nobody actually does, either.
 
Rights are a moral concept though. In fact, it is in the very name: rights, as in right and wrong. Specific rights such as life and liberty are answers to the question 'what is right for man to live as man?'

Nope. Those don't mean the same thing. One is a noun the other isn't. You can have a right to do something and it still be viewed as morally wrong to do it.

Take same sex marriage. It could easily be declared people have a right to same sex marriage. And do people not have a right to mate with who they want? Do they have a right to be in an intimate relationship with the person/adult of their choice? Even if they, like everyone else, have a right to form those relationships (regardless of whether there is a right for them to be treated under the law as the exact same as opposite sex relationships), whether such relationships are right or wrong is a separate issue and subjective.
 
WRONG!

the bill of rights do not grants any right at all...and since no rights are granted by the bill of rights, you cannot repeal such.

the bill of rights are ONLY declaratory and restrictive clauses placed on the federal government.

james Madison is the author of the bill of rights.

HERE is the preamble to the bill of rights.

The U.S. Bill of Rights

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its [FEDERAL] powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.



the father of the constitution and author of the bill of rights.....speaking about the bill of rights, stating they are declaratory and restrictive clauses ONLY!

James Madison, Report on the Virginia Resolutions

Jan. 1800Writings 6:385--401

but the evidence is still stronger. The proposition of amendments made by Congress is introduced in the following terms:

"The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstructions or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added; and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institutions."

Here is the most satisfactory and authentic proof that the several amendments proposed were to be considered as either declaratory or restrictive, and, whether the one or the other as corresponding with the desire expressed by a number of the States, and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government.



http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_speechs24.html

rights which are not granted by law, cannot be taken away by law, and the bill of rights grants no rights at all!

"[You have Rights] antecedent to all earthly governments:
Rights, that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws;
Rights, derived from the Great Legislator of the universe."---John Adams

None of this matters a single iota because our Constitution does not prevent in any way any part, including the Bill of Rights, from being repealed. But more than that, the Constitution itself could simply be completely thrown out the window in the future for a number of different reasons.
 
Nope. Those don't mean the same thing. One is a noun the other isn't. You can have a right to do something and it still be viewed as morally wrong to do it.

Take same sex marriage. It could easily be declared people have a right to same sex marriage. And do people not have a right to mate with who they want? Do they have a right to be in an intimate relationship with the person/adult of their choice? Even if they, like everyone else, have a right to form those relationships (regardless of whether there is a right for them to be treated under the law as the exact same as opposite sex relationships), whether such relationships are right or wrong is a separate issue and subjective.

You are confusing innate rights with what we refer to as civil rights. Marriage is not an innate right. It is civil contract. The innate right you have in this regard is the right to associate with whomever you choose. Two men have the innate right to engage in whatever consensual conduct they wish. There is no innate right to have that association labeled anything at all by your fellow man.

The innate rights you have, you have by virtue of you being a rational animal. Which is why irrational animals cannot be said to possess right of any kind.
 
It doesn't answer the question at all. Here it is again: explain to me why it is immoral for ISIS to toss gays to their deaths from tall buildings?

I was going to make the same comment until I read your reply. I mean, it's nice that we can have written laws without natural rights, but then if you're gay, your written law is the Holy Quran, and your government is ISIS, you're pretty much ****ed unless you learn how to fly before you hit the ground.
 
I was going to make the same comment until I read your reply. I mean, it's nice that we can have written laws without natural rights, but then if you're gay, your written law is the Holy Quran, and your government is ISIS, you're pretty much ****ed unless you learn how to fly before you hit the ground.

I know why its immoral. I suspect you know why its immoral. The reason is we both believe that humans have innate rights no matter where they live. Those who deny the existence of such rights have no ability to make a moral case against such evil.
 
You are confusing innate rights with what we refer to as civil rights. Marriage is not an innate right. It is civil contract. The innate right you have in this regard is the right to associate with whomever you choose. Two men have the innate right to engage in whatever consensual conduct they wish. There is no innate right to have that association labeled anything at all by your fellow man.

The innate rights you have, you have by virtue of you being a rational animal. Which is why irrational animals cannot be said to possess right of any kind.

People are not rational just because we are people. There are plenty of irrational people out there. So this whole "by virtue of being a rational animal" thing is an excuse. It is you trying to justify why you believe we have "natural" rights, but animals don't. Animals have more "natural" rights to associate with whichever animals of either sex they wish than we do because other animals are not likely to purposely "punish" them for developing an intimate relationship with another animal of the same sex.

And that is what rights ultimately come down to. Punishment. Can someone or something prevent you from doing something through force or punishment? If so, then that is what we are talking about with "rights". Even thinking and emotions of another person can be controlled, at least to a degree, with enough knowledge about psychology and the ability to manipulate the person.

And there are plenty of people who will tell you that people do not in fact have a "right" to mate with whomever they wish. Do people have a natural "right" to mate with a child? Why or why not? What exactly constitutes a child and does the age of the person trying to mate with the "child" make a difference to whether the right exists (what about another child?)?
 
But that's the point. Once you accept that fact that rights are an objective aspect of human nature, there is no confusion as to who is right and who is wrong on the issue.

Rights are relative to many different things and only objective in what they have been declared by a group to be.

There is plenty of question as to who is right or wrong about this, proving that rights are in fact subjective in how we are discussing them.
 
I know why its immoral. I suspect you know why its immoral. The reason is we both believe that humans have innate rights no matter where they live. Those who deny the existence of such rights have no ability to make a moral case against such evil.

Then why does ISIS not see it as immoral do you think? I guarantee that in their eyes, they are not doing something immoral, wrong. Just as those who sought to kill witches hundreds of years ago did not likely view their actions as wrong, immoral. Is abortion immoral, wrong? Do you think the girl having the abortion thinks so or the doctor providing the abortion? What about prolife people? Is the death penalty immoral, wrong? Do you think that those who support the death penalty think it is wrong, immoral? What about those who are facing it or their families? What about those who prominently oppose the death penalty?

You have your beliefs about why things are immoral, wrong, or "evil", but that doesn't make them objective, even if the vast majority of people share those beliefs. It simply makes it a consensus of subjective beliefs about the immorality of something. That doesn't mean that people cannot use that consensus or some other power in fact to force their morality on others. Personally I hope that this is fair and just for as many as possible (almost impossible for any set of laws to be viewed as "fair" or "just" by everyone), but that still doesn't make it objective. The only part that would be objective is saying that something is the law, is or is not against the law to do, or in the case of rights, that something violates a person's rights, rights that are recognized by the collective.
 
Rights are relative to many different things and only objective in what they have been declared by a group to be.

There is plenty of question as to who is right or wrong about this, proving that rights are in fact subjective in how we are discussing them.

In fact, all of this is just a desire by some people to avoid having to actually intellectually discuss the issue. They declare these rights to exist without having shown they exist so they can then proclaim victory without having to do the actual legwork. The same thing happens with religion. It's not impressive in either case.
 
Back
Top Bottom