• 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
There is no reason to think that any gods exist. Imaginary friends are pointless. Try again.

There are plenty of reasons, including reason. I certainly don't take as "fact" something that hasn't been proven.
 
Is it? Did man think up the ability to breathe? To think? To hope? To aspire? To defend oneself and/or survive? To do what makes us happy or grateful or satisfied? Or are we born with such traits/ability as human beings without anybody willing that it be so?
...and somebody could come along and kill you and take all that away.
 
i have stated a higher power, which is what founders wanted to convey, because they removed the direct idea of religion in the document by removing the word "sacred", leaving the document more subjective.


We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independant, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these ends, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed;

the government of the u.s. is not religious at all, as one of the most religious men of the founders tells us, john adams in the Treaty of Tripoli

the nation as a whole was built for a religious and moral people.

The belief in a higher power is exactly what I had referenced. They do not specify a Christian God, or Hindu god, or any other specific god. But they definitely are not conveying 'natural rights' as existing outside of a theistic worldview. There is a constant problem with the term religion, as this more accurately means a group belief, and I should not have been using religion to describe the content of the DOI. So I will restate my post: Using the DOI to justify a belief in natural rights existing without a theistic/diety/higher power misses a key component of the writers' conviction. And since 'the nation as a whole was built for a religious and moral people', it is impossible to ignore that influence on the Constitution and DOI. An atheist or agnostic simply cannot embrace the preamble to the DOI without contradicting their own worldview.
 
you completely miss the point. the issue is not whether natural rights exist-in the same manner that a tree or a car exists-but why natural rights are such an important part of our legal fabric

look, i get your almost fanatical hatred of religion and your attempts to obliterate religion from your world. but that is not relevant here.

Turtle - for many of us who do not believe in natural rights it has nothing at all to do with any attitude about religion. What it has to do with is a couple of very undeniable historical facts:

1- natural rights came about as a theory because the political philosophers were searching for a counter weapon to the divine right of kings. It was simply a way of offering a trump card to divine right.

2- when Jefferson used it in the Declaration of Independence it was used merely as justification for the very real actions they were taking as a direct slap in the face of the British throne and their authority. Even Jefferson did not believe the actual words he wrote as he lived a life completely opposite of his pompous statements.

3- the Constitution and state constitutions create rights that may have been partly inspired by some peoples beliefs - but those beliefs do nothing in and of themselves as it is people acting through their created government that create the rights we have.

4 - If not one person in the world or our nation today even remembered the term natural rights - we would still have the same rights we have because of the national and state constitutions. So they are irrelevant.

People can go to church all day and night for all I care. It matters not to me . This is NOT about hatred of religion.
 
Read once again what I wrote. Only the grantor of a right can alienate it. If rights are "God given" and God can't take back something he gave then he's really not God, is he? :confused:

Not at all. Most people who believe what God gives, God can take away. If He chooses not to do so, that makes him no less God. Since nobody is wise enough to know all that God is, such things are unknowable. If we could so neatly specify what God is or what God does, then He would not be much of a God.

"God given" is the term used by the Founders to express their understanding of why the rights we are born with are unalienable as well as to honor the One from whom they believed all morality and ethics comes. Other philosophers before them from Socrates to Plato to Cicero to Otis to Hobbes to Locke et al used different terms to describe the concept. The most common is translated 'natural rights' in English. But the concept is the same. Natural or unalienable or God given rights are incorporated into the natural state of man. To have and exercise them requires participation or contribution by no other person and they cannot be sold or bartered or given away to anybody.
 
translation-you don't like the correct interpretation of the Bill of rights

why not just come out and say it?

For at least the fiftieth time - "THE CORRECT INTERPRETATION" being the Turtle interpretation. Like they used to say in the old Marvel comics - 'nuff' said'.
 
Perhaps. Yet without ideals or goals, we are nothing more than savages are we not?
I would feel more comfortable if we called them "ideals". More accurate, IMO.

And yes, of course we should have them, but to me calling them "rights" is euphemistically misleading.
 
...and somebody could come along and kill you and take all that away.

Nope. They can only prevent me from exercising it. They cannot take my life and then have a life they can use. They cannot take away my ability to think and then have an extra ability to use. They cannot take away my capacity to pursue happiness and have more happiness themselves. Nor can I sell or give any of those things to anybody else. The purpose of the U.S. Constitution was to recognize and protect the unalienable rights of the people so that they, for the first time in the history of the world, would be able to live in liberty and exercise those rights without interference.

To me that is such a simple concept. But for so many, it seems to be almost impossible to understand and appreciate.
 
Not at all. Most people who believe what God gives, God can take away. If He chooses not to do so, that makes him no less God. Since nobody is wise enough to know all that God is, such things are unknowable. If we could so neatly specify what God is or what God does, then He would not be much of a God.

"God given" is the term used by the Founders to express their understanding of why the rights we are born with are unalienable as well as to honor the One from whom they believed all morality and ethics comes. Other philosophers before them from Socrates to Plato to Cicero to Otis to Hobbes to Locke et al used different terms to describe the concept. The most common is translated 'natural rights' in English. But the concept is the same. Natural or unalienable or God given rights are incorporated into the natural state of man. To have and exercise them requires participation or contribution by no other person and they cannot be sold or bartered or given away to anybody.

Yes, I think I see your point. "God" in one sense is a constant. The point I'm trying to make to Jerry is a human can't alienate a right he didn't grant.
 
Nope. They can only prevent me from exercising it. They cannot take my life and then have a life they can use. They cannot take away my ability to think and then have an extra ability to use. They cannot take away my capacity to pursue happiness and have more happiness themselves. Nor can I sell or give any of those things to anybody else. The purpose of the U.S. Constitution was to recognize and protect the unalienable rights of the people so that they, for the first time in the history of the world, would be able to live in liberty and exercise those rights without interference.

To me that is such a simple concept. But for so many, it seems to be almost impossible to understand and appreciate.

You blew your whole argument right there. That's exactly the point myself and others are making, and you essentially just confirmed it, though you don't want to. If someone takes your life they can and have taken every single thing you claim they cannot take. You are no longer able to do any of them. You want simple? That's simple.
 
Yes, I think I see your point. "God" in one sense is a constant. The point I'm trying to make to Jerry is a human can't alienate a right he didn't grant.

"God" is to anybody what a person believes. I'm sure some of the signatories of the Declaration of Independence probably translated "God given rights" to "natural rights" in their understanding and didn't quibble over it. And maybe you will be more successful convincing Jerry that there is a difference between 'alienating a right' and denying a person ability to exercise a right. I haven't been successful in that. :)
 
You blew your whole argument right there. That's exactly the point myself and others are making, and you essentially just confirmed it, though you don't want to. If someone takes your life they can and have taken every single thing you claim they cannot take. You are no longer able to do any of them. You want simple? That's simple.

Sorry but the way I define words, destroying something or denying a person ability to do something is not the same thing as taking something. As I said, that concept is so simple to me. And it seems so difficult for others.
 
You blew your whole argument right there. That's exactly the point myself and others are making, and you essentially just confirmed it, though you don't want to. If someone takes your life they can and have taken every single thing you claim they cannot take. You are no longer able to do any of them. You want simple? That's simple.

:doh Okay, let's try to make this really simple. If I'm sitting in class and I steal five cents from my neighbor's lunch money, is the nickel "mine"? I'm guessing your answer is "Yes"?
 
I would feel more comfortable if we called them "ideals". More accurate, IMO.

And yes, of course we should have them, but to me calling them "rights" is euphemistically misleading.



To me, calling them "ideals" makes it too easy for politicians to say 'oh we fell a bit short on respecting this limitation but hey, it's an ideal and we all fall short of those don't we... "
 
"God" is to anybody what a person believes. I'm sure some of the signatories of the Declaration of Independence probably translated "God given rights" to "natural rights" in their understanding and didn't quibble over it. And maybe you will be more successful convincing Jerry that there is a difference between 'alienating a right' and denying a person ability to exercise a right. I haven't been successful in that. :)

Apparently, he's not the only one who needs convincing, but the other day 36% of respondents professed a belief in natural rights. It's gone up three points to 39%. Whee!
 
You blew your whole argument right there. That's exactly the point myself and others are making, and you essentially just confirmed it, though you don't want to. If someone takes your life they can and have taken every single thing you claim they cannot take. You are no longer able to do any of them. You want simple? That's simple.



Recognizing that someone's rights can be abused or repressed does not make them any less a right, and doesn't make the usurpation of it "right" either.



I don't particularly care what we call them, as along as we call them something that sounds absolute and not-to-be-infringed-upon. "Rights" worked for the Founders. We could also call them "Liberties the Oppression of Which Justify Instantly Killing Your Ass" and I'd be fine with that too, though it is a bit cumbersome.


Other things we could name them, instead of "rights"...

"**** I will ****ing Kill You Over."
"Ways that Nobody Including Government Should Ever **** With You."
"The Absolute Minimum Respect For Your Humanity That Everyone Should Always Show, On Pain Of Possible Death or Dismemberment."
Or the classic...
"Man I Wouldn't Do That **** If I Was You..."
 
Last edited:
Sorry but the way I define words, destroying something or denying a person ability to do something is not the same thing as taking something. As I said, that concept is so simple to me. And it seems so difficult for others.
It's difficult for others because it's utterly illogical.


:doh Okay, let's try to make this really simple. If I'm sitting in class and I steal five cents from my neighbor's lunch money, is the nickel "mine"? I'm guessing your answer is "Yes"?
Bad analogy.


To me, calling them "ideals" makes it too easy for politicians to say 'oh we fell a bit short on respecting this limitation but hey, it's an ideal and we all fall short of those don't we... "
Fair point, and yeah, they probably would. Though the way it is now they throw out phrases like "compelling interest" to deny rights. Same end result.
 
Apparently, he's not the only one who needs convincing, but the other day 36% of respondents professed a belief in natural rights. It's gone up three points to 39%. Whee!

I imagine the ratio is somewhat higher than that 39 or 40% actually. DP's policy of allowing non members participate in polls very often skews the actual results somewhat. I would like to know what the tally is when only members are counted.
 
Recognizing that someone's rights can be abused or repressed does not make them any less a right, and doesn't make the usurpation of it "right" either.

I don't particularly care what we call them, as along as we call them something that sounds absolute and not-to-be-infringed-upon. "Rights" worked for the Founders. We could also call them "Liberties the Oppression of Which Justify Instantly Killing Your Ass" and I'd be fine with that too, though it is a bit cumbersome.
But if we make them sound absolute, then go on to do end runs around them anyway, it cheapens the base concept.
 
But if we make them sound absolute, then go on to do end runs around them anyway, it cheapens the base concept.



Then quit doing end runs around them. :)
 
you completely miss the point. the issue is not whether natural rights exist-in the same manner that a tree or a car exists-but why natural rights are such an important part of our legal fabric

look, i get your almost fanatical hatred of religion and your attempts to obliterate religion from your world. but that is not relevant here.

But you're the one differentiating "natural" rights from other kinds of rights. If there is no difference, if you cannot demonstrate that they're real, then just drop the "natural" part. You cannot justify it, why should anyone take it seriously?
 
There are plenty of reasons, including reason. I certainly don't take as "fact" something that hasn't been proven.

Then you ought to be able to present a solid argument in proper logical form to explain it and demonstrate that it's real. Go ahead. We'll wait.
 
Well, no. As I said, only the grantor of a right can "take it away," if by "take it away" we're referring to "alienate" as it's understood by pretty much everyone with one possible exception. If the state grants you a right to be repaid for a debt but then I renege on repaying you, according to you I've "taken away" your right to be repaid. Honestly, that's one right I'd call pretty much worthless. The people who founded this country happened to believe that natural rights aren't granted be men, so no man can "take them away" as you apparently maintain. Now, if you're going to maintain that there are no natural rights, then proceed with your proof, please.
Natural Rights can't be given by the state, so if the state gave you a given right, that right is not a Natural Right. More likely it's a Civil Right.
 
But nobody can take away your right to live, to breathe, to hope, to aspire, to seek your own comfort or happiness, to believe what you believe, to worship as you choose, to think, to speak what you think, to create, to rejoice, to grieve, to inspire, to explore, to wonder, to choose to defend or protect yourself or what you love or what you have.
So you're just going to ignore the crime of murder and keep living in fantasy land.
 
Back
Top Bottom