Defining a Right

[spud_meister]

A natural agreement is a universal agreement. Rights are socially natural, not biologically natural.

Inalienable means inherent. Socially natural rights, universal agreements, are inherent.

Give me one example of a right that has existed continuously in all societies and has been inherent to all individuals within that society.

 

[ecofarm]

Is equality a natural right?

Equality under the law is prerequisite to the universal agreement. Tyrants don't agree to rights to preserve their own, they kill to preserve their own.

 

[Jetboogieman]

Emotions have nothing to do with natural rights. It's sociology.

I am discussing the application of rights as they exist in our human societies and the extent to which they are applied, because at the end of the day, that's all that's real, that's all that's tangible.

We have our ideals, we have our opinions of what rights are and yes, as you describe there may very well be universal rights that are inalieable... And we may not actually disagree on that point but, as it has always been.

Rights only apply insofar as our different societies let them apply, whether by consent of the population or not, from the Greeks, to Confucius all the way through to our modern political landscapes, rights and freedoms, what they mean and their application have greatly varied through those differing lenses.

 

[ecofarm]

Give me one example of a right that has existed continuously in all societies and has been inherent to all individuals within that society.

All people who are equal under the law throughout time and place, since the dawn of mankind to today, agree to observe the rights to life, expression and self defense in order to preserve their own rights to those. The agreement is made as a matter of species preservation. Because these agreements are universal, transcending time and space, they are deemed socially natural.

Governments violate these rights. Individuals violate these rights. That does not mean the rights cease to exist.

If rights ceased to exist when violated, how could you claim anything is injustice?

 

[ecofarm]

I am discussing the application of rights as they exist in our human societies and the extent to which they are applied, because at the end of the day, that's all that's real, that's all that's tangible.

Applied is an individual matter. Rights are not obligations, they're choices. From a government perspective, rights are observed or protected but not applied.

We have our ideals, we have our opinions of what rights are and yes, as you describe there may very well be universal rights that are inalieable... And we may not actually disagree on that point but, as it has always been.

But it's not merely ideals, it's scientific fact. These rights are natural, violating them does not make them go away.

Rights only apply insofar as our different societies let them apply, whether by consent of the population or not, from the Greeks, to Confucius all the way through to our modern political landscapes, rights and freedoms, what they mean and their application have greatly varied through those differing lenses.

Their observance, protection or violation throughout history does not change scientific fact. Inalienable does not mean inviolable.

 

[Jetboogieman]

 

[spud_meister]

All people who are equal under the law throughout time and place, since the dawn of mankind to today, agree to observe the rights to life, expression and self defense in order to preserve their own rights to those. The agreement is made as a matter of species preservation. Because these agreements are universal, transcending time and space, they are deemed socially natural.

Fanciful nonsense. There has never been a time or place in human history where all people have been equal under any law, or when every form of life, expression or self-defence has been held up as equally valid.

Governments violate these rights. Individuals violate these rights. That does not mean the rights cease to exist.

These rights have ceased to exist when societies no longer recognise them. European monarchs were recognised as having a "divine right to rule" by society. What makes that right an unnatural right?

If rights ceased to exist when violated, how could you claim anything is injustice?

Right cease to exist when they're unrecognised by society. If everyone has a right to life, how can you believe any military action is justified?

 

[ecofarm]

.

You keep trying to frame natural rights in a feel good fluffy sorta idealistic philosophy kinda way. It's science. Rejecting it is no better than rejecting evolution.

 

[Cephus]

A natural agreement is a universal agreement. Rights are socially natural, not biologically natural.

Inalienable means inherent. Socially natural rights, universal agreements, are inherent.

Repeating the same nonsense over and over doesn't make it true.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Applied is an individual matter. Rights are not obligations, they're choices. From a government perspective, rights are observed or protected but not applied.



But it's not merely ideals, it's scientific fact. These rights are natural, violating them does not make them go away.



Their observance, protection or violation throughout history does not change scientific fact. Inalienable does not mean inviolable.

Rights are the method of regulating the space between individuals and between individuals and the collective, a proven sytem which got corrupted by the unscrupulous.

 

[Cephus]

You keep trying to frame natural rights in a feel good fluffy sorta idealistic philosophy kinda way. It's science. Rejecting it is no better than rejecting evolution.

Which is nonsense. If it was science, it would be universal. Now go to, say, the Middle East and try telling them that women are equal under the law. See how well that goes.

 

[ecofarm]

Repeating the same nonsense over and over doesn't make it true.

You honestly think you're so special you're above the Enlightenment. That understanding is for fools? What a pathetic delusion of grandeur.

Which is nonsense. If it was science, it would be universal. Now go to, say, the Middle East and try telling them that women are equal under the law. See how well that goes.

Inalienable =/= inviolable.

 

[Cephus]

You honestly think you're so special you're above the Enlightenment. That understanding is for fools? What a pathetic delusion of grandeur.

No, I just think you've got no evidence of any kind for any of the things you're saying, it's all emotional twaddle, not objectively demonstrable fact.

Inalienable =/= inviolable.

Functionally identical.