[quote]smh_23 wrote:
That is, if I am correct and natural rights do not exist (or, there is no reason to believe that natural rights exist), then your argument does not address this: smh still does not have a natural right to do X to Nick. Because natural rights do not exist.
Do you see what I’m saying?
[/quote]
That’s a very clever way of addressing the argument. You have a good philosophical mind smh.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
That is, if I am correct and natural rights do not exist (or, there is no reason to believe that natural rights exist), then your argument does not address this: smh still does not have a natural right to do X to Nick. Because natural rights do not exist.
Do you see what I’m saying?
[/quote]
That’s a very clever way of addressing the argument. You have a good philosophical mind smh.[/quote]
Why thank you sir, and the feeling is mutual.
Me thinks all these deep thoughts about “natural rights” and “inalienable rights” are kind of ludicrous. An examination of history will surely show you that you only have the right to that which you, or your agent(s), be that family, friend, army or government, can DEFEND.
Anything else really doesn’t matter as it’s all a man made construct. Different governments DECIDE what your rights are and enforce them (or not) to whatever length that particular tribute-taking state decides to take it. There is no “natural right to life”. That’s not how nature works. Nature is a bitch, she doesn’t give a fuck about your life. Adapt or die, she says… That is the ONLY law.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
You are leaping from “I do not want X to happen to me” to “I have a natural right for X not to happen to me.” The latter formulation is not logically entailed by the former, if you mean by “natural right” what philosophers have meant in the past.
Perhaps you don’t mean that. What, exactly, is your definition of a “natural right”? Whence come they?
[/quote]
No, I’m saying that if one does not want X to happen TO HIM, he knows that he does NOT have a right to X to ANOTHER. He very well may do it, but he knows it’s wrong. Everyone recognizes the principle. [/quote]
This forum isn’t schooled on this. Most here don’t know what natural laws are, the role they played historically, or how they are connected to the state of nature and John Locke’s ideas of how reason tells us how we, “ought” to treat one another.
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Me thinks all these deep thoughts about “natural rights” and “inalienable rights” are kind of ludicrous. An examination of history will surely show you that you only have the right to that which you, or your agent(s), be that family, friend, army or government, can DEFEND.
Anything else really doesn’t matter as it’s all a man made construct. Different governments DECIDE what your rights are and enforce them (or not) to whatever length that particular tribute-taking state decides to take it. There is no “natural right to life”. That’s not how nature works. Nature is a bitch, she doesn’t give a fuck about your life. Adapt or die, she says… That is the ONLY law.[/quote]
The natural adaptation to such discussions may be ludicrous, but you have to engage in the exercises to understand these issues better. The better you understand them, the more informed decision you can make and the better a policy you can make should you be in that position.
It’s takes a million discussions like this to develope good ethical positions.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Again, you are trying to use the absence of a right to prove the existence of rights. Your premises do not entail your conclusion.
That smh has no right to do X to Nick is immaterial to the question under our consideration, which is whether or not natural rights exist at all.
That is, if I am correct and natural rights do not exist (or, there is no reason to believe that natural rights exist), then your argument does not address this: smh still does not have a natural right to do X to Nick. Because natural rights do not exist.
Do you see what I’m saying?
[/quote]
Google negative vs. positive rights.[/quote]
I’m well aware of the distinction. Thing is, it doesn’t do much for us here. We are talking about whether rights exist at all, positive or negative.
[quote]
I may not be explaining it well. I’m not arguing that a right to live exists; I’m arguing that nobody can justly take the life of another, unless that other admits that he no longer wants to live by threatening the life of the somebody.[/quote]
It’s important, in debates like these, to keep terms uniform and consistent. Now you’re talking about what can be “justly” done. If we’re talking about rights, we need to keep on rights. Do you mean that nobody has a natural right to take the life of another? I agree, because nobody has any natural right at all.
The actual question which concerns us is this: Does anybody have a natural right not to have their life taken from them?
If yes, on what evidence do we affirm this right, and where does it come from?[/quote]
Does anybody have the right to not have their life taken from them? No. Does somebody have the right to not have their life taken from them by another person? Yes.
The problem can be framed in terms of value. If you remove the ‘right’ of one not to be harmed by another, you inevitably increase the ‘value’ of the assailant over that of the victim.
Natural rights do exist within the context of equal sentient beings of freewill (which introduces a whole host of other issues I know, but let’s pretend). Nobody is entitled a right to live by things larger than itself, nature, God, etc. But beings with freewill and equality with one another do have a right to live free of the fear of being harmed by a being of equal standing. That must be so lest we start placing values on persons. And in such cases the value of the perpetrator will always be greater than the victim.
There is a natural right, persons are equal with one another and have no right to deliberately harm one another. So you have both a positive and negative right.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Me thinks all these deep thoughts about “natural rights” and “inalienable rights” are kind of ludicrous. An examination of history will surely show you that you only have the right to that which you, or your agent(s), be that family, friend, army or government, can DEFEND.
Anything else really doesn’t matter as it’s all a man made construct. Different governments DECIDE what your rights are and enforce them (or not) to whatever length that particular tribute-taking state decides to take it. There is no “natural right to life”. That’s not how nature works. Nature is a bitch, she doesn’t give a fuck about your life. Adapt or die, she says… That is the ONLY law.[/quote]
The natural adaptation to such discussions may be ludicrous, but you have to engage in the exercises to understand these issues better. The better you understand them, the more informed decision you can make and the better a policy you can make should you be in that position.
It’s takes a million discussions like this to develope good ethical positions.[/quote]
Oh, I agree 100% that ethical discussions are necessary and helpful. I just wanted to point out that the concept of “natural rights” don’t exist (cuz Mother Nature is a bitch who doesn’t give a fuck - adapt or die). At this point, it’s far more valuable to determine what the advantages and disadvantages of a tribute taking state vs. the individual as to which rights are assigned/enforced.
I think everyone can agree that laws against killing productive members of a society are a good idea, both for the individual AND the group. But what about laws governing the killing of infants? Not too long ago, if a baby was born and it was obviously retarded or deformed, it was often killed. The society in which that occurred couldn’t (or wouldn’t) absorb the burden of care vs. lack of contribution. NOW the state/insurance companies will absorb that cost, so it is NOW against the law to kill those individuals. Different society (tribute taking state), different laws. There is no “natural right” to life… It is only determined by what is enforced by the society that you happen to live in.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Again, you are trying to use the absence of a right to prove the existence of rights. Your premises do not entail your conclusion.
That smh has no right to do X to Nick is immaterial to the question under our consideration, which is whether or not natural rights exist at all.
That is, if I am correct and natural rights do not exist (or, there is no reason to believe that natural rights exist), then your argument does not address this: smh still does not have a natural right to do X to Nick. Because natural rights do not exist.
Do you see what I’m saying?
[/quote]
Google negative vs. positive rights.[/quote]
I’m well aware of the distinction. Thing is, it doesn’t do much for us here. We are talking about whether rights exist at all, positive or negative.
The the natural value of the life taker is greater than the life taken. You either have right or value. If you don’t have right, then you have value. What you do not have is a vacuum.
No. People have the right to not be harmed by other people. People do not have an intrinsic right to live. It’s a compartmentalized right.
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Me thinks all these deep thoughts about “natural rights” and “inalienable rights” are kind of ludicrous. An examination of history will surely show you that you only have the right to that which you, or your agent(s), be that family, friend, army or government, can DEFEND.
Anything else really doesn’t matter as it’s all a man made construct. Different governments DECIDE what your rights are and enforce them (or not) to whatever length that particular tribute-taking state decides to take it. There is no “natural right to life”. That’s not how nature works. Nature is a bitch, she doesn’t give a fuck about your life. Adapt or die, she says… That is the ONLY law.[/quote]
The natural adaptation to such discussions may be ludicrous, but you have to engage in the exercises to understand these issues better. The better you understand them, the more informed decision you can make and the better a policy you can make should you be in that position.
It’s takes a million discussions like this to develope good ethical positions.[/quote]
Oh, I agree 100% that ethical discussions are necessary and helpful. I just wanted to point out that the concept of “natural rights” don’t exist (cuz Mother Nature is a bitch who doesn’t give a fuck - adapt or die). At this point, it’s far more valuable to determine what the advantages and disadvantages of a tribute taking state vs. the individual as to which rights are assigned/enforced.
I think everyone can agree that laws against killing productive members of a society are a good idea, both for the individual AND the group. But what about laws governing the killing of infants? Not too long ago, if a baby was born and it was obviously retarded or deformed, it was often killed. The society in which that occurred couldn’t (or wouldn’t) absorb the burden of care vs. lack of contribution. NOW the state/insurance companies will absorb that cost, so it is NOW against the law to kill those individuals. Different society (tribute taking state), different laws. There is no “natural right” to life… It is only determined by what is enforced by the society that you happen to live in.[/quote]
Oh but they do exist within a context. Our context is humanity. Mano a Mano, there is an intrinsic right to do no harm to the other. More than that, one could even argue that there is an intrinsic right to do good. That is a more difficult point to argue.
I am sorry I missed a lot of what seems like a good ethical discussion. When I saw ‘government’ I thought it was another ‘obama’ or ‘bush’ thread.
[quote]magick wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I was really hoping some leftists would join in the discussion so I could pick apart their convoluted batshit arguments. Sandra Fluke has a right to other people’s money and a right to force private religious institutions to provide her with abortifacients so she can commit infanticide because she has a right to commit infanticide.[/quote]
Sorry to disappoint?[/quote]
I shall speak for the leftists:
Kill the babies! Kill them all, because they are small!
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
You are leaping from “I do not want X to happen to me” to “I have a natural right for X not to happen to me.” The latter formulation is not logically entailed by the former, if you mean by “natural right” what philosophers have meant in the past.
Perhaps you don’t mean that. What, exactly, is your definition of a “natural right”? Whence come they?
[/quote]
No, I’m saying that if one does not want X to happen TO HIM, he knows that he does NOT have a right to X to ANOTHER. He very well may do it, but he knows it’s wrong. Everyone recognizes the principle. [/quote]
I agree with you. I think the problem is in the framing. You rightly recognize that the right exists in the ‘box’ of humanity. On large scale no such right exists, in terms of nature, acts of God, etc. But person on person, either a right to do no harm to another, or even do good, does exist. So in the end, the natural right does exist. In context, but either the right exists, or it becomes an issue of value which is a very dangerous road. The latter was how our ancient forefathers operated. We’re appaulled, but we grew to understand that life is not in fact cheap. That being the case, there is an intrinsic right, it’s just confined to humans. Maybe animals too, to a certain degree.
[quote]pat wrote:
People have the right to not be harmed by other people. People do not have an intrinsic right to live. It’s a compartmentalized right.[/quote]
This is the axiomatic claim: People have a natural right not to be harmed by other people. Implicit in this claim is the claim that this natural right literally “exists.”
But for everything that we can correctly say “this exists,” we can provide evidence of its existence.
On what evidence do you affirm the literal existence of the natural right in question?
[Aside: There is no need to enumerate stipulations to allow for things like “just” war and killing in self defense. Those are implied.]
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
People have the right to not be harmed by other people. People do not have an intrinsic right to live. It’s a compartmentalized right.[/quote]
This is the axiomatic claim: People have a natural right not to be harmed by other people. Implicit in this claim is the claim that this natural right literally “exists.”
But for everything that we can correctly say “this exists,” we can provide evidence of its existence.
On what evidence do you affirm the literal existence of the natural right in question?
[Aside: There is no need to enumerate stipulations to allow for things like “just” war and killing in self defense. Those are implied.][/quote]
Ah, thus lies the problem with ethics, we cannot explicitly describe ‘it’ because linguistically we don’t have the tools.
Does the right exist, well yes it does. What is it, two people of equal ‘value’ have no right to harm each other. It’s contingent on value. If we say, then, that people do not have an implicit right to not be harmed by another person, then we place a value on the aggressor vs. the victim. The aggressors implicit ‘value’ is higher than his victim. Because if a person does not have a right not to be harmed willfully by another person, then that person’s value must be less.
Three things are in play, freewill, value and harm.
The equality of man determines the right of that man to not be harmed by another willfully. If no such right exists, then all of what people are capable of is just another thing. No better, no worse than anything else. Saving an orphan is as raping and killing a baby. No rights, then no wrongs. Utter chaos.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
People have the right to not be harmed by other people. People do not have an intrinsic right to live. It’s a compartmentalized right.[/quote]
This is the axiomatic claim: People have a natural right not to be harmed by other people. Implicit in this claim is the claim that this natural right literally “exists.”
But for everything that we can correctly say “this exists,” we can provide evidence of its existence.
On what evidence do you affirm the literal existence of the natural right in question?
[Aside: There is no need to enumerate stipulations to allow for things like “just” war and killing in self defense. Those are implied.][/quote]
Ah, thus lies the problem with ethics, we cannot explicitly describe ‘it’ because linguistically we don’t have the tools.
Does the right exist, well yes it does. What is it, two people of equal ‘value’ have no right to harm each other. It’s contingent on value. If we say, then, that people do not have an implicit right to not be harmed by another person, then we place a value on the aggressor vs. the victim. The aggressors implicit ‘value’ is higher than his victim. Because if a person does not have a right not to be harmed willfully by another person, then that person’s value must be less.
Three things are in play, freewill, value and harm.
The equality of man determines the right of that man to not be harmed by another willfully. If no such right exists, then all of what people are capable of is just another thing. No better, no worse than anything else. Saving an orphan is as raping and killing a baby. No rights, then no wrongs. Utter chaos.[/quote]
But history and present day disagrees with you. Here are two excerpts from Human Rape: Revising Evolutionary Perspectives by Melissa Emery Thompson
“Evolution is recognized by biologists to occur without moral bias. Animals exhibit all mannerof atrocities in the outcome of natural selection from the killing of infants and siblings to the consuming of a mother by her newborn young for nutritional advantage. Biologists who explain why the propensity for such behaviors has evolved see no moral lessons emerging from their analyses. Nor do the theorists behind the evolutionary hypotheses for rape propose that a biological explanation for the origin of rape reduces its weight as a crime.”
“… In other cases, such as among the Yanomamö tribes-men of South America, the acquisition of wives is considered to be one desired side effect of a successful raid (Chagnon 1997). Such raiding, as well as forcible theft of brides from within the community, is reported from ethnographic populations on every major continent and from both polygynous and monogamous cultures (Ayres 1974). This behavior even extends to ritualized â??mockâ?? bride theft, in which the man is expected to abduct his new wife while she or her parents feign resistance until a suitable bride price or other settlement can be made (Ayres 1974). Such displays suggest that the forcible abduction of wives may have been more widespread during human history.”
Now, I think we can all agree that RAPE IS BAD. But rape has been used as a viable mating strategy since the dawn of humanity. If people have the “natural right” not to be harmed by other people, by virtue of being “HUMAN”, as you claim in your previous post, when did this right evolve? When SOCIETY declared it to be against the law! It is not “innate”, or else we (humans) wouldn’t DO it…
There are currently governments and societies that are sanctioning genital mutilation… Doubts grow over Isis 'FGM edict' in Iraq - BBC News I’d say that’s pretty hurtful. But millions of people IN THAT SOCIETY are fine with it.
This is happening RIGHT NOW. If there are “natural rights”, how do you defend entire swaths of humans ignoring these so called “natural rights” and instead embracing what their CULTURE and GOVERNMENT impose/allow?
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
People have the right to not be harmed by other people. People do not have an intrinsic right to live. It’s a compartmentalized right.[/quote]
This is the axiomatic claim: People have a natural right not to be harmed by other people. Implicit in this claim is the claim that this natural right literally “exists.”
But for everything that we can correctly say “this exists,” we can provide evidence of its existence.
On what evidence do you affirm the literal existence of the natural right in question?
[Aside: There is no need to enumerate stipulations to allow for things like “just” war and killing in self defense. Those are implied.][/quote]
Ah, thus lies the problem with ethics, we cannot explicitly describe ‘it’ because linguistically we don’t have the tools.
Does the right exist, well yes it does. What is it, two people of equal ‘value’ have no right to harm each other. It’s contingent on value. If we say, then, that people do not have an implicit right to not be harmed by another person, then we place a value on the aggressor vs. the victim. The aggressors implicit ‘value’ is higher than his victim. Because if a person does not have a right not to be harmed willfully by another person, then that person’s value must be less.
Three things are in play, freewill, value and harm.
The equality of man determines the right of that man to not be harmed by another willfully. If no such right exists, then all of what people are capable of is just another thing. No better, no worse than anything else. Saving an orphan is as raping and killing a baby. No rights, then no wrongs. Utter chaos.[/quote]
So if we constantly put unequal values on people then this natural right is kind of meaningless?
[quote]pat wrote:
Does the right exist, well yes it does. What is it, two people of equal ‘value’ have no right to harm each other.[/quote]
This is not the existence of a right, it is the absence of one. What is at issue is whether or not a natural right exists. If you say that it does, then you must evidence its existence.
[quote]
If no such right exists, then all of what people are capable of is just another thing. No better, no worse than anything else. Saving an orphan is as raping and killing a baby. No rights, then no wrongs. Utter chaos.[/quote]
Could be so, but this is an argumentum ad consequentium–i.e., illegitimate–if is intended to assail the “no natural rights” position.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
But for everything that we can correctly say “this exists,” we can provide evidence of its existence.
[/quote]
Really? You can provide better proof of anything than the fact that one is wrong to do to another what he doesn’t either do or allow to happen to himself? That is evidence that his action is wrong. I’m not sure what better evidence of anything you can provide. Non-defensive killing is obviously wrong, taking another’s belongings is obviously wrong, etc.
The only way such an action can become right is with the consent of the recipient of the action(i.e. A brain surgeon can justly do his job, even though he would not permit another to open up his head at the time, because the patient has consented-contractually consented-to the surgery).
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Does the right exist, well yes it does. What is it, two people of equal ‘value’ have no right to harm each other.[/quote]
This is not the existence of a right, it is the absence of one. What is at issue is whether or not a natural right exists. If you say that it does, then you must evidence its existence.
[/quote]
I believe the absence of a right is what’s being discussed. I think I clarified my position a page or two ago, and I believe pat joined in after that point.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Really? You can provide better proof of anything than the fact that one is wrong to do to another what he doesn’t either do or allow to happen to himself? That is evidence that his action is wrong. I’m not sure what better evidence of anything you can provide. Non-defensive killing is obviously wrong, taking another’s belongings is obviously wrong, etc.[/quote]
Again, terms need to be uniform consistent. Now you are taking about things that are “wrong.” Our discussion is about natural rights and whether they exist or not. If “wrongness” figures in, it needs to be explained how and why.
The point is that your argument is going to reduce to a moral axiom which you won’t be able to “prove” correct without God or something similarly superhuman/superphysical (and unprovable itself).
Either that, or you will actually be able to evidence the existence of natural rights.
Edit: I should note that I am somewhat motivated by devil’s advocacy here. My views on subjective/objective morality are very complicated. That said, I have yet to be presented with evidence of a natural right.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Does the right exist, well yes it does. What is it, two people of equal ‘value’ have no right to harm each other.[/quote]
This is not the existence of a right, it is the absence of one. What is at issue is whether or not a natural right exists. If you say that it does, then you must evidence its existence.
[/quote]
I believe the absence of a right is what’s being discussed. I think I clarified my position a page or two ago, and I believe pat joined in after that point.[/quote]
Then we agree. Nobody has any natural right to harm or enslave anybody else.
But we believe this for different reasons.