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]
That is evidence that someone doesn’t like something - I don’t like being killed. I don’t like being robbed. Then you can recognise that other people don’t like those things either. You can even recognise that you don’t like doing those things to other people - ie, you have a conscience and feel remorse. But none of that proves the existence of rights.
[quote]
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]
We’re not arguing whether something is “right.” We’re arguing whether or not “rights” exist. Two different things.
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]
That is evidence that someone doesn’t like something - I don’t like being killed. I don’t like being robbed. Then you can recognise that other people don’t like those things either. You can even recognise that you don’t like doing those things to other people - ie, you have a conscience and feel remorse. But none of that proves the existence of rights.
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
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]
That’s a great point, but who is defending those societies? Really only those who are a part of them, and those who are a part of them have likely already undergone said genital mutilation.
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]
That is evidence that someone doesn’t like something - I don’t like being killed. I don’t like being robbed. Then you can recognise that other people don’t like those things either. You can even recognise that you don’t like doing those things to other people - ie, you have a conscience and feel remorse. But none of that proves the existence of rights.
A right is obviously not a physical being, so nothing is going to prove its existence as if it is.
[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.[/quote]
For what reasons do you believe it? Just that you don’t believe that a natural right exists? I’m fine with looking at things that way.
[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.[/quote]
For what reasons do you believe it?[/quote]
For the reason given earlier: There isn’t any reason to believe that anybody has any natural right at all.
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
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]
That’s a great point, but who is defending those societies? Really only those who are a part of them, and those who are a part of them have likely already undergone said genital mutilation.[/quote]
Actually, it’s the MEN in that society who are effectively enslaving the women and coercing them to have these mutilations done so that they don’t enjoy sex and are therefore less likely to cheat on their husbands.
Do men and women have fundamentally different rights? History would seem to agree with that…
But the discussion at hand seems to point that these rights are fundamental to ALL humans. If that’s so, why did WE, the most “rights conscious” country in the history of the world only just grant our women citizens the right to vote less than a hundred years ago? and abolish slavery less than two hundred years ago? If these rights are “innate”, then why were they not respected for 99.9% of human history?
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
If these rights are “innate”, then why were they not respected for 99.9% of human history? [/quote]
Just because it is cloudy outside today, doesn’t mean the sky isn’t blue above the clouds.[/quote]
by that analogy, it has ALWAYS been cloudy. And though the sun may shine on some parts of the world, other parts remain cloudy. There is no “innate, natural right” to a sunny day…
But you DO have the ability to evolve and carry an umbrella… But you don’t HAVE to share it with anyone, because an umbrella isn’t a “right” either…
“It thus appears that one particle of an entangled pair “knows” what measurement has been performed on the other, and with what outcome, even though there is no known means for such information to be communicated between the particles, which at the time of measurement may be separated by arbitrarily large distances.”
Indeed, it is not my contention that physicalism is proved or even that it is reasonable to subscribe to it over anything else (that’s a whole separate argument). Rather I mean to say that to disprove it would be unprecedented. The implication being that that isn’t going to happen here on PWI, valiant thinkers though we all might be.
And the non-physical existence of a “natural right” would definitely disprove physicalism.
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]
That is evidence that someone doesn’t like something - I don’t like being killed. I don’t like being robbed. Then you can recognise that other people don’t like those things either. You can even recognise that you don’t like doing those things to other people - ie, you have a conscience and feel remorse. But none of that proves the existence of rights.
A right is obviously not a physical being, so nothing is going to prove its existence as if it is.
[/quote]
Then what possible reason could you have for believing in their existence?
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
“It thus appears that one particle of an entangled pair “knows” what measurement has been performed on the other, and with what outcome, even though there is no known means for such information to be communicated between the particles, which at the time of measurement may be separated by arbitrarily large distances.”[/quote]
But that’s quantum physics (and if you’re into that, the Dancing Wu Li Masters is a cool book on the topic)…
Are you saying that quantum physics and what is essentially “morality” are linked?
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
“It thus appears that one particle of an entangled pair “knows” what measurement has been performed on the other, and with what outcome, even though there is no known means for such information to be communicated between the particles, which at the time of measurement may be separated by arbitrarily large distances.”[/quote]
But that’s quantum physics (and if you’re into that, the Dancing Wu Li Masters is a cool book on the topic)…
Are you saying that quantum physics and what is essentially “morality” are linked?[/quote]
No. I’m saying that two particles can communicate with each other instantaneously which suggests that some non-physical process is at work. This suggests that the theory of physicalism may not be correct.
by that analogy, it has ALWAYS been cloudy.[/quote]
Yup. And the founders understood this (at least in theory, not always in practice.)
Correct again.
Based on what you said here, this is contradictory.
Just because something isn’t respected, followed or believed by mankind doesn’t make it not there.
Generations of Native Americans had zero clue the Europeans were across the pond. Doesn’t mean they weren’t there. You can’t use man’s fallibility to explain the presence or refute the presence of something man didn’t create.
The concept of innate is that something is there whether other men want to abide by it or not.
Now you’re starting to get it.
No. And neither is protection from the rain or clouds. The blue sky is the right.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
“It thus appears that one particle of an entangled pair “knows” what measurement has been performed on the other, and with what outcome, even though there is no known means for such information to be communicated between the particles, which at the time of measurement may be separated by arbitrarily large distances.”[/quote]
But that’s quantum physics (and if you’re into that, the Dancing Wu Li Masters is a cool book on the topic)…
Are you saying that quantum physics and what is essentially “morality” are linked?[/quote]
No. I’m saying that two particles can communicate with each other instantaneously which suggests that some non-physical process is at work. This suggests that the theory of physicalism may not be correct.[/quote]
Gotcha! Although one “could” argue that both matter and energy are essentially the same at that quantum level, so… LOL
<<<bows out of quantum physics discussion before SM put’s a hurtin’ on me>>>
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
There is no “innate, natural right” to a sunny day…
[/quote]
Sure. There is nothing about an innate right that says anyone else has to respect it. They can choose not to, and we, to this day, do it all the time. We, mankind, are the clouds.
The right is just “there”. The sky is blue. Nothing more, nothing less. We do not make it, destroy it, we don’t have to recognize it, but it doesn’t change that it is there.
It just simply is.
Whether you enjoy it, earn it, fight for it, are given it, or have it protected, is dependent upon you and the environment around you.
Gotcha! Although one “could” argue that both matter and energy are essentially the same at that quantum level, so… LOL
<<<bows out of quantum physics discussion before SM put’s a hurtin’ on me>>>[/quote]
I don’t know much at all about quantum physics actually. I just find some of the concepts interesting on a philosophical level - the ones I can understand that is.