[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Because humans are fundamentally an imperfect, and often flawed species. We’re not really good at being good to each other, particularly when we have power over another.
Don’t get me wrong, there are a plethora of wonderful individuals out there, but there are monsters too.
So we, if we are to live in a society, a collection of individuals need to make a choice. If we are to be realistic and accept the fact there are evil people in the world, we must do what we can to prevent evil, and maintain as much order as possible if all good people are to thrive.
So, what we’ve come up with is “rule of law”. Our laws are imperfect just as each of us are. Their application and use is as imperfect as we are as well, but it’s the best system we’ve come up with for maintaining order, which gives the good people of the world the environment needed to have a fulfilling life.
Laws don’t dictate morality, but morality should, at least on some levels, dictate our laws. Equal application being of utmost importance.[/quote]
I agree with most of this.
But you’re missing the point of my question- Natural rights.
For example, can you explain to me how any of this has to do with natural rights?
Because, the way I see it, you don’t need natural rights to explain any of what you wrote above. In fact, I’m willing to argue that the very fact that people behave in such various ways, and that people seem to be fundamentally capable of violence (I don’t believe that a truly “good” person could exist) speaks AGAINST the definition of natural rights as defined by DoubleDuce (broadly spoken as being-that natural rights can exist independent of a higher being/and is evidenced by the way people seem to universally desire certain things, such as freedom and life).
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
No. (Well in cases of self defense it gives the victim the right to protect themselves, but I’m trying to ignore gray areas for the sake of discussion.)
It gives society and victims the duty of punishment. It requires us as a group of individuals to try and protect future innocent good people from falling victim.
[/quote]
Ok. By what reasoning or logic?
Fighting to defend yourself seem obvious, and I’m not willing to debate with you over anything like that.
But moving from having a personal right to self-defense to what you write above seems like an enormous jump somewhere. And I don’t see it at all.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
We must do something to the violator to prevent, as best we can, future violations.
Again, it’s like scolding your kid. [/quote]
I disagree with the “kid” analogy.
I don’t even like the “parent punishing the child for their betterment” analogy outside of Christian theology, if nothing else than because Christianity carries so many assumptions with it that you must accept for even its basic concepts to start sounding reasonable.
There are no such assumptions here. As such, for all you know the “violator” chose to carry a loaded rifle in public in a society where such behavior is outlawed.
Who is “we”? The public? Government? If I were a known supporter of totalitarianism and wrote anything close to the quote above, I think most people here would instantly think of “1984”.
The question I really want to get at is a better definition of natural rights by those who say that a higher being isn’t needed for it to exist.
Is natural rights absolute, as in it exists for a person in perpetuity?
Can something be defined as a natural right ONLY if it is negative in nature?
Vice versa.
And, if the above is true, how do you argue executing people as fitting with natural rights?
That’s really what I want to know here. If your definition of natural rights come from the Christian God and you argue “executions are ok under natural rights because God said so”, then… fine. I can’t really argue against that, because to argue against it would take me to arguing against Christianity, and that’s a completely different topic.
But if you define natural rights in the DoubleDuce seemingly does, then you really need to start defining it better beyond (what seems to be) vague words that just makes it sound better.
I mean, what reasonable person is going to argue against “natural rights means that you CANNOT steal from others”. The argument begins when you have to define what “steal” means.