The Great Experiment

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
161

[quote]nkklllll wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]nkklllll wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]nkklllll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]nkklllll wrote:

It seems to me, that unless you believe that humans have some sort of special place in the universe, there are no natural rights to be had. [/quote]

Then you’re a slave, just living on borrowed time.

I have neither the energy nor desire to run through this conversation again. [/quote]

Except I do believe in natural rights, because I do believe that humans are set apart of animals. The only problem is, there is no sound argument I can think of for the existence of natural rights apart from that. [/quote]

Then you aren’t thinking hard enough.

There is indeed a sound argument to be made, and quite frankly, you’ve already acknowledged it. You’re simply troubled by the sheer simplicity of the argument. Without question, we are the most “gifted” of all organisms on this planet. Natural rights are simply rights that are “given” to us at birth by whatever it is that created us. Whatever it is that created us clearly conferred upon us some sort of special status on this planet, and we have reasoned that this unique ability to think also confers upon us some sort of special entitlement to this ability, and thus the life, liberty, and property that is a necessary component of such an ability.

What it is that created us is almost immaterial to the discussion, since the whole argument is derived from the fact that we DO exist, and we DO exist in a manner entirely unique to anything else on this planet. What put us here doesn’t negate from the fact that we ARE here, and we have used this unique ability to reason all of this out.

If anything else could reason, then I suppose they would also have natural rights by virtue of their ability to realize such a thing. This is why a baby who cannot actually exercise rational thinking yet still has natural rights and the most intelligent dolphins and whatnot do not enjoy such rights. But no other organism has such an ability, so we are “special”.

I don’t know why you need anything OTHER than that argument. [/quote]

Because the concept of natural rights is relatively new in the framework of human history (as far as I know, the first person to put forth the concept of natural rights was Aristotle, but none of the pre-socratics did so, at least none that I’ve studied). Therefore, this concept can reasonably be thought to not occur to all highly intelligent humans, who seem to be the one’s who come up with and reason about these kinds of things. In fact, there are many of these philosophers who come to the very conclusion that because there is no absolute truth (I disagree with this statement entirely) that there can be no “natural rights” because what one person thinks should be a natural right, another person thinks is absurd and should be allowed to no person.

Yes, humans are special. I believe so because I believe we are God’s creation, and made in his image. All “natural rights” that we have exist because he declared them as such. Any other rights granted to us outside of those were either extrapolated from them, or were thought up by humans. This is all my view and has no actual bearing on the argument.

If we go with idea that we have natural rights simply because we are special, then we of course have to answer the question of “what are those rights?” With that, we will receive billions to trillions of answers. If we throw out all the answers which are extrapolated from others, synonyms, etc, then we can narrow it down a bit. However, assuming we aren’t moral relativists, we will run into the question of “who is right?” This is where the necessity to know where we came from and why we are special comes in to play.

Mankind is not smart, disciplined, or small enough in number to come to an agreement on a single set of unified natural rights. I do not believe we will ever be that way. Therefore, the necessity for there to be an authority who dictates what those rights are. In a perfect world this authority would be an entirely benevolent, omniscient entity who would wish for the absolute best for every single soul, living or dead.
[/quote]

Those who would disagree due to some moral paradox with the idea that Natural Rights exist simply confuse what IS and what SHOULD BE. I’ve already stated what IS, and not once did I do so by conflating is and ought.

What IS the case is that we are special, regardless of how long it took us to figure that out. In that respect, we are still light years ahead of anything else on this planet.

It isn’t necessary to list or identify all of our Natural Rights. I think Madison made abundantly clear many years ago the folly of such an exercise. Natural Rights are simply rights given to us at birth by virtue of our unique status on this planet.

No such dictation of said rights is necessary either. They ALREADY EXIST and can only be “discovered” by some such authority. No such authority can decide for me that I do not have a life. They can take it from me, and therefore violate that which has been given to me, which is exactly what a right is. But they cannot say that something that has been given to me at birth is something that I do not have. It is logically impossible. They can only take from me what I already have.

Your argument that some an authoritarian figure of some sort can dictate natural rights to anyone reveals a clear and fundamental misunderstanding of what they are. I don’t know how else to describe an argument that is essentially stating the worry that someone may be able to, with some authority, declare that the life I have is not something that was given to me. It’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard.[/quote]

Yes, it is necessary to identify our natural rights, if they truly exist. Otherwise we are incapable of exercising them accurately. For instance, assume we were unaware of our right to free speech as granted to us by the Constitution of the U.S. The government begins to do some unsavory things, but we think that because they are the authority, we have no right to speak against it. Thus we NEED to know what our natural rights our, that way we can make a point to establish rules and such to not infringe upon those rights.

After reading your reasoning, I think I can agree with you that we at the very least have a right to life by virtue of being born. However, I think it fairly safe to say that ALL living things have a right to life by virtue of being born. Perhaps it is only living, thinking things (eg, animals, or possible insects).

I have not argued that a human authority figure can decide what our natural rights are or aren’t. That falls in line with the same view point I’m arguing against.

How we came to be special is very important in this discussion. If it was by virtue of being created by something (purposefully created, like by a supernatural entity) or by cosmic chance+natural selection will determine how we go about defining our “natural rights.”

Didn’t realize that you conceded my entire argument with this one sentence. That’s all I’m arguing. That the only way we have natural rights is if the thing that created us has given them to us. If we simply came to be by chance, then our supposed natural rights are the same natural rights that every living thing has, because we are no more unique than anything else in the animal kingdom.
Honestly, I thought I would be done with these kinds of discussion once I was out of college.[/quote]

First of all, the Constitution doesn’t GRANT us any rights. It only identifies a partial list of rights that the gov’t cannot violate. That is a fundamental error in your perspective on this matter.

When I said that it isn’t necessary to identify and list ALL of our Natural Rights, I meant that it isn’t necessary to have the entire list compiled and codified somewhere before we can begin to progress as a civilization. We only need the MEANS to identify them when some such scenario presents itself. Take a gander at the 9th Amendment sometime. That means is our ability to reason.

You are incorrect in stating that I must first identify a right before I can properly exercise it. I may need to identify something as a right before I can PROTECT said right, but exercise it. Not when it comes to Natural Rights. They are inherently a part of us, as is the exercise of them. We do so naturally. I don’t need someone to tell me I have the right to life, nor do I need to discover it for myself, prior to being capable of protecting it.

The same can be said for the right to free speech. Regardless of who first discovered/reasoned that this is a fundamental aspect of liberty (especially when said speech is also a fundamental aspect of preserving your liberty by calling attention to potential threats to it), the fact is that people exercised it all the time FAR prior to anyone even beginning to discover the “rights” angle to things.

The first caveman who spoke up against the leader of a tribe for hording all of the proceeds of a hunt exercised this right to free speech.

How we became special is irrelevant to the discussion. It does not negate from the fact that we ARE special. I think this much is “self-evident”.

How is it even logically possible to come to be by chance? What does “chance” even mean?

I suppose you think I mean “give” in a literal sense, like something consciously handed us these things with a clear intent in mind. I do not argue that at all. I only argue that something has given us our life, liberty, and ability to reason by virtue of our existence. Because humans exist, and because we have not always existed, there must be something of some sort that is capable of creating us. Whether it be random happenstance or some sort of intelligent design is immaterial since we exist.

To try to tie the whole thing to the particular entity that gives us life is simply to head down a dead-end road in which we try to figure out WHY we exist. That isn’t necessary when it comes to Natural Rights.

Rights are something we are entitled to. Something we are entitled to is something that is given to us. Because we exist, we were given life and all the potential that comes with the ability to reason. Because what we are given is an entitlement, and because what we possess and are entitled to possess is a right, and because we possess life, liberty, and the ability to reason our way to property, then we have the right to such things. Because we have these things by our very nature, they are necessarily natural rights. It’s as simple as that.

162

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Here’s an interesting article on the “goals” of Communism to dismantle the freedoms in America. The article was written in 1968… Guess how many goals have been achieved?

http://disruptthenarrative.com/2013/01/08/45-communist-goals-by-dr-cleon-skousen-1958/

[/quote]

  1. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a “religious crutch.” (CHECK, CHECK, CHECK.)

And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.

  1. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principal of “separation of church and state.” (CHECK. The ACLU and atheist groups have made this their primary mission. And the ignorance of the American people and the courts have allowed it to continue. THERE IS NO SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE CLAUSE IN THE CONSTITUTION.)

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.

  1. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use [“]united force[”] to solve economic, political or social problems. (CHECK. Three words: Occupy Wall Street.)

God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had thirteen states independent eleven years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is its natural manure.

This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it.

Jefferson and Lincoln. Communists. Who knew? :stuck_out_tongue:

166

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Would you care to list the quotes and actions of Jefferson that contradict his above statements?

Be fair. List them. They are there. You know it. I know it.[/quote]

Off the top of my head, I can’t think of anything Jefferson said that might indicate that he regarded any of the supernatural or miraculous stories in Christianity as anything other than myths and fairy tales, tacked on long after the death of Jesus. While he may have expressed admiration for the moral teachings of Christianity, he never proclaimed himself to have subscribed to Christianity or any other religion, and was ambivalent about the notion of organized religion in general, recognizing that it could be a tool of control in the hands of the state.

As for any actions that might contradict his feelings about rebellion, again I’m coming up short. He was against the Whisky Tax, which indicates that he likely sided with the Whisky Rebellion rebels, at least in spirit, and his repeal of the tax upon taking office seems to confirm this. As president, he put his revolutionary money where his mouth (or pen, in any case) was, in pardoning all those convicted under the Alien and Sedition acts, and also drafting the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, basically giving these states permission the tell the FedGov to fuck off if they disagreed with federal legislation. So yeah. Help a brother out here.

Why certainly, my good man.

Jefferson was writing to the Danbury Baptists in Connecticut, who were concerned that, as a minority religious sect, they might be at risk that a majority sect (such as their rivals, the Congregationalist church) would assume power in the government, and presume to tell them, under pretense of religion, how they could or could not worship. Jefferson was assuring them that inasmuch as religion and government were, in effect, as Stephen Jay Gould would later say about religion and science, “non-overlapping magesteria”, government could not meddle in the affairs of religion, nor could one religion weild government power against another.

[quote]Also, explain where Jefferson was and what he was doing during the drafting and ratifying of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Explain how integral he was to said drafting and ratifying.
[/quote]

Obviously, as he was in Paris performing his duties as Minister to France at the time, he was not present for the Constitutional Convention. Had he been, then likely there would have been no need for a “Bill of Rights” tacked on at the end, because Jefferson would have made damned sure that they were incorporated into the main text of the document. Jefferson and James Madison communicated at great length while Tom was away in Paris, exchanging their views on why the Constitution, as it stood, sucked:

And now, (wrote Tom), I will add what I don’t like [about the Constitution]: First the omission of a bill of rights providing clearly and without the aid of sophisms for freedom of religion, freedom of the press, protection against standing armies, restriction against monopolies, the eternal and unremitting force of the habeas corpus law, and trials by jury in all matter of fact triable by the laws of the land and not by the law of Nations. To say, as Mr. Wilson does that a bill of rights was not necessary because all is reserved in the case of the general government which is not given, while in the particular ones all is given which is not reserved might do for the Audience to whom it was addressed, but is surely gratis dictum, opposed by strong inferences from the body of the instrument, as well as from the omission of the clause of our present confederation which had declared that in express terms. It was a hard conclusion to say because there has been no uniformity among the states as to the cases triable by jury, because some have been so incautious as to abandon this mode of trial, therefore the more prudent states shall be reduced to the same level of calamity. It would have been much more just and wise to have concluded the other way that as most of the states had judiciously preserved this palladium, those who had wandered should be brought back to it, and to have established general right instead of general wrong. Let me add that a bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference.

How many amendments were sired by that one ponderous paragraph?

And hell, the first and second amendments were lifted practically verbatim from the Virginia constitution that Jefferson himself drafted a month before the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Suffice to say that while Madison was the guy with the quill in his hand when the amendments were drafted, they were a result of a close collaboration with Jefferson.

I’d call that pretty fucking integral.

167

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Hey Varq! When’d you get the gray hair? (setting myself up with that one)[/quote]

Actually, I though this was a picture of you, and wondered when you had shaved off the (as TC once called it) Redneck Beard. :slight_smile:

Don’t be modest, Mister Objectivity and Impartiality, you know you can pick cherries with the best of 'em.

169

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

Jefferson and Lincoln. Communists. Who knew? :P[/quote]

That’s impossible:

171

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

Jefferson and Lincoln. Communists. Who knew? :P[/quote]

That’s impossible:

What a lunatic.

172

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]nkklllll wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]nkklllll wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]nkklllll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]nkklllll wrote:

It seems to me, that unless you believe that humans have some sort of special place in the universe, there are no natural rights to be had. [/quote]

Then you’re a slave, just living on borrowed time.

I have neither the energy nor desire to run through this conversation again. [/quote]

Except I do believe in natural rights, because I do believe that humans are set apart of animals. The only problem is, there is no sound argument I can think of for the existence of natural rights apart from that. [/quote]

Then you aren’t thinking hard enough.

There is indeed a sound argument to be made, and quite frankly, you’ve already acknowledged it. You’re simply troubled by the sheer simplicity of the argument. Without question, we are the most “gifted” of all organisms on this planet. Natural rights are simply rights that are “given” to us at birth by whatever it is that created us. Whatever it is that created us clearly conferred upon us some sort of special status on this planet, and we have reasoned that this unique ability to think also confers upon us some sort of special entitlement to this ability, and thus the life, liberty, and property that is a necessary component of such an ability.

What it is that created us is almost immaterial to the discussion, since the whole argument is derived from the fact that we DO exist, and we DO exist in a manner entirely unique to anything else on this planet. What put us here doesn’t negate from the fact that we ARE here, and we have used this unique ability to reason all of this out.

If anything else could reason, then I suppose they would also have natural rights by virtue of their ability to realize such a thing. This is why a baby who cannot actually exercise rational thinking yet still has natural rights and the most intelligent dolphins and whatnot do not enjoy such rights. But no other organism has such an ability, so we are “special”.

I don’t know why you need anything OTHER than that argument. [/quote]

Because the concept of natural rights is relatively new in the framework of human history (as far as I know, the first person to put forth the concept of natural rights was Aristotle, but none of the pre-socratics did so, at least none that I’ve studied). Therefore, this concept can reasonably be thought to not occur to all highly intelligent humans, who seem to be the one’s who come up with and reason about these kinds of things. In fact, there are many of these philosophers who come to the very conclusion that because there is no absolute truth (I disagree with this statement entirely) that there can be no “natural rights” because what one person thinks should be a natural right, another person thinks is absurd and should be allowed to no person.

Yes, humans are special. I believe so because I believe we are God’s creation, and made in his image. All “natural rights” that we have exist because he declared them as such. Any other rights granted to us outside of those were either extrapolated from them, or were thought up by humans. This is all my view and has no actual bearing on the argument.

If we go with idea that we have natural rights simply because we are special, then we of course have to answer the question of “what are those rights?” With that, we will receive billions to trillions of answers. If we throw out all the answers which are extrapolated from others, synonyms, etc, then we can narrow it down a bit. However, assuming we aren’t moral relativists, we will run into the question of “who is right?” This is where the necessity to know where we came from and why we are special comes in to play.

Mankind is not smart, disciplined, or small enough in number to come to an agreement on a single set of unified natural rights. I do not believe we will ever be that way. Therefore, the necessity for there to be an authority who dictates what those rights are. In a perfect world this authority would be an entirely benevolent, omniscient entity who would wish for the absolute best for every single soul, living or dead.
[/quote]

Those who would disagree due to some moral paradox with the idea that Natural Rights exist simply confuse what IS and what SHOULD BE. I’ve already stated what IS, and not once did I do so by conflating is and ought.

What IS the case is that we are special, regardless of how long it took us to figure that out. In that respect, we are still light years ahead of anything else on this planet.

It isn’t necessary to list or identify all of our Natural Rights. I think Madison made abundantly clear many years ago the folly of such an exercise. Natural Rights are simply rights given to us at birth by virtue of our unique status on this planet.

No such dictation of said rights is necessary either. They ALREADY EXIST and can only be “discovered” by some such authority. No such authority can decide for me that I do not have a life. They can take it from me, and therefore violate that which has been given to me, which is exactly what a right is. But they cannot say that something that has been given to me at birth is something that I do not have. It is logically impossible. They can only take from me what I already have.

Your argument that some an authoritarian figure of some sort can dictate natural rights to anyone reveals a clear and fundamental misunderstanding of what they are. I don’t know how else to describe an argument that is essentially stating the worry that someone may be able to, with some authority, declare that the life I have is not something that was given to me. It’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard.[/quote]

Yes, it is necessary to identify our natural rights, if they truly exist. Otherwise we are incapable of exercising them accurately. For instance, assume we were unaware of our right to free speech as granted to us by the Constitution of the U.S. The government begins to do some unsavory things, but we think that because they are the authority, we have no right to speak against it. Thus we NEED to know what our natural rights our, that way we can make a point to establish rules and such to not infringe upon those rights.

After reading your reasoning, I think I can agree with you that we at the very least have a right to life by virtue of being born. However, I think it fairly safe to say that ALL living things have a right to life by virtue of being born. Perhaps it is only living, thinking things (eg, animals, or possible insects).

I have not argued that a human authority figure can decide what our natural rights are or aren’t. That falls in line with the same view point I’m arguing against.

How we came to be special is very important in this discussion. If it was by virtue of being created by something (purposefully created, like by a supernatural entity) or by cosmic chance+natural selection will determine how we go about defining our “natural rights.”

Didn’t realize that you conceded my entire argument with this one sentence. That’s all I’m arguing. That the only way we have natural rights is if the thing that created us has given them to us. If we simply came to be by chance, then our supposed natural rights are the same natural rights that every living thing has, because we are no more unique than anything else in the animal kingdom.
Honestly, I thought I would be done with these kinds of discussion once I was out of college.[/quote]

First of all, the Constitution doesn’t GRANT us any rights. It only identifies a partial list of rights that the gov’t cannot violate. That is a fundamental error in your perspective on this matter.

When I said that it isn’t necessary to identify and list ALL of our Natural Rights, I meant that it isn’t necessary to have the entire list compiled and codified somewhere before we can begin to progress as a civilization. We only need the MEANS to identify them when some such scenario presents itself. Take a gander at the 9th Amendment sometime. That means is our ability to reason.

You are incorrect in stating that I must first identify a right before I can properly exercise it. I may need to identify something as a right before I can PROTECT said right, but exercise it. Not when it comes to Natural Rights. They are inherently a part of us, as is the exercise of them. We do so naturally. I don’t need someone to tell me I have the right to life, nor do I need to discover it for myself, prior to being capable of protecting it.

The same can be said for the right to free speech. Regardless of who first discovered/reasoned that this is a fundamental aspect of liberty (especially when said speech is also a fundamental aspect of preserving your liberty by calling attention to potential threats to it), the fact is that people exercised it all the time FAR prior to anyone even beginning to discover the “rights” angle to things.

The first caveman who spoke up against the leader of a tribe for hording all of the proceeds of a hunt exercised this right to free speech.

How we became special is irrelevant to the discussion. It does not negate from the fact that we ARE special. I think this much is “self-evident”.

How is it even logically possible to come to be by chance? What does “chance” even mean?

I suppose you think I mean “give” in a literal sense, like something consciously handed us these things with a clear intent in mind. I do not argue that at all. I only argue that something has given us our life, liberty, and ability to reason by virtue of our existence. Because humans exist, and because we have not always existed, there must be something of some sort that is capable of creating us. Whether it be random happenstance or some sort of intelligent design is immaterial since we exist.

To try to tie the whole thing to the particular entity that gives us life is simply to head down a dead-end road in which we try to figure out WHY we exist. That isn’t necessary when it comes to Natural Rights.

Rights are something we are entitled to. Something we are entitled to is something that is given to us. Because we exist, we were given life and all the potential that comes with the ability to reason. Because what we are given is an entitlement, and because what we possess and are entitled to possess is a right, and because we possess life, liberty, and the ability to reason our way to property, then we have the right to such things. Because we have these things by our very nature, they are necessarily natural rights. It’s as simple as that.[/quote]

Alright I have a question: There are many, many animals which are territorial. They mark their territory and often threaten or attack other individuals of the same species who trespass on their territory. They claim property. They exist and live, therefore they are entitled to life. They can certainly learn, can mimic behaviors. It’s possible that some animals have a rudimentary form of reason (some animals can solve problems, have better grasp of many concepts than infants). So what sets us apart from them other than we’re “smarter?”

If the only answer is that we’re smarter, I find that unacceptable because there are many, many animals that exist that can do many things we cannot. So they are possibly more “special” than we are.

Just as you use “given” in an ambiguous way, I used “granted” in an ambiguous way. The Constitution “grants” us rights in the very way you state it does. It acknowledges things that it cannot take away from us. Or rather, it should not.

You answered your own question about coming to be by chance not even 5 sentences later.
And this is not something I even take stock in, I’ve already said I believe we were created. However, my argument is, and always has been, if we were not expressly created as special, then the concept of “natural rights” that exist outside of the one’s that man has thought up holds little water.

Say you had three kids. One had a talent for academia, one a talent for athletics, and one a talent for the arts. The one with a talent for athletics proclaims that because he can run faster than the others, he should get more allowance for his chores. Assuming you have given none of them any reason think they aren’t all equal in worth, this belief of the athlete is pure arrogance that is unfounded. He has all the same rights as his siblings. His abilities do not set him apart except to say he is different from his siblings.

173

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]nkklllll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]nkklllll wrote:

It seems to me, that unless you believe that humans have some sort of special place in the universe, there are no natural rights to be had. [/quote]

Then you’re a slave, just living on borrowed time.

I have neither the energy nor desire to run through this conversation again. [/quote]

Except I do believe in natural rights, because I do believe that humans are set apart of animals. The only problem is, there is no sound argument I can think of for the existence of natural rights apart from that. [/quote]

Then you aren’t thinking hard enough.

There is indeed a sound argument to be made, and quite frankly, you’ve already acknowledged it. You’re simply troubled by the sheer simplicity of the argument. Without question, we are the most “gifted” of all organisms on this planet. Natural rights are simply rights that are “given” to us at birth by whatever it is that created us. Whatever it is that created us clearly conferred upon us some sort of special status on this planet, and we have reasoned that this unique ability to think also confers upon us some sort of special entitlement to this ability, and thus the life, liberty, and property that is a necessary component of such an ability.

What it is that created us is almost immaterial to the discussion, since the whole argument is derived from the fact that we DO exist, and we DO exist in a manner entirely unique to anything else on this planet. What put us here doesn’t negate from the fact that we ARE here, and we have used this unique ability to reason all of this out.

If anything else could reason, then I suppose they would also have natural rights by virtue of their ability to realize such a thing. This is why a baby who cannot actually exercise rational thinking yet still has natural rights and the most intelligent dolphins and whatnot do not enjoy such rights. But no other organism has such an ability, so we are “special”.

I don’t know why you need anything OTHER than that argument. [/quote]
I believe in natural rights, because I also believe in the creator. The “ability to reason gives us natural rights” argument is not a great one. That is essentially an argument stating that humans have natural rights due to a superior ability. In other words, it is no different from saying that Neighbor A has a right to Neighbor B’s property because Neighbor A has the ability to take it. In other words, it’s a “might makes right” argument.[/quote]

Your argument would be analogous if Neighbor A was a human and Neighbor B was some other sort of animal.[/quote]

No, it’s analogous as written. You’ve argued that we have natural rights because we’re special, granted something other creatures do not because we have something they do not (while they have many, many things we do not).

174

[quote]nkklllll wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]nkklllll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]nkklllll wrote:

It seems to me, that unless you believe that humans have some sort of special place in the universe, there are no natural rights to be had. [/quote]

Then you’re a slave, just living on borrowed time.

I have neither the energy nor desire to run through this conversation again. [/quote]

Except I do believe in natural rights, because I do believe that humans are set apart of animals. The only problem is, there is no sound argument I can think of for the existence of natural rights apart from that. [/quote]

Then you aren’t thinking hard enough.

There is indeed a sound argument to be made, and quite frankly, you’ve already acknowledged it. You’re simply troubled by the sheer simplicity of the argument. Without question, we are the most “gifted” of all organisms on this planet. Natural rights are simply rights that are “given” to us at birth by whatever it is that created us. Whatever it is that created us clearly conferred upon us some sort of special status on this planet, and we have reasoned that this unique ability to think also confers upon us some sort of special entitlement to this ability, and thus the life, liberty, and property that is a necessary component of such an ability.

What it is that created us is almost immaterial to the discussion, since the whole argument is derived from the fact that we DO exist, and we DO exist in a manner entirely unique to anything else on this planet. What put us here doesn’t negate from the fact that we ARE here, and we have used this unique ability to reason all of this out.

If anything else could reason, then I suppose they would also have natural rights by virtue of their ability to realize such a thing. This is why a baby who cannot actually exercise rational thinking yet still has natural rights and the most intelligent dolphins and whatnot do not enjoy such rights. But no other organism has such an ability, so we are “special”.

I don’t know why you need anything OTHER than that argument. [/quote]
I believe in natural rights, because I also believe in the creator. The “ability to reason gives us natural rights” argument is not a great one. That is essentially an argument stating that humans have natural rights due to a superior ability. In other words, it is no different from saying that Neighbor A has a right to Neighbor B’s property because Neighbor A has the ability to take it. In other words, it’s a “might makes right” argument.[/quote]

Your argument would be analogous if Neighbor A was a human and Neighbor B was some other sort of animal.[/quote]

No, it’s analogous as written. You’ve argued that we have natural rights because we’re special, granted something other creatures do not because we have something they do not (while they have many, many things we do not).[/quote]

In no way is what you wrote analogous to the point I was making, and your inability to understand as much again reveals a fundamental flaw in your ability to apply logic to the discussion.

I have NEVER once even implied that the superiority issue is one that is applicable on an intra-species level. It makes the entirety of mankind superior to other animals.

175

@ nkkill

What sets us apart other than we’re smarter? First of all, it isn’t a matter of intelligence. Intelligence is a fairly subjective term. What is not subjective is the fact that we can simply do things other animals will NEVER be able to do. Animals have been gathering food and eating, sleeping, and fucking the same way for eons. We have not.

The next time I see a guy in a Tesla on his way to work run over a squirrel chasing a fucking acorn across the street, I’ll be sure to remember your refusal to accept the fact that we are FAR superior to other animals in virtually all ways.

I don’t use “given” in an ambiguous way, and your attempt to back out of what was clearly an egregious misunderstanding not only of the concept of Natural Rights, but also the document which purports to protect said rights is intellectually dishonest. NO ONE who has a firm grasp of the concept of Natural Rights and the Constitution would EVER use the word “grant”.

You say “if we were not created special”, as if there is any sort of debate. Your entire hypothetical scenario may as well start with “if we were created with six cocks and one leg”. We ARE created differently than anything else. If you think there is any possibility that we are NOT the superior organism on this planet, take a trip to the zoo sometime and try to maintain that attitude.

The fact that we exist and we have not always existed on this planet is proof that we were created. The definition of the word is simply “to cause to come into being”. We are here, so we were created. Period.

The last paragraph of your post is irrelevant. Intra-species is different than inter-species. I am comparing humans to other animals and you constantly use as an analogy the comparison of one human to another. Your logic is flawed on several levels. You equate establishing a gov’t to protect the individual rights of people that exist as part of our nature with a gov’t granting rights to its citizens. You repeatedly fail on the most basic level to analogize your argument. Your focus on semantical issues within this thread is distracting and irrelevant.

180

[quote]nkklllll wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
I believe in natural rights, because I also believe in the creator. The “ability to reason gives us natural rights” argument is not a great one. That is essentially an argument stating that humans have natural rights due to a superior ability. In other words, it is no different from saying that Neighbor A has a right to Neighbor B’s property because Neighbor A has the ability to take it. In other words, it’s a “might makes right” argument.[/quote]

Your argument would be analogous if Neighbor A was a human and Neighbor B was some other sort of animal.[/quote]

No, it’s analogous as written. You’ve argued that we have natural rights because we’re special, granted something other creatures do not because we have something they do not (while they have many, many things we do not).[/quote]

If we don’t acknowledge at least a great architect, we have no basis on which to claim natural rights. Personally, I believe that’s the real reason for the elimination of the theory of creation from public school classrooms. The idea that everything is here purely by random chance seems like about the best way possible to make people stop caring.