God given rights?

Aw, shucks, Vociferous. You're making little old me blush! You big softy, you!

You still sound angry. Do you think it could be possible for you to calm down and have a civil discussion with me without calling me a crackpot, etc.? (And please, don't insult my intelligence by pretending that's not what you did there.)

If you'd like to have a discussion about whether animals have a moral sense, we can have that discussion - perhaps in a separate thread. Clearly you regard animals as similar to automatons. I do not. For the purposes of this current discussion on "natural rights", I think that to debate the matter here will take us significantly off-topic. Besides, I'm not convinced you are in any frame of mind to take part in a civil discussion about that topic.

You're entitled to your opinion, of course. Earlier in the thread, I explained why I have a problem with your idea of natural rights. It's not that I don't understand your preferred definition. I just don't think it's very useful. In fact, I think that attempting to phrase moral questions in terms of rights is not always very helpful. It can tend to obscure the underlying issues by laying a legalistic framework on top of them and then pretending that moral questions can be solved by appeal to black-letter definitions. Staunch conservative that you are, I understand why you might find the legalistic approach appealing, especially when you think you can frame the laws to suit yourself.

Do you and I have some history that I'm unaware of, Vociferous? Are you a sock puppet of a previously-banned member, perhaps, come to exact revenge under a new handle? You sound like a man with some kind of grudge.

I thought we were discussing whether it is acceptable to murder in order to survive. Or - perhaps better - to kill in order to survive. And the circumstances surrounding that.

I think we could find some common ground on such questions. What do you think?

As I understand it, murder is the unlawful killing of another human being. Survival is the avoidance of one's own death. How did I go? Did I get the difference right?

I'm not sure what you're talking about, exactly. Can you elaborate, please? What was the straw man and why was it a straw man?

It's okay. I forgive you. I'd prefer you overestimate me than underestimate me. It saves time. It's also a sign of civility and respect, to assume the best rather than the worst in people, don't you agree?

That all sounds fine to me. I think we're in agreement on that.

Yes, I agree. If you thought I was making some argument that intra-species predation is morally acceptable because inter-species predation occurs, then you obviously made a mistake somewhere. I'm glad we cleared that up!

That seems like a non sequitur. What does an objective basis for rights have to do with inter-species vs. intra-species predation? I can't see any obvious connection. What would be an objective basis for rights, anyway? What did you have in mind?

As I said previously, a right typically goes along with obligations imposed on others who might otherwise impede the exercise of the right. A right that doesn't oblige anybody to do anything isn't really a right worth talking about, is it?

I realise that this does not directly address your question about whether rights are "granted". I suppose one could say that those who respect the associated obligations "grant" the right, if you want to talk about it that way. Is that the kind of thing you are thinking of?

Did you know I live in Australia? Is that what you're describing as a "country that doesn't know any better"? Can you please explain what you are referring to, exactly? Also, it looks like you're generalising again. Do you mean nobody in the entire country knows better (about whatever it is you're talking about)?

Fun fact: did you know that the Australian Constitution is modelled on the US Constitution, and shares a lot of similarities with it?

I think you need to explain to me what you think your objective basis of rights is, and why you think it is objective. It would help if you also explained why you think I am different to you and have no objective basis for rights.

Are rights knowledge? Are they observed facts? Is that what you're saying? I'm guessing that you think that natural rights exist regardless of what people think about them. Is that correct?

 

Apes form social groups in similar ways to human beings, so I'd say they are "people". It really depends on how you define "people", doesn't it? If your definition of "person" means only "a member of the Homo sapiens species", then apes are not people. But that's not the only possible definition, obviously. A person might, for instance, be "a sentient creature" or "a creature with the ability to reason" or something else.

What is a person, according to you, Vociferous?

Also, I'm intrigued at the nervous "LOL" tic that you display every time somebody suggests that human beings are animals or that other animals are similar to human beings. What is it about the idea that apes are people that makes you nervous?

Sure. Can't you? How much time have you spent watching great apes? (I'm guessing not much.) You know that scientists have studied the great apes closely, don't you? We do know quite a lot about how primates communicate and express themselves. Maybe this is new to you?

 

Vociferous:

You're a very abrasive conversationalist. You seem to think that you're schooling me on things, most of the time. I suggest that you might find that people will like you more if you lose some of that arrogance you put front and centre. Of course, maybe you're a lovely person in real life and this is just the persona you choose to display here. Still, it strikes me as counterproductive to civil discourse, and ultimately self-defeating. At the very least, it makes it less likely that people who could teach you something new will want to interact with you.

Probably people have mentioned this to you before, but if not, please consider.

Remember I mentioned earlier that if you want to know what I think, you have only to ask. Try to make fewer assumptions about what I assume and what I do or do not know or understand. They are not doing you much good so far.

I'm quite satisfied that we hold different views on natural rights. You seem unwilling to change your mind, so what more is there to be said, if you're satisfied you've covered all your bases adequately?

That null hypothesis you have there seems to float around as per your requirements of the moment.

Because they are more or less meaningless without them. Like I said.

What use are they if they do not?

Haven't I already commented a number of times on that - most recently in the post to which you're responding? Was I not clear about what I think about that?

Nor did I. What I said was that rights layer over moral questions.

Straw man or no, if we're in agreement then all is good. Done.

Do you think I missed that you tried to avoid answering the question I asked you there? I didn't. I noticed that you declined to give an honest answer. Why is that?

I previously invited you to discuss abortion in a separate thread, if you want to have that discussion with me. I have no conflated reasoning on that topic.

Perhaps you can spell out for me in more detail how that works. If you want to.

 

(continued...)

Yes they do. For instance, if I have a right to freedom of speech, it obliges other people to allow me to speak freely. Other rights work the same way.

It is always "voluntary" to choose to obey the law, or more generally to act morally. But there are consequences for refusing to obey the law and for failing to act morally. When it comes to rights, it makes little sense to talk about them at all if there are no consequences for failing to respect them.

It sounds like we're more or less in agreement again. But you're still angry. Why?

What would be an example of a non-natural right that cannot be protected?

Another mistaken assumption about my level of awareness and knowledge. You probably should stop doing that. Petulantly throwing little barbs to try to make yourself feel smarter than me isn't having a lot of impact on me, other than to lower my opinion of you and my willingness to engage with you.

​

Nothing in that refutes my basic statement that the Australian Constitution is modelled in part on the US Constitution. Good to see you delving into Australian historical debates from the 1890s, though. It's always good to discover new things!

That's not really how it works in practice. In fact, it could be argued that the legislature is mostly beholden to the executive. But there's very little mention of the executive in the Constitution. There's no mention of a Prime Minister, for instance.

I'm not sure that rights have any objective basis. What do you mean by "objective" in that context?

Good to know!

You are unwilling to look beyond a dictionary that records everyday usage of words, to delve into what those words mean in any more depth? Seems strange for a scholar like yourself.

I mean, here we are, ostensibly having a discussion about what personhood entails, and the best you can do is to pull out a dictionary and look up the word "person"? Then pretend that your ability to use a dictionary puts you in a position to school me on the concept of personhood?

A suggestion: try worrying less about boosting your own ego by trying to belittle other people. Try to engage with people in a more honest way. Enter into discussions in the expectation that both participants might possibly learn something from the exchange.

I don't think that would be a good use of my time, in the current state of our discussion. If you aren't interested in going beyond the dictionary of common usage (whichever one you're using), then I don't think my referring you to philosophical treatises on personhood is very likely to sway your opinion.

It seems to me that you have some kind of prejudice against the great apes. It's almost as if you find them distasteful or repulsive in some way.

Fun fact: You share a common ancestor with the great apes, Vociferous. They are your distant cousins.

Sometimes, but not in this case. Do you think I didn't notice how you avoided yet another direct question there? I noticed. I find it so fascinating in certain conversations on this forum that people think they can avoid facing matters that make them uncomfortable simply by ignoring them.

If I may observe, my impression is that only a very narrow group of people appear to qualify as your "peeps". I get the impression that they have to resemble yourself quite closely before they qualify. It smacks of a certain level of narcissism. Again, I could be wrong. Maybe you're a really loving inclusive guy in "real life".

 

Vociferous:

I'm trying to learn more about the subject. How about you? Do you think you already know it all?

Clearly our mileage may vary on what we regard as "over concern" in this regard. Your life experiences, too, have no doubt shaped your expectations of how much love you can expect from others, and you have adjusted your attitudes in response.

I really can't help that you take my assessement of your arrogance to be based on your degree of self-confidence.

Thank you for your kind thoughts. I sometimes wish I was more sure of myself, too. On the other hand, I think it can be wise not to be too sure of yourself and puffed up by your own opinions. Don't you? As for fear, you're mistaken again. Best not to make assumptions like that.

I was thinking about the wider picture. Not here. You. Your life in general.

Glad to hear that. The same applies to me to some extent, although I'd probably be more charitable in how I'd go about expressing that sentiment.

I understand where you're coming from. You're consistent in your attitudes, at least.

Possibly worth considering is that whenever you write something for consumption by an audience, that audience will form an opinion of you, whether or not you value it. That opinion will inevitably influence their choice to avoid you or to read more of your writings. It could well be that the size of your audience doesn't matter to you. You could just perhaps keep a personal diary and be content with that.

Yes, but your question was based on an incorrect assumption about what I think. It's not conducive to discussion to ask somebody "why do you think X?" before you have established that they think X. Understand?

Not incredulous. Skeptical. It could be a cultural blind spot, or it could be that they don't exist at all, other than as a relatively incoherent concept, as I suggested. I'm willing to be convinced either way.

I explained why previously. You can read back over my previous posts if you've forgotten.

Technically, I agree. Certainly the concept of natural rights exists, useful or not.

I'm glad we cleared that one up, too, then.

The concept of a "right to do X" can distract attention from the more important issue of whether it is moral to do X, or in the meta-sense whether it is moral to give a general licence to do X.

For instance, in a discussion about the display of the Confederate flag, we might agree that Americans have a right to display the flag. However, it appears that you and I disagree on whether it is moral to do so (or about the circumstances in which it is moral to do so). The moral discussion doesn't end once you say somebody has a right to do something.

Thank you. You could have just said that initially. It would have saved time. Instead, for some reason or other, you tried to avoid making a statement on way or the other on that. I can only guess at your motives at this point, but several possibilities occur to me.

What makes you think I dismiss them out of hand? I have posted questions about them. I have ventured opinions on them. I am hoping to learn more about them.

If we are not having a discussion about natural rights, what are we talking about? The thread title, remember, is "God given rights?", which you equate with "natural rights", if I understand you correctly.

How could I then claim that I had freedom to speak? Isn't the implication of a right to free speech that one can speak without being socked in the mouth, thrown in jail or subjected to other penalty when one carries out the mentioned activity?

What use is a "right" to free speech if you get socked in the mouth every time you try to exercise it? Is it even coherent to claim to have such a right in that circumstance? Wouldn't you look a bit silly standing there with a bloody mouth for the 10th time saying "It's my right to speak freely!" (I'm assuming here, as you do, that rights don't need to impose any obligations on anybody else in order to exist.)

 

(continued...)

Please correct me if I'm wrong here. I'm trying to understand. You're saying the "right to self-defense" is a natural right because if somebody else tries to kill you then you can try your best to kill them instead (or in response).

Do you think, that having the capacity to take a certain kind of action is enough, in and of itself, to bring a "right" into existence? Would be it be fair to say that I have a "right" to do anything I can get away with?

Even that "getting away with something" idea implies to me that somebody else is there, either to approve of my action or to disallow it or penalise me for it. Otherwise, whether my would-be murderer kills me or I kill him is just something that happens, with no particular impact on the rest of the world. If I stand up and proclaim, after the fact, that it was my right to kill the other guy, what does that matter? Nobody else is affected. Nobody else cares. Or do they?

Contrast this "natural right to self defence" with a legal right to self defence, say. When I stand up in a court of law and say "He came at me with a knife; I had little choice but to kill him or to die myself", then the judge might say "The law - and we the people who uphold the law - recognise your right to self defence. Therefore you will not be jailed for killing your attacker." I would say that it would be quite reasonable in these circumstances to walk out of a court and proclaim that I had a right to self defence, confirmed by the court in this instance.

In my court example, there is a concrete benefit to my having the right. In that example, I avoided jail because I had the right. But that doesn't appear to apply in the dog-eat-dog survival world. In that world, the only thing I avoided was dying, because I managed to kill the other guy first. It would make no difference at all to my subsequent life whether I stood up after the fact and loudly told the world I had the right to kill in self defence or not.

Maybe you're saying that the legal right to self defence follows in some way from the supposed natural right to self defence. But I'm not sure that's true. The "natural right to self defence" appears to mean little else than "sometimes people are able to defend themselves against attacks", which is just a statement about facts in the world. But the legal right to self defence is a moral judgment about what "acceptable behaviour" includes. I don't see any way to get from your "objective" facts-in-the-world to the moral "subjective" judgment about what kinds of behaviour ought to be protected.

I hope you can explain.

From your description, it seems to me that the only guaranteed protector of natural rights is the individual claiming those rights. Whereas granted or provided rights are not necessarily guaranteed, even by the individual claiming them. Is that correct? Would this be a valid way to distinguish natural rights from all other rights - the ability of the individual to enact the right on his own?

I haven't made any garbage claims about that. In fact, I haven't discussed with you how or whether the Australian constitution protects rights. I've made a correct statement that the Australian Constitution was modelled on the US Constitution. If you prefer, you can substitute the words "strongly influenced by" for the words "modelled on" if the latter form offends you for some reason.

Habit or not, I'm accurate, as evidenced by your angry reference to "garbage claims" etc. That is hardly emotionally neutral language. Maybe you don't even realise you're doing it.

Not a bill of rights. We can put a big tick next to check and balances and co-equal branches of government, though.

We could have a separate discussion about how rights are recognised and implemented in the laws of Australia if you're interested in learning more.

No problem. I can give you many:

Click here

You're mistaken.

Correct. The Queen is the titular Head of State. However, the Queen is no longer empowered to make any laws for Australia or to exert executive power in Australia.

No problem. It hails from England, now part of Great Britain (or the United Kingdom).

The equivalent powers of the US President are distributed in the Australian Constitution. Sensibly, we didn't choose to vest too much executive power in one person. Although modelled on the US Constitution, the Australian Constitution does not blindly reproduce it. Australia had the advantage of being able to observe how well your one worked, or failed to work, before writing its own.

 

(continued...)

Survival necessities may well be observable, but rights are somewhat more intangible I think.

No. It doesn't help me much. I'm not convinced that an objective basis for rights can be found, as I said.

How does it go? Oh yes. I'm supposed to respond with "Bare assertion" at this point, aren't I?

Maybe you need a primer on the topic:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personhood

Maybe. Let me ask you some direct questions, then, so I'm not making unwarranted assumptions.

1. Do you find the apes (chimpanzees, Gorillas etc.) distasteful or repulsive, in general?
2. Do you accept that human beings and the apes evolved from a common ancestor?
3. Do you agree that chimpanzess share about 99% of their DNA with human beings, and gorillas around 98%?
4. Do you agree that there are many anatomical similarities between apes and human beings, which most likely result from the shared DNA?
5. Do you accept that apes can communicate with one another, and with human beings?
6. Do you accept that apes have complex brains, capable of formulating concepts, such as those that would be prerequisites for communication?
7. Do you accept that apes have the capacity to experience pain?
8. Do you regard the scientific evidence for features such as the shared DNA, the ability to communicate or feel pain, say, as "controversial usages justified with nothing more than anthropomorphism"?
9. If apes have the ability to communicate and feel pain, do they have any rights?

That will do for starters, to help to clarify things for me.

Mind reading is not necessary. Just careful reading combined with an application of one's own knowledge and experience of human behaviour and, in this case, commonly-observed behaviours of posters to internet forums.

Yes. You define it as a human being.

I think your definition is naively and arbitrarily restrictive, as well as being self-serving.

Don't beat yourself up. Not everybody can be as cool as me!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I haven't got the impression that you are at all interested in how I might define the word "person". In fact, I get the distinct impression that you have already decided that any definition other than your preferred one must necessarily be nothing more than a "controversial usage justified with nothing more than anthropomorphism". Let me know if this is incorrect and you want to explore the matter further. But please read the wikipedia article I linked, first.

That's a matter of perspective!

Really? Do you think it is sad and pathetic to have friends or associates online? Why is that? People are people, whether they are on the internet or off it, aren't they? It sounds like you might be just a little jealous of the idea that I might have some online friends and disappointed that you do not, so you're trying to make yourself feel better again by trying to put somebody else down.

Do need a hug, Vociferous?