Yes, as I've already said, prey has the right to flee, defend itself, or kill its predator, if possible. No, hunting for sport isn't a natural right. It's a legal right based on the natural rights of the food chain hierarchy. There are many animals that essentially kill for sport: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surplus_killing No, you just don't seem to understand what "not mutually exclusive" means. It means two things can be true at the same time, without one diminishing the other. God is not a "species". Use a skosh of reason, if you can manage to. No, you're just incapable of grasping one when it's offered you.
Bolded mine. Negative vs. Positive Rights Isn't that nice. http://www.globalization101.org/negative-vs-positive-rights/ A positive right is the right to kill an apostate or a person who commits a deadly sin? IOW, breaking a negative right of the apostate or the guy who covets (has wet dreams) about his neighbors wife?
That goes against the whole idea of what having a right means. If you have a right, it typically imposes duties on other people (e.g. to respect your right and not act contrary to it). If there are no duties on anybody else, what does it even mean to say you have a right in the first place? Rights are granted to you (or at least acknowledged) by other people. As I said before, this does not require that everybody must recognise a right in order for it to exist, but every right requires that at least one other person respects it. I can claim I have the right to walk naked through the shopping mall, but my claim alone will never make it so. Nor will my attempt to exercise that "right".
That is a false equivalence. The question is about God given right to life, not the right to survive the process of "natural selection". The simple truth is that no living thing has a greater right to life than any other living thing. All rights are subject to "natural selection", without prejudice.
Vociferous: After reading your post on "natural rights", it seems to me that they are a fairly useless concept, at least in the way you describe them. You have made the point several times that these "natural rights" are supposedly universal, but always "negative" and not guaranteed by anything. On the one hand, what's the point of saying somebody or something has a right if there's no guarantee that anybody or anything else will respect or acknowledge that right? These natural rights, you say, impose no obligations on anybody. So what are they good for? According to this, it seems to me that "natural law" has nothing to do with ideas of morality. Do you agree? All they seem to say is "It is what it is". I have no problems with talking about the "laws of physics", say. We call those laws because they are unbreakable. They are natural laws because everything in nature has no choice but to act in accordance with them. But the "natural laws" that supposedly lead to the kinds of "natural rights" you describe do not oblige anybody to do anything, according to you. So in what sense can they be called laws? Is the term "law" in that context a misapplication. Is "natural law" nothing more than saying "what happens in nature happens in nature"? That sounds incoherent to me. A natural right is universal - so all lifeforms (?) have them? And despite the fact that no obligations are imposed on anyone or anything to respect these "rights", they are "inalienable"? How does that work, exactly? And in what way are these rights "fundamental" to anything? As far as I can tell they confer no benefit on any putative possessor of the "rights". Is a natural right something that is in any way worth having? What practical difference would it make not to have it? Using your description of them, I don't see how they could possibly be used to justify morality. As I understand them, natural rights are as much derived from moral judgments as every other kind of right. It appears, however, that my concept of natural rights is very different from yours, which means at least one of us is fundamentally misconstruing natural rights. In answer to your question, I think that what differentiates natural rights from the rights conferred by governments, say, is the idea that some moral principles - and the rights that follow from them - are so fundamental that we hold that no human law can abrogate them. Attempts to make or implement such laws are fundamentally wrong/evil, as are practical breaches of those rights. Organisms seek their own survival regardless of any "right" to do so. We might say that it's "natural law" for them to do so, by which I would only mean that, in the ordinary course of events, it's the nature of living things to try to survive. You say that the "negative right" to survival obliges others to inaction. What exactly do you mean by that? Do you mean that organisms are obliged not to kill one another - which would be a violation of the "right" to survival? There might be an inkling of an idea there, but on the other hand you have explicitly pointed out that it's just fine for organisms to kill each other in nature. You have described that as "natural law". So what exactly is the content of this "negative right" to survival? What is the advantage to an organism of having that "natural right", compared to it lacking that right? There's no judgment at any stage in the process of "natural rights", by your description, as far as I can tell. So why use the word "right" there at all? Killing is what it is. Where does the "right" come into it, in your description? Yes, but the more problematic aspect is that nobody else appears to be obligated to do anything about them, either, in your description. If there's no practical difference between having a right and not having it, what's the point of saying you have it? Just to make you feel better? Lots of laws are couched in terms of "Thou shalt not ..." do various acts, and there's always an "or else" clause that goes along with that. But in your description of natural rights, there's no "or else". So what good are your "natural rights"? All rights entail the possibility of violation. Are you saying that natural rights exist only insofar as the organism that "claims" the rights is able to enforce them? Again, that's very different from my understanding of natural rights.
Vociferous: It seems you're itching to have a debate about the morality of abortion. I think that would be a discussion best had in a separate thread, if you want to get into it. Similarly, the debate about the morality of eating meat is best had separately. Both of those topics are huge cans of worms, and there have been many previous debates about both of them on this forum. I'll just briefly respond here on those topics, but if we're going to continue down either of those roads, I'll most likely split the thread at some point. You and I both agree that life is negotiable. It is your choice to eat the cow. You don't have to do it. You won't die if you refuse to eat it. You are happy to negotiate away the life of the animal to satisfy your own desire for steak. That is not a need you have; it is just what you want. Similarly, if a fly is buzzing around your head, no doubt you give little thought to its welfare as you swat at it or hit it with the bug spray. So, as I'm sure you'll agree, you have a special reverence for some forms of life, while you are more than willing to negotiate away many other forms of life for your own convenience or pleasure. The value that you assign to a fertilised human ovum, as weighed against the life and other interests of its human adult mother, is disproportionately out of whack. It should be obvious - but I strongly suspect this is not how you view things - that we're dealing with sliding scales as a human foetus develops from a single ovum to a bunch of undifferentiated cells, to a foetus, to a developing baby, to a newborn infant, to a child, to an adult. Consider that ovum, for instance. Is its life less negotiable than the life of the adult cow that was killed to put steak on your plate? If so, I think you need to explain why. You seem to be arguing that what is natural is automatically good or morally right. But you haven't made any attempt to justify that claim, so far. On the other hand, maybe you don't think you need to. Your "natural rights", as far as I can tell from what you have written about them, amount to nothing more than "what will be will be". They are amoral. Would you agree? If natural rights are amoral, then we can leave them aside and consider instead the moral question of whether it is right for thinking human beings to eat meat. Can you morally justify eating meat - especially given your protests about the "non-negotiability" of life in general? Or does your argument for eating meat amount to no more than "Morality be damned! It's in my nature to eat meat!" Firstly, I'm not convinced that birds have the moral capacity to consider the question of whether eating insects is the right thing to do. Secondly, I'm not convinced that birds have viable alternatives to eating insects, if they want to live (which they do, because it's in their nature). When it comes to birds, the choice may well be eat the insects or die. The same cannot be said about you chowing down on your steak dinner.
Hunting for sport is not hunting for food, so it has nothing to do with any food chain heirarchy. On the other hand, it does have a lot to do with the negotiability of life for "other interests" (like fun with guns).
Thank you for refuting your previous claim that the "right to life" is NOT naturally universal, but quite the opposite according to reality where the vast majority of organism's survival is to kill other life in order to survive. In fact, until humans began to have moral judgments, there was no such thing as "right to life". You appear quite confused on this matter.
Let's get back to the original 'god given rights" thingy...... Firstly and most obviously, as there is absolutely no scientific evidence for any god, deity, magical supernatural being, there is nothing we can claim as god given. Abiogenesis and Evolution on the other hand, has seen the development [at least in some of us] a need for a form of moral code...that code includes the right to life as an individual, as long as that does not impinge on others, and the pursuit of happiness and satisfaction in what he or she wants to do, as long as that does not impinge on other people's rights. That same evolutionary driven code, also instills in some of us, an attitude to care about our neighbours and any less fortunate then ourselves, and a compassionate and rationalistic attitude, rather then the opposite shown by a few, with that "F*&^ you, I'm alright Jack" mentality. I see that as "human rights"rather then any god given crap. And the most obviously important aspect is that "human rights" do not need or require any fucking religious rhetorical dogma, to be accepted but simply political action, no matter how much any single creationist/IDer feels like vociferously pontificating about any mythical source. Governments can also, by necessity, legislate to take away some of our rights...as per the current coronavirus pandemic.
So they have not only made up this invisable friend but made up that there are god given rights...I mean there is nothing in the bible ..if there was you could understand someone claiming god given rights because they are listed on page whatever...this is the thing once in the habit of making stuff up there is no end to it. And you get this made up story about the creation of the universe and life but for some they reject abiogenesis as even remotely possible but some unevidenced creator making a human out of mud is perfectly acceptable...I bet if folk were not so scared of dying this religion nonsense would vanish over night...like they are so desperate to invent a story different to reality their minds take out and ignores any rational proposition that will show the life after death promise is just a con for simple minded fearful people. I don't know if it's the pain of dying or that their current lives are crap...well they must be if they have no ability to reason and so everything must be confusing for them..I sometimes think that men are afraid of dying cause they lose control over their wife and worry about her finding a far better partner after they die...anyways abiogenesis is pretty well proven and these creationists are just losing more ground. Fancy believing a god modelled a little doll to make a man do they every just think how religion just makes them fools...and this soul thing..more made up unevidenced crap having it's start in the days where humans did not even know where the Sun went at night. Alex
My thoughts exactly Alex, but you put it so eloquently and exquisitelyPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!.... Am I missing something or is our vociferous friend, far less vociferous these days? Or have I been too hard on him? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I think you have, I have been trying to help him build his confidence and self esteem and you giving him a pasting has worked well to help him feel confident when under attack. You must remember he has clearly led a very sheltered life and also it seems fallen victim to following indoctrination levelled in all aspects of his life I expect leaving him to believe the invisible friend trumps abiogenesis with his reported fitness at clay modelling...as you can appreciate there is a time in our development where clay modelling is more impressive to us than anything else..I remember in kindergarten all I could think of was making animals and little people out of plastiseen..how do you spell it? Maybe Mr V could tell me save me looking it up..but I moved on to drawing and chemistry sets and of course the first benefit of drawing is you need to think more because you have moved from three D to two D expression. It is surprising how many folk are essentially what I call two D thinkers however...if it is in print they can manage but real world is mostly unmanageable for them because they really need to see things in print or on screen..the transition from modelling clay to drawing could have been to much or the clay modelling built delusions of grandeur that secretly they knew they could not realistically match in any actual contest...unfortunately these folk are prone to believe in myth and fiction because that is where they feel comfortable. And of course Mr V has been confronted by my proposition that free health care and education is the best we can do for a nation and a clear pathway to greater wealth for all..it makes so much sense he is probably rethinking everything. Alex
I agree that rights for A simultaneously imply obligations for B. That's why rights aren't in and of themselves an unalloyed good and why proclaiming new rights for A can sometimes be a covert way of trying to exert control over B. I think that the 'negative rights' idea (and Vociferous certainly didn't invent the idea, it's a standard idea in ethics) refers to rights that only impose the obligation on others of not interfering with the exercise of the right. Contrast that with an alleged 'positive right', such as 'the right to education'. This not only forbids others from interfering with my attempts to educate myself or educate others, it also (arguably) obligates the community to provide people with education. (Rights to health care are another ostensible positive right.) If I have the right to walk down the street, that just means that I can walk down the street if I want to. Others (particularly the government) can't stop me. It doesn't obligate others to provide me with streets and ensure that I have the physical ability to walk. Helping others is obviously a good thing, but transforming ethical desiderata into the language of rights and obligations oftentimes isn't. The distinction between natural rights and legal rights is a rather different distinction. A legal right is a right that one has because the 'Sovereign' (the king, the government) has granted the individual that right. People didn't have that right until the sovereign granted it to them and won't continue to have it if the sovereign revokes it. A natural right is a right that derives from a higher source than the sovereign. This is what 'God given rights' means in some of the founding documents of the United States and in many 17th, 18th and 19th century European political writings. It's what the phrase "fundamental human rights" means in our more atheistic climate today. Obviously all kinds of questions about all this can be asked and all kinds of objections made. Ethics and political philosophy are filled with them. (How can rights be observed and verified? How can they be distinguished from desires? How can natural rights be distinguished from abilities? ...)
Any Council, state or federal government can and certainly do have the right to impinge on your right and stop you walking down the street for a variety of reasons, including for your own and others safety. And in relation to the OP and what this topic is about......https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/...ly/201610/the-danger-claiming-rights-come-god
If God weren't passive, he couldn't be happy that is a fact. If you want to be happy you must save yourself, I can only help you, happiness must come from within.
Sorry, but it's not reasonable to accept opinions or advice from someone who claims traits for God are facts.
What do you mean? You have to be non-violent. "Only a sith deal's in absolutes, I will do what I must" - Obi-Wan Kenobi
There is no equivalence (true of false) given in what you quoted at all. Don't parrot terms you obviously don't understand. There is no right to "survive the process of natural selection", and only someone ignorant of the science and rights would even suggest there was. Even when you cite definitions of positive and negative rights, it's still clear that you comprehend neither. Why do you feel you have to lie like that? Again, for the umpteenth time, negative rights are not guaranteed. What part of that simple sentence do you not understand? No, a negative right only imposes a duty of inaction when protected by law or espoused as morality. And such imposition is dependent upon the consequences, whether penal or spiritual. Violating natural rights results in natural consequences, so there's no need for such duties to be externally imposed. "Granted rights" are positive rights that grant you something. Protected rights can be inherent negative rights that are merely protected by the society. Protected rights usually have other then natural consequences, because it's in the interest of the group for every crime to not result in death. In nature, others acknowledge that attempting to violate your inherent rights could lead to their death. Their only duty then, if you want to call it that, is to their own life. Like legal rights, natural rights are either respected by others or they face the consequences. You do not have a natural, inherent right to walk naked through a shopping mall, because no such thing is required for your survival. And the rest of what I said was: There are many animals that essentially kill for sport: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surplus_killingSo even animals kill for more than just food, defense, or territory. We don't claim they are immoral for doing so, because that's their place in the food chain. They have a natural dominion over their prey that does not end at food. And pretending that the life of an ant should be deemed equal to that of a human, by humans, is complete nonsense. Again, for the umpteenth time, negative rights are not guaranteed. They exist in nature, because there are natural consequences. You violate them at you own risk.
Apparently it has escaped you that you just agreed with me. How quaint, even when you agree you cannot refrain from a contrary position including gratuitous ad hominem, can you? It's a built-in part in all of your statements. Do you think that being obnoxious will add weight to your fantasies?
God is nothing more then a mythical imagined concept, dreamed up [hypothesised if you like] by ignorant ancient man, to explain the world around us, and before science and the scientific method came to the rescue. You seem blinkered to reality. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! yeah, it sounds something like my vociferous parish priest, preaching fire and brimstone to us when we were kids. Thatnk Christ, most of us grew out of such nonsense.
