God given rights?

Discussion in 'Religion' started by Xelasnave.1947, Apr 16, 2020.

  1. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,046
    Come on, I know you can reason better than that.
    Even the legally protected right to life is no guarantee that someone will not murder you. So, according to you, "what's the point of saying somebody or something has a right if there's no guarantee"? You're essentially just arguing that there are no such thing as rights, in any context. Trying to explain away all rights is not a valid argument against natural rights. At best, that just an argument for amorality.

    I've already told you that natural rights do not derive from morality, but can justify morality.

    Here you're equivocating two different uses of the word "law". As I just said, legal law obviously doesn't mean "unbreakable", otherwise we wouldn't have penal systems for the eventuality of them being routinely broken. You seem stuck in this "unbreakable" absolutism that simply does not correspond to reality.

    Like legal laws, natural laws have possible, natural consequences for violating them. And like legal laws, it's the individuals choice whether to respect them. Natural law is our template for common law, where violating the negative rights of another forfeits your own. Legal laws just make it a bit more certain that consequences will be dealt out, even if still not absolute.

    Well, maybe I was overly optimistic about you reasoning better.

    There are no obligations without consequences, and nature has plenty of consequences for failing to kill a rival, flee, defend, or kill a predator, kill enough prey to survive, etc.. And whether legal or in nature, individuals weigh the risks of those consequences against violating the rights of others. Natural rights are inalienable because every species has the inherent right to seek its own survival. Again, ad infinitum, no rights are 100% guaranteed. You don't have to be protected by a security force, that ensures your safety, for you to have the natural right to seek your own survival.

    Well, considering you don't seem to understand them at all, I can't say as I'm surprised. All the same element are there. Rights, consequences, and individual choice to avoid those consequences, i.e. obligations (which are never absolute in the real world).

    You clearly don't.
    Hey, you're the one who said the cited definition of "natural rights" "sounds incoherent to" you.
    So if anyone is "fundamentally misconstruing natural rights", it would necessarily be you.
    So do tell, what is your idiosyncratic definition of "natural rights"? And can you cite a source supporting it?

    So you believe some moral principles both cannot be abrogated and appear from thin air? That's pretty weak justification for them being inviolate or universal. Moral reasoning alone has been used many times, throughout history, to violate rights. And it's that same moral reasoning that under-girds out laws. IOW, it sounds like circular reasoning to me. What are the first principles of these inviolable morals, and how are they justified?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,046
    Cont...



    survival - the state or fact of continuing to live or exist, typically in spite of an accident, ordeal, or difficult circumstances.​
    Isn't seeking survival the exercise of the right to life? If not, you'd have to presume that your own right to life can only be exercised by others, through their inaction to violate it. That would mean your right to life is at the whim of every person you ever meet. That certainly doesn't sound guaranteed to me. If that's what you really call rights, no wonder you're so confused.

    Your right to life is actually "in spite of" "accident, ordeal", or whim of others. Like any animal, you have the right to feed and defend yourself. Your survival is not guaranteed or given to you. You must do things to survive. And you thus have the natural right to do those things. Negative rights oblige inaction, as the minimal obligation upon your rights in order to allow those of others. It's a basic live and let live principle, that minimally risks the consequences of violating rights.

    Again, the food chain hierarchy doesn't contradict negative rights, as predator species have a natural dominion over their prey, as a necessity of their survival. No organism lacks the right to life. That's what universal means. There is no species that inherently cannot seek its own survival, even if ill-equipped to do so. If there ever were, it would necessarily be extremely short-lived.
    True Rights are Freedoms, Not Powers
    America was founded on the concept of rights; however, when many of its citizens speak of rights today, they mean something quite different from what was envisioned by Madison, Jefferson, Franklin, and Locke. These men shared the belief that individual rights were a fact of nature existing prior to, and independently of, any man-made laws. The purpose of the legislative process was not to create laws or additional rights of the legislators' own design, but merely to proclaim and enforce men's natural rights while taking none of these rights from them.

    New conceptions of sovereignty and politics have recently become popular with the result that people have increasingly come to regard the government as a source of rights rather than as a defender of pre-existing individual rights. The assumption of this new view is that a right is not simply a freedom to do a certain thing, but is the privilege of forcing others to take positive actions to provide some perceived entitlement. If this were true, a right would not be seen as a freedom but rather as a power.
    http://www.quebecoislibre.org/younkins20.html

    And? I've already said that natural rights are not derived from moral judgement. Rights are freedoms, and freedoms necessarily for survival are natural, inherent rights.
    Look, if your own moral judgement lacks any basis but your own moral lights, then it's your own personal problem that you can't justify them without circular or completely arbitrary reasoning.

    Sure they are. If one animal tries to kill another, if the perpetrator fails, it often dies. Just as with human laws, the individual has to weigh the risk of the consequences for violating the rights of another. If they deem those risks too great, they feel themselves obligated to respect those rights.

    What's the point of saying you have any rights at all, when a criminal can come and violate any one of them at any time? Again, you're arguing against there being any such thing as a right at all.

    Again, there's always an "or else" in nature too. Humans didn't invent consequences or cause and effect.

    Finally! I was really afraid you honestly didn't understand that. Now follow that to its logical conclusion. If all rights can be violated, how does the violation of a right mean there is no right? Or are you really saying there is no such thing as rights?

    No. Does your legally protected right to life depend upon you being able to enforce it? Even law enforcement and governments cannot guarantee that your killer would be caught. As we've established, you have no understanding of natural rights, at least so far as you've cited any support for or even succinctly defined, other than some vague "idea that some moral principles... are so fundamental".
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,046
    Inalienable, God given rights are the right to seek one's own survival. No guarantee implied. Glad you agree with that.

    Us agreeing says nothing about your demonstrable lack of understanding things you cite. It seems to be your whole MO.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,046
    No, had you kept up with the conversation, you'd know that both were simply responses to "negotiating life" and the food chain hierarchy respectively. When others erect those as arguments against natural rights, I'm not going to pretend that my rebuttals don't exist.

    And if you really didn't want them in this thread, you really should have the sense to leave it there.

    No, we do not share your absolute sense that all life is negotiable. Nature dictates that predators have dominion over their prey, and in a more natural state, I would not have a choice if beef was the most readily available protein, weighed against time and energy constraints. So again, veganism/vegetarianism are not justified by natural law. They are, at best, human contrivances. As the apex predator, humans have natural dominion over all other lifeforms on Earth.

    No, I never weighed a fetus against the life of the mother. So don't pretend that I've weighed anything but the interests of the mother. That's you trying to give the interests alone more weight to counter the inherent weight of a life. The fertilized ovum is not a unique life, but once the combined genetics from both parents take over development, it is. So no, not a sliding scale. Just a range, somewhere between 5-8 weeks.

    Human life takes precedent over animal life, since humans have natural dominion over animals.

    Not that you seem to understand natural rights, but what natural right would you deem morally wrong? If they're not all morally right, then you should have no problem pointing out one that is morally wrong. I have no problem with you calling them amoral, as I've already told you that natural rights do not require human moral judgement. Since it's natural for humans to eat meat, it cannot be deemed immoral without denying the survival (natural right to life) of humans. A organism cannot be expected to negotiate away its own survival.

    Again, you seem to have no basis for your moral judgement.

    I didn't say anything about birds having any moral capacity. I get that you conflate rights and morals, but that's for you to overcome. Humans haven't always had viable alternatives to meat either. Unless rights, themselves, are negotiable, if humans ever had the right, they still do.
     
  8. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    There are no God given rights. There are no Gods! Moreover there is no ultimate survival. There is only survival long enough to procreate, if you're lucky.
    Well, you may begin by trying to learn to use Latin expressions in proper context.

    Seems that the genetic mutation which produced Homo Sapiens must have missed your ancestral lineage. You clearly still have the brain of a hominid "precursor". Have you had your chromosomes counted? You should have 46, not 48 (as you indicated with your avatar).
     
    Last edited: Jul 24, 2020
  9. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,046
    God given rights are largely just another term for natural rights, as any creator God necessarily created whatever rights are inherent to its creations.
    That's why I prefer using the term natural rights. It avoids both your knee-jerk reaction to God and conflation with any further divine rights put forward by any religion.

    Who said anything about "ultimate survival"? You're just full of non sequitur bs.
    "Latin phrases"? Yes, your habit of citing things you clearly do not comprehend is a well-established manner of posting for you, hence your modus operandi. Sad that I have to spell that out of ya.

    Considering I've repeatedly explained your own misunderstood citations to you, any of your insults only further indict yourself.
     
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2020
  10. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    C'mon V, give up. This is like fencing with an unarmed man. No repartee, just vulgar mud slinging in order to obfuscate your own incoherent protestations.

    You're pretty good at that, but it's so obvious a sign of insecurity.......

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,046
    LOL! You do realize that you're the one slinging mud, right?
    Or did you already forget this:
    But I get it. You can't manage to support your demonstrably ignorant takes on your own citations, so you have to play these little games.
     
  12. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    Yes, to me this has become a game, to you its hard work, sorry.....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,046
    LOL! I mean, ouch, what a burn. 9_9
     
  14. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    Like the natural right to kill another life in order to survive? Yet, the right to live in order to survive is not a natural right according to your creator God?

    Like, your religion, in which you deem your creator God hands out the natural right to kill others in order to survice which you still can't explain using reason.

    You're so confused.
     
  15. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    This is a comprehensive treatment of the subject:

    1. Categories of Rights

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Part of the “Molecular” Structure of a Property Right
    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights/

     
  16. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,046
    True to form, you continue to cite things of which you clearly have no comprehension. Here you seem to try listing "Categories of Rights", but instead of managing to do so, you ignorantly list an example of the variety of things we might call rights (even including chess rules, LOL!). Then you post an image about legal rights, where I've obviously and explicitly been talking about natural rights this entire time. You're making appeals to authority you don't even possess the ability to understand yourself. Please, quit making a fool of yourself.
     
  17. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    Lol, and the question of "God given Rights" is not an appeal to authority?

    I have made my position very clear "There are no God given rights, there are no Gods".

    Nature itself doesn't grant anything. Nature is the theater in which every atom in the universe plays a role in the unfolding of physical reality in accordance with mathematical permissions and restrictions.

    Therefore, Rights are a human created concept.
    Any Natural Right is granted by the Natural Mathematics. An action is mathematically allowed, or it is not. Any other concept of Natural Privilege is a figment of human imagination and hubris.

    Rights of nature
    A Divine interconnection!? Hubris!

    Natural rights and legal rights
    Tell me were was that "right to life" of the 95% of species that have gone extinct?

    What happened to their right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness?
     
    Last edited: Jul 26, 2020
  18. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    Here is an example of an indefensible position.

    Natural Law and Natural Rights
    https://oll.libertyfund.org/groups/102

    Seems some people like to think "inalienable rights" are "negotiable". Isn't that convenient?

    As Carlin so clearly posited; "You know why we have rights? We made the whole thing up"! Self interest!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Jul 26, 2020
  19. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,046
    And I've already said, I prefer to talk about natural rights, since they don't invoke the specter of God or risk conflation with divine rights espoused by any religion.
    You insisting on arguing about "God given rights" is you arguing your own straw man.
    Again, negative rights are not granted. They are inherent to the nature of the thing. If you wish to think that nature is wholly determined by materialism, that doesn't change anything about a things discoverable nature...nor its inherent rights. Natural rights don't require positing any God.
    Again, you display no comprehension of the things you cite. "Rights of nature" have nothing to do with "natural rights". The former is an environmentalist position that, at best, only borrows its justification from the latter, and at worst, requires violation of the latter.
    Again, you quote sources of which you display zero comprehension.
    And for, like, the twentieth time, right to life is no guarantee, much less of individual or species immortality.

    And? Utilitarianism is a theory of ethics, which necessarily adds a moral position when mixed with natural law/rights.
    Again, ad infinitum, you obviously don't understand anything about the things you cite. You seem to just be hoping that your repeated appeals to authority will fool people into thinking you have some intelligence of your own, even if just by proximity.
    Only people who add other ethical considerations to inherent natural rights. But I don't expect you to ever understand that.
     
  20. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,046
    You conflating intra- and inter-species rights is naive and ignorant. Again, ad infinitum, nature includes the food chain hierarchy.
     
  21. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    It's the title of the thread, idiot. Do you know the definition of a straw man argument.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

    If you want to start a new thread, go for it. This one is about "God given rights". To which I posted a succinct answer.

    W4U said: "There are no God given rights. Gods do not exist." Do you agree with that or not?
     
  22. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,046
    Jeez, you're really obtuse. God given rights are coextensive with natural rights, except for the assumption of their ultimate ontology. Since ontological questions cannot be determined, they have no bearing on the rights themselves. That literally means that you can talk about purportedly God given rights without any reference to God at all, as just "natural rights". You trying to reject natural rights due to a presumption of God is a straw man.

    I believe there is a God and that natural right require no reference to it. Get that through your head.
     
  23. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    It is interesting.
    You are a classic case of "sealioning"......

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     

Share This Page