Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Which rights exist independent of man?

Well, again, you put it in the present tense, but assuming you meant ever, as was my point, the right to do and think what you want was common among hunter/gathers and even many early agricultural societies.  

For example, when the Jesuits first arrived in what is now Canada, they were shocked to find that there were no laws among some of the tribes.  Even within tribes who had chiefs, there was no mechanism for forcing people to do anything.  The chief's role was essentially to convince people to do things via debate.  But they had no authority to make them do it.

Edited by DixonHur
Posted
2 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Well, again, you put it in the present tense, but assuming you meant ever, as was my point, the right to do and think what you want was common among hunter/gathers and even many early agricultural societies.  

For example, when the Jesuits first arrived in what is now Canada, they were shocked to find that there were no laws among some of the tribes.  Even within tribes who had chiefs, there was no mechanism for forcing people to do anything.  The chief's role was essentially to convince people to do things via debate.  But they had no authority to make them do it.

I mean ever. Rights, as such, are a man made creation.

Posted
Just now, David Dennison said:

I mean ever. Rights, as such, are a man made creation.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.  If I live by myself in the remote wilderness, how are my rights man-made?  Are you suggesting that as an individual, my rights are created by myself?  Therefore, since I am a human (man), they are man-made?

That seems like an awful lot of circular logic.

Posted
1 minute ago, DixonHur said:

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.  If I live by myself in the remote wilderness, how are my rights man-made?  Are you suggesting that as an individual, my rights are created by myself?  Therefore, since I am a human (man), they are man-made?

That seems like an awful lot of circular logic.

Name a right that exists independent of man.

Posted (edited)
34 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Natural rights had existed in many cultures around the globe for 1,000s of years

Ancient Naturalist: I’m being persecuted for exercising my natural rights!

Modern Naturalist: Which rights? Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

Ancient Naturalist: No, not those natural rights.

Edited by BrickHorn
Posted
1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

Neither of those things are rights unless man labels them as such. 

How so?  Again, take it to the beginning.  

I live alone in the remote wilderness...who is the "man" labeling them as rights?  How is everything I do not my natural right?  

I my mind, we are just animals, and we can choose to live within societal rules or live alone under our own.  

Posted
5 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Neither of those things are rights unless man labels them as such. 

…and takes measures to enforce them or punish their violation.

Many posters on this thread muddle the distinction between morality (guidelines for how humans should behave) and rights (rules defining how humans are compelled, by agreement or authority, to behave).

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
Just now, DixonHur said:

How so?  Again, take it to the beginning.  

I live alone in the remote wilderness...who is the "man" labeling them as rights?  How is everything I do not my natural right?  

I my mind, we are just animals, and we can choose to live within societal rules or live alone under our own.  

If you live alone in the remote wilderness, rights don't matter. Rights only come into play when you encounter one or more human animals. Then the definition of rights becomes vitally important. That's politics. 

Posted
3 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

Ancient Naturalist: I’m being persecuted for exercising my natural rights!

Except, the point is they weren't being persecuted at all.

I can't believe I'm having to say this in regard to @David Dennison, but these views are very Euro-centric.

Posted
1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

If you live alone in the remote wilderness, rights don't matter. Rights only come into play when you encounter one or more human animals. Then the definition of rights becomes vitally important. That's politics. 

So how do you explain the people who had coexisted for 1000's of years without formal laws or political structures?

Posted
Just now, DixonHur said:

So how do you explain the people who had coexisted for 1000's of years without formal laws or political structures?

I would argue they coexisted with informal laws and political structures.

Posted
1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

Until . . . 

Again, that's a modernist view that discounts the facts of human existence prior to the present.  

In the modern world, I tend to agree, but my point is that it hasn't always been the case...ergo, natural rights exist, they are simply not practiced in modern society.

Posted
1 minute ago, DixonHur said:

Again, that's a modernist view that discounts the facts of human existence prior to the present.  

In the modern world, I tend to agree, but my point is that it hasn't always been the case...ergo, natural rights exist, they are simply not practiced in modern society.

If natural rights exist but are not practiced in modern society, what are they? And how are they in any sense a “right” if not enforceable? Comprehensive list, please.

Posted
Just now, David Dennison said:

I would argue they coexisted with informal laws and political structures.

Well, the historical record disagrees with you.

I'd recommend reading the book The Dawn of Everything.  It's a fascinating read, and while it may not change your mind, I found it to be very enlightening.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
Just now, BrickHorn said:

If natural rights exist but are not practiced in modern society, what are they? And how are they in any sense a “right” if not enforceable? Comprehensive list, please.

So you're arguing for the might makes right philosophy?  

It's ok, if you are, it's certainly a legitimate point of view.  

Posted
3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Decentralized politics is still politics. 

Is lack of politics still politics?

What about if I trade you a fish for a few shells...is that politics?

Posted
Just now, DixonHur said:

Is lack of politics still politics?

What about if I trade you a fish for a few shells...is that politics?

Eventually it can be! 😄

Posted
2 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Is lack of politics still politics?

What about if I trade you a fish for a few shells...is that politics?

Well if someone disagrees with you about it on the Daily Texan, it somehow transmutes into politics. Very strange phenomenon 

  • Haha 5
Posted
Just now, David Dennison said:

Yes.

Well, if every interaction between two human beings is politics then there's no way to debate the topic any further.

Posted
Just now, DixonHur said:

Well, if every interaction between two human beings is politics then there's no way to debate the topic any further.

I mean, interaction between groups and individuals is the basic definition of politics. 

Posted
2 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Well if someone disagrees with you about it on the Daily Texan, it somehow transmutes into politics. Very strange phenomenon 

Even stranger than confusing the Cloak Room with the Daily Texan? 😉

Posted
Just now, DixonHur said:

Even stranger than confusing the Cloak Room with the Daily Texan? 😉

No I know I'm in the CR lol, just moreso commenting that it's a trend to label any sort of disagreement or negotiation as "politcs" as soon as a participant runs out of things to say. Especially for something like trade or economics

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

I mean, interaction between groups and individuals is the basic definition of politics. 

That's a pretty cynical view of life. 

I mean, if you add the intention to govern or influence behavior, then yes, otherwise it's just an interaction.

But I'd also add that politics, in and of itself, is not a danger to rights.  It's only when you add an enforcement mechanism that rights get trampled.

 

Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

So you're arguing for the might makes right philosophy?  

It's ok, if you are, it's certainly a legitimate point of view.  

No. I’m asking you what, specifically, are these natural rights that totally exist but nobody knows about or respects and we probably wouldn’t know them because they live in Canada. 

Edited by BrickHorn
  • Haha 2
Posted
8 minutes ago, Captainant said:

No I know I'm in the CR lol, just moreso commenting that it's a trend to label any sort of disagreement or negotiation as "politcs" as soon as a participant runs out of things to say. Especially for something like trade or economics

I'll bite. How is trade not political?

Posted (edited)
34 minutes ago, troph said:

Just spitballing but I think there are natural rights but they are quite limited and not immune from interference. The right to live, consume, procreate, move about, decide for ourselves, the right to create, and frankly to die.

Thanks for being the first participant in this thread to attempt to list the natural rights. Kudos. But now let’s examine the claim. 

Many of the alleged natural rights you listed have not been recognized or respected as rights at all in various cultures and periods throughout history. For example, human sacrifice (a common facet of life most recently in Mesoamerica) rejects living as a right. Even in the modern era, we deny the alleged “right” to life during wartime. There is no recourse for killing enemy combatants or inadvertently killing civilians in a conflict. Many societies throughout history have castrated slaves, reflecting a rejection of the supposed natural right to procreate. 

So what makes any of these things a natural right? I would argue it’s clear that they have at many points not been rights at all; that is, there was no authority protecting them or punishing their infringement. You might argue that murder and castration were always immoral. But even granting that premise for sake of argument, these moral principles do not amount to a right because there was no enforcement recourse. 

The idea of a “natural right” is defensible, at most, as a shorthand for certain moral principles that seem obvious to most people. But even then, their inviolability quickly crumbles on close inspection. What you end up with is a series of nuanced, context-dependent guidelines. Our shared moral instincts developed through evolutionary processes and are almost never as simple and idealistic as we would like to believe.

The world is gray. If you wish it were not and invoking the magical little elves of naturalism help you sleep at night, so be it. But you’ll forever be fighting paradoxes of your own making. It’s more useful to recognize human behavior for what it is and understand morality and legal regimes as tools for guiding that behavior in the most positive direction possible. 

Edited by BrickHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
24 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

That's a pretty cynical view of life. 

I mean, if you add the intention to govern or influence behavior, then yes, otherwise it's just an interaction.

But I'd also add that politics, in and of itself, is not a danger to rights.  It's only when you add an enforcement mechanism that rights get trampled.

 

You’ve gotten yourself ensnared in a discussion grounded in Marxist Theory. 
 

It may be cold comfort to know that that each time the cage of bourgeois morality and ethics, the reptiles inside usually eat the theorists first. They’ve reasoned their way into this but the lizard-brained among us just FEEL it. 
 

We can all concede that all of human interaction and society boils down to a biting contest but not many of us want to admit that the crocodiles always win that one. 

Posted
29 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

No. I’m asking you what, specifically, are these natural rights that totally exist but nobody knows about or respects and we probably wouldn’t know them because they live in Canada. 

I guess the right for you to miss the other 2 times I've posted the specific rights would be a natural right.

Posted
7 hours ago, BevoAbyss said:

This is 100% spot on. Many of the Founders were "Deist" -- a worldview counter to mere "faith" and "revelation", in favor of rational thinking, empirical evidence, and overall general Enlightenment ideals of the era. The Founders were very imperfect, to be sure, and rife with contradictions (ie, slavery and conquest of indigenous peoples).

However, science played a key role in the overall thought of the Founders and how they set up of the Constitution/Division of Powers, etc. See the book, Science and the Founding Fathers by Bernard Cohen (in Amazon, the summary is excellent).

That belief in general science and evidence is one reason the VERY FIRST LINE in the First Amendment mandates "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." The Christian Nationalists utterly ignore that line, like they ignore any evidence that counters their fanaticism. 

Let me add to the posts above:

1) "Christian Nationalists" are, in fact and deed, Christian theocrats. They hide behind the seemingly patriotic term of "nationalists." They 100% want an American theocracy, in which they rule the nation under the Bible. For them, in their historical ignorance, the Bible is the foundation for America and trumps any secular laws or science.

-- Hence, we will see much more anti-science lunacy followed by tyranny based in the lunacy and madness.

2) These are not fake Christians. They believe that God ordained that America be a Christian nation ruled by the church, at the very outset. That can only mean that God/Christianity approved of the genocide/ethic cleansing of the indigenous peoples living in the "Americas" prior to 1492. Racism and White Supremacy are 100% at the very start of America. It was never about peace and love, until after conquest, colonization, and conversion to Christianity. In their irrational conquest for "purity," they have proven to be barbaric and blood thirsty. 

-- Surly posters, please spare the apologia based in cherry-picking verses from the Bible and Sunday School, and noting a few good deeds done for those already colonized. MAGA-GQP-Evangelicals-Fundamentalists-Creationists are not fake Christians. 

I don't follow your argument that they're not fake Christians. These people would call Jesus a woke snowflake cuck pussy to his face.

You seem to be saying that the original breed of Christianity in America was also hypocritical and fake. I can get down with that. 

But I disagree that they want to rule under the Bible. They want to rule under Bible verses cherry picked mostly from the Old Testament. 

  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, troph said:

A right does not mean it cannot be interfered with. I think the morality of it is due to the fact that these rights or instincts even are universally respected as desired and core to the human experience.

Okay. To be clear: what you’re talking about is not a “right;” it’s a moral principle. A right is a very specific thing. It must be enforceable and recognized by the relevant authority (whatever form that may take). 

And to address your substantive point: I don’t think it’s accurate to say that the moral principles you listed are universally respected. For each, there are examples of time periods and societies in which that was not true. For some, it may not even be true today in our own society (e.g., the right to live is not recognized in all cases, as there are many, many exceptions).

  • Like 1
Posted
1 minute ago, BrickHorn said:

A right is a very specific thing. It must be enforceable and recognized by the relevant authority

No, it doesn't.  

If this were the case there would be no such thing as a "right" because as you point out not all cultures agree on what the rights are.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
Just now, DixonHur said:

No, it doesn't.  

If this were the case there would be no such thing as a "right" because as you point out not all cultures agree on what the rights are.

No. I have the right to free speech. That is a right that exists, because it is enforceable by the relevant authority that applies to me. Russian citizens do not.

The point you make actually shows that free speech is not a natural right, because its existence is jurisdiction-dependent.

Posted
3 minutes ago, troph said:

You said it is gray why are you making it black and white? 

You’re confusing two different issues. Human behavior and morality is gray. Whether natural rights exist is a black and white question. And the grayness of human morality resolves the question cleanly: because natural rights require a black and white morality independent of time and place, the grayness of human morality in fact demonstrates that natural rights do not exist.  

1 minute ago, troph said:

You have a right to free speech regardless so do Russians.

Well I’m sure Navalny and his surviving family will be relieved to hear that.

Posted
Just now, 956 Worldwide said:

You’ve gotten yourself ensnared in a discussion grounded in Marxist Theory. 
 

It may be cold comfort to know that that each time the cage of bourgeois morality and ethics, the reptiles inside usually eat the theorists first. They’ve reasoned their way into this but the lizard-brained among us just FEEL it. 
 

We can all concede that all of human interaction and society boils down to a biting contest but not many of us want to admit that the crocodiles always win that one. 

This is coming across as resentment of your inability to defend your position. Just FYI.

Your strongest point has been that jettisoning our framework for ordering society would be catastrophic. Unfortunately, that point only proves your opponent’s position to be true. Without human enforcement of rights, they are not operative. Meaning they do not exist, or they are meaningless.

Also, saying “natural rights don’t exist” doesn’t (for all of us) mean that we want to ditch that construct as a call to action. Keeping it makes it easier to communicate with the masses and many decision-makers who lack the flexibility of thought to question the “truths” they’ve grown up knowing. I just think it’s best to not be deluded into thinking we don’t have to work at keeping and protecting those rights we hold dear.

Posted
Just now, troph said:

You have a right to free speech regardless so do Russians. Men interfere with that right but they cannot stop you absent killing your or cutting out your throat. But the law to imprison you does not take that natural right away. And speech is an outgrowth of free thought. That one can only be stopped by murder. 

According to your definition, everything is a right.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 minute ago, BrickHorn said:

No. I have the right to free speech. That is a right that exists, because it is enforceable by the relevant authority that applies to me. Russian citizens do not.

The point you make actually shows that free speech is not a natural right, because its existence is jurisdiction-dependent.

Only in terms of a nation state, which is a relatively recent human invention.

I think you're conflating rights with laws.  Just because nation states trample on your rights, doesn't mean they are not natural rights.  It just means they have the "might" to take them away.  Again, you're arguing might makes right.



×
×
  • Create New...