I know he is a herbivore... you know he is a herbivore... but does HE know it?

[John21652]

Nice pun… but you could have just said - with equal justification - that violating a “right” is commonly considered “left”. The poor word “right” has several meanings: here it means that “an action can be carried out without fear or repercussion”. It has nothing to do with what is “proper, just, or good” or “which direction to go”, or on which side a representative sits in their parliaments.

‘Right’ and ‘Rights’ are here used in a moral context. The opposite of the word ‘right’ is ‘wrong’ and the issue is the ‘wrongness’ of violating ‘rights’ that have a moral base.

Rights are always granted by the powers-to-be to the others. They do not happen “naturally”. Nature does not care. Nature does not grant one the “right to life”.

Wrong. Very wrong. 'The rights exist qua man’s nature. They are derived from man’s nature. They can never be ‘granted’ by any ‘power’. They can only be taken away by ‘the powers that be’ and when they are, it is a violation of morality. You are still confusing “nature” with the meaning of ‘natural’ as used in the phrase ‘Natural Law’. The use of the word ‘Natural’ refers to the natural universal tendencies and inclinations discernable about human nature. I will refrain from calling you obtuse and hope you will just ‘get it’.

No arguments here. You said what I did, the “rights” are granted by the goverments.

Wrong again. Governments are instituted amongst men because of a social compact which is designed to protect the ‘rights’ of man. The failure to protect the natural rights of men happens in totalitarian and dictatorial regimes, or when democracy is subverted.

But these are all “artifical rights”, not “natural”. Besides most of them are nothing, but “pie in the sky”, since there is power behind them to enforce them.

The Magna Carter, the U.S. Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, just to mention a few examples, exist because men wanted to enforce the natural rights of mankind and not leave them to be trampled and trummeled by self serving Kings and dictators. It is those very documents which demonstrate that the Natural Law rights of mankind exist and it is those very same documents which gives a population the power to enforce them.

 

[tonyrey]

‘Right’ and ‘Rights’ are here used in a moral context. The opposite of the word ‘right’ is ‘wrong’ and the issue is the ‘wrongness’ of violating ‘rights’ that have a moral base.Wrong. Very wrong. 'The rights exist qua man’s nature. They are derived from man’s nature. They can never be ‘granted’ by any ‘power’. They can only be taken away by ‘the powers that be’ and when they are, it is a violation of morality. You are still confusing “nature” with the meaning of ‘natural’ as used in the phrase ‘Natural Law’. The use of the word ‘Natural’ refers to the natural universal tendencies and inclinations discernable about human nature. I will refrain from calling you obtuse and hope you will just ‘get it’.

Wrong again. Governments are instituted amongst men because of a social compact which is designed to protect the ‘rights’ of man. The failure to protect the natural rights of men happens in totalitarian and dictatorial regimes, or when democracy is subverted.

The Magna Carter, the U.S. Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, just to mention a few examples, exist because men wanted to enforce the natural rights of mankind and not leave them to be trampled and trummeled by self serving Kings and dictators. It is those very documents which demonstrate that the Natural Law rights of mankind exist and it is those very same documents which gives a population the power to enforce them.

Physicalists (i.e. naturalists) equate human nature with animal nature - and therefore natural law with the law of the jungle. Very natural indeed!

After all the topic is herbivores…

 

[Spock]

Your anecdote above doesn’t address the point.

If you cannot understand the significance, I am sorry, but it is not my problem.

It seems to me that you have a very ambigous definition of rights. Is there a hierachy of them?

Actually, it is quite simple. A “right” is given by a strong one to a weak one, and it is a contract, in which the strong one stipulates the freedom of the weak one to carry out some acts without fear of repercussions. In our current societies the strongest entity is the goverment. It is the one which gives out most of the rights.

Of course there are all sorts of hierarchies of rights. The parent can grant “rights” to the children. Or the employer grants “rights” to the employees. And so on…

 

[davidv]

If you cannot understand the significance, I am sorry, but it is not my problem.

Actually, it is quite simple. A “right” is given by a strong one to a weak one, and it is a contract, in which the strong one stipulates the freedom of the weak one to carry out some acts without fear of repercussions. In our current societies the strongest entity is the goverment. It is the one which gives out most of the rights.

Of course there are all sorts of hierarchies of rights. The parent can grant “rights” to the children. Or the employer grants “rights” to the employees. And so on…

Thank you for demonstrating that you are equivocating the meaning of rights. See post above by John21652 for the definition of a moral right.

 

[inocente]

The US values individual freedom very highly (at least, mosr people do), while in Singapore the individual freedom does not count for much. They value stability, the value conformity, then even value barbaric, medieval punishment (caning) for very minor transgressions of their draconic system (dropping a chewing gum of a sidewalk). So don’t think that there are “universal ideals” across all societies.

The Singapore government has failed to sign loads of rights conventions. (Although both it and the rest of the world ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the only two exceptions being Somalia and … the USA ).

A few hundred years ago no society valued freedom for all its constituents. Freedom and prosperity was reserved for the ruling classes. Even the downtrodden accepted their status, after all the church kept of preaching to be obedient to their divinely established rulers.

But twas the movement for natural rights which did away with the supposed divine rights of kings.

Fall to the wayside? No society can expect to prosper “forever”.

Of course, but societies with poor moral frameworks tend to die out a lot more quickly.

I am saying that “rights” are social constructs, not something that grow on the trees. In different societies there are different rights.

To some extent agreed, but in practice beliefs about rights are deeply held and go to the heart of what we want for our society. For instance we can acknowledge that some past societies thought they had a right to own slaves but can’t really overcome our own outrage at the idea.

But, of course, I would be very happy, if there were “natural rights”, all across the land, where no one would be persecuted just because they are different, where everyone would be able to prosper according to their abilities, where there would be no poverty. Where there would be an abundance of goods, so everyone could enjoy food, drinks, shelter, health, etc… Of course it is an excellent goal to work toward such a state of affairs. But let’s not kid ourselves, such a society is a very long way off (if possible at all), and there is nothing “natural” about it.

Sounds like you’re not so much arguing against natural rights as wanting more of them.

Just think about it… it is obvious. Look at the US. You have a property. You even have your deed to prove that you OWN that piece of land without liens. You are proclaimed to be the owner of this land. What does ownership mean? That you have the “right” to do with this piece of property whatever you choose to do. Wake up, buddy…

Wanting absolute rule over a plot of land like a king in his castle sounds more like an appeal to divine rights than natural rights.

 

[inocente]

Physicalists (i.e. naturalists) equate human nature with animal nature - and therefore natural law with the law of the jungle. Very natural indeed!

Not.

 

[tonyrey]

Physicalists (i.e. naturalists) equate human nature with animal nature - and therefore natural law with the law of the jungle. Very natural indeed!

I’m glad you agree!

 

[inocente]

I’m glad you agree!

We all know that “anything goes” and “every man for himself” are not the natural state of affairs, and it’s downright daft to pretend that those who don’t share a belief in supernatural thingamajigs are moral monsters detached from reality.

For instance there’s a clear natural law, in us and many other species, that parents look after their young, for the simple reason that species where it wasn’t the case died off. Natural rights can be explained in terms of evolution of species and societies just as well if not better than any other perspective - the OP is wrong from every angle.

 

[tonyrey]

We all know that “anything goes” and “every man for himself” are not the natural state of affairs, and it’s downright daft to pretend that those who don’t share a belief in supernatural thingamajigs are moral monsters detached from reality.

 

[inocente]

I once asked a person on this forum why it is evil to torture a child. He replied that the belief is a “sentimentality”! In other words it is merely a human convention - which is logical enough in an amoral universe.

What a very silly person.

That’s a biological fact based on instinct whereas the OP identifies a natural law with a right that should be respected. There is no obvious reason why the species would die off if specific individuals were killed - or even why it matters if the species does become extinct!

If natural rights pop out of nowhere and have nothing to do with biology and the natural world, it’s a bit hard to see why they ever got to be called natural.

The mere fact that something has happened doesn’t imply that it should have happened or should be allowed to continue to happen…

I guess it does no harm to restate the obvious, even when no one disagrees.

 

[Spock]

The Singapore government has failed to sign loads of rights conventions. (Although both it and the rest of the world ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the only two exceptions being Somalia and … the USA ).

I am really confused here. Your contention was that there are “universal ideals” across societies. If freedom and security are not considered “ideals”, I would not know what is. Yet, in the examples it is clear that some socities value freedom while others value security. So is your post a “rebuttal”, or what? I have no idea what your point might have been… It is a fact that the people in Singapore like their social structure. They keep electing the same goverment.

But twas the movement for natural rights which did away with the supposed divine rights of kings.

Any excuse is a good excuse to get rid of tyranny. And let’s not forget that those divine rights were preached and upheld by the catholic church.

Of course, but societies with poor moral frameworks tend to die out a lot more quickly.

Do you have a statistics to show that? From the top of my head I would think of China, with its 5000+ years of civilization, and that civilization was very far from the christian ideal - especially in morals.

To some extent agreed, but in practice beliefs about rights are deeply held and go to the heart of what we want for our society. For instance we can acknowledge that some past societies thought they had a right to own slaves but can’t really overcome our own outrage at the idea.

Very true. And during the WWII, when the Japanese found American soldiers surrendering, they were utterly astonished and disgusted that the Americans did not choose the honorable fight to the death (or maybe considering seppuku) and chose instead the shameful and dishonorable surrender. That is why the captured Americans were held in such contempt and treated almost like animals - because according to the Japanese code of honor they forfeighted their rights to humane treatment by surrendering. Many societies (even today) are outraged at the Americal concept of “free agents”. To them it is a perversity. How can you explain it to them? You cannot, since their basic point of view is so very different. My point is still that there are no “universal moral ideals” across the ages.

Sounds like you’re not so much arguing against natural rights as wanting more of them.

You got it. Not “more” of them, but “having them”. If I really had the “right” to life, then some virus or a wild lion could not negate that “right” with impunity. I wish there were inviolable rights and I am sad that there are none.

Wanting absolute rule over a plot of land like a king in his castle sounds more like an appeal to divine rights than natural rights.

I am not talking about “absolute” rights. I would never wish to grant a right to my neighbor (and thus to myself) to burn old tires in the backyard, or to establish a chemical plant. But let’s not kid ourselves, we hardly have any “rights” over our property. And many of the Christians assert that we do not have “rights” over our own body, since our bodies belong to God - and at the same time they keep on harping about our “natural right to life”. It would be refreshingly honest if those people would realize that they wish to blow both hot and cold from their mouth. The truth is that I am having a lot of fun at the expense of the posters. I like to posit the same problem with a slightly different point of view after some time elapsed. And, lo and behold, the same posters will argue against their previous viewpoints - and fail to realize it. Looking at it from the outside, I am not sure if I should be simply amused or feel terribly sorry for those posters.

 

[inocente]

I am really confused here. Your contention was that there are “universal ideals” across societies. If freedom and security are not considered “ideals”, I would not know what is. Yet, in the examples it is clear that some socities value freedom while others value security. So is your post a “rebuttal”, or what? I have no idea what your point might have been… It is a fact that the people in Singapore like their social structure. They keep electing the same goverment.

My post was a rebuttal for something you weren’t arguing, I was confused where you were coming from and have confused you in turn. Let’s drop that one - many times on CAF I’ve been called a relativist for believing morals aren’t cast in stone. To me morals evolve as societies evolve, and this includes “co-evolution” between societies which are not isolated.

*Do you have a statistics to show that? From the top of my head I would think of China, with its 5000+ years of civilization, and that civilization was very far from the christian ideal - especially in morals. *

Sent you down another blind alley then - by “poor moral frameworks” I mean absence of or inadequate, not whether we personally like the moral content. The strength of a moral code can be quantified reasonably objectively (how well does it resolve conflicts, etc.), while the content (how much does it agree with our norms) is subjective. So to me China is a good example of a strong framework.

*Many societies (even today) are outraged at the Americal concept of “free agents”. To them it is a perversity. How can you explain it to them? You cannot, since their basic point of view is so very different. My point is still that there are no “universal moral ideals” across the ages. *

There are some universal morals, whether or not we want to call them ideals. For instance all healthy children develop a disgust of being sexually attracted to siblings (it seems that we get this disgust for anyone we see our parents looking after).

And many of the Christians assert that we do not have “rights” over our own body, since our bodies belong to God - and at the same time they keep on harping about our “natural right to life”.

You’ll get no argument from me here. Except that imho our personal morality is amongst the strongest of our beliefs, exceptionally hard for us to change unless we’re forced to realize a clear error, and unfortunately that cuts both ways.

 

[Spock]

My post was a rebuttal for something you weren’t arguing, I was confused where you were coming from and have confused you in turn. Let’s drop that one - many times on CAF I’ve been called a relativist for believing morals aren’t cast in stone. To me morals evolve as societies evolve, and this includes “co-evolution” between societies which are not isolated.

Sent you down another blind alley then - by “poor moral frameworks” I mean absence of or inadequate, not whether we personally like the moral content. The strength of a moral code can be quantified reasonably objectively (how well does it resolve conflicts, etc.), while the content (how much does it agree with our norms) is subjective. So to me China is a good example of a strong framework.

There are some universal morals, whether or not we want to call them ideals. For instance all healthy children develop a disgust of being sexually attracted to siblings (it seems that we get this disgust for anyone we see our parents looking after).

You’ll get no argument from me here. Except that imho our personal morality is amongst the strongest of our beliefs, exceptionally hard for us to change unless we’re forced to realize a clear error, and unfortunately that cuts both ways.

One of the shining examples when we could conduct not only a civilized conversation, but also come to agreement on some very important points (not every point, but most). You made my day. Thanks

 

[John21652]

You got it. Not “more” of them, but “having them”. If I really had the “right” to life, then some virus or a wild lion could not negate that “right” with impunity. I wish there were inviolable rights and I am sad that there are none.

You really are being obtuse, aren’t you? How many times do we need to write and re-write that ‘morals’ and ‘rights’ pertain to man qua man? Viruses and lions are not moral agents, so for you to expect them to respect your rights is ludicrous. The notion of 'morals; and ‘rights’ is to govern relations between human beings. If you go and walk in the lions domain and he is hungry, then he has the right to eat you. If another human wants to eat you, then, morally, he does not have that right and you have the right to dong him on the head if he threatens your right to life. Surely you can now ‘get’ the difference between human rights and human morality and that of the ‘law of nature’ which decrees that the lion can eat whatever he can get his jaws into when he is hungry?

I am not talking about “absolute” rights.

Very few rights, if any at all, are absolute. Not even the right to life. If you transgress someone’s right to life, you might be liable for forfeiture of your own. The right to free speech is restricted by the right of others not to be harmed by your right to speak freely. And so on it goes…all rights are tempered by obligations towards other people.

I would never wish to grant a right to my neighbor (and thus to myself) to burn old tires in the backyard, or to establish a chemical plant.

Living in society means restricting our ‘rights’ in order to accomodate the rights of others. That’s grade one moral philosophy. If you live on a deserted island, you could burn old tyres to your hearts content. Once you have a neighbour, however, your behaviour must be tempered to accomodate his rights.

But let’s not kid ourselves, we hardly have any “rights” over our property.

You have the presumed right to quiet enjoyment of your property and no-one may steal it from you.

And many of the Christians assert that we do not have “rights” over our own body, since our bodies belong to God - and at the same time they keep on harping about our “natural right to life”.

As has been explained to you before, the notion of “rights” also carries with it the notion of “obligations”. You can do whatever you want with your body, except disrespect it. Oh, you can even do that if you so desire, but the moral transgression is yours alone.

It would be refreshingly honest if those people would realize that they wish to blow both hot and cold from their mouth. The truth is that I am having a lot of fun at the expense of the posters. I like to posit the same problem with a slightly different point of view after some time elapsed. And, lo and behold, the same posters will argue against their previous viewpoints - and fail to realize it. Looking at it from the outside, I am not sure if I should be simply amused or feel terribly sorry for those posters.

I could say the same about you. Your continued obstinacy and obtuseness is cause for concern. I don’t think you are as silly as you make out. I happen to think you are a victim of your own blind obstinancy. It would be refreshingly honest if you owned up to comparing apples with oranges.