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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Spock
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Spock

Guest
The title is an old joke about two people walking in the wilderness, and they see a charging rhinoceros, and this is what they say to each other… I think it is a proper way to start to address the next nonsensical concept: “natural rights”.

People love to quote the Declaration of Independence and that cutesy slogan about “inalianable rights, among others, the right to life”. As if claiming such a “right” would make it come true. First, the concept of the “right” needs to be established.

A right is a permission from one being to another, from the right-giver to the right-recipient. It allows the recipinet to carry out certain actions without fear of repercussions. The “right” does not have to be explicitly enumerated, it can be implictly understood. Usually the rights are granted by some goverment to its constituents. Since “nature” is not a conscious entity, it cannot “grant” rights.

There is a major aspect of granting those rights: the enforcement of these assumed rights. If a right cannot be enforced, it is not worth the price of the paper it is written on. The goverment (or any right-giver) can assure me that I have a “right to life”, but what does that mean? The rhino in the title is not aware of my “right” to live, if I trespass into its natural habitat. It will simply take my life. A virus is not aware of my “right” to live, it will kill me. A burglar might have heard that I have a “right” to live, but he can ignore it and kill me. And the goverment is simply powerless to prevent it. So I can take that piece of papaer, which enumerates my “rights” and use it as a toilet-paper (assuming it is soft enough) since it is otherwise totally useless. The goverments can enact a law and declare my “natural right” to become a “legal right” - which is the only kind of right that counts. But even in this case it cannot enforce it, it is unable to protect me. So whether a “right” is “natural” or “legal” it does not amount to much - as long as there is no way to enforce it.

The concept of natural rights is nonsense, since there is no one to enforce them. To say that they “should not” be violated is nice, but without enforcing them, it is just another pie-in-the-sky. If we forget about cutesy slogans, and look at the harsh reality, we can see that the world is ruled by power. Whoever has the gun (goverment), can enforce his wish over those who do not have that gun. That is the reality. We may not like it, but that does not change the facts.

If there would be an “inalianable right” to life, then your life would be safe, no one could take it, not a disease, not a charging lion, not a burglar, not even a state sanctioned executioner. Let’s fact it: “rights” are just a pipe-dream. As long as the powers-that-be allow you, you can dream about those “rights”. Once the powers want to take those “rights” away from you, you are S.O.L. (Read this and weep.)
 
  1. A right is not a permission but a fact based on the value of life.
  2. Whether it is accepted, enforced, rejected or ignored doesn’t deprive life of its value!
 
Perhaps they should have called it the privilege of life, or the gift of life, or your right to have an opportunity of life.
 
You said:
Perhaps they should have called it the privilege of life, or the gift of life, or your right to have an opportunity of life.
Click to expand...
Anyone who rejects the value of life is implicitly rejecting the value of his own thoughts! 😉
 
I think you need to look up the word Right in the Dictionary.

as an adverb:
definition 1 is: morally good, justified, or acceptable:

as a noun
definition 2 is
a moral or legal entitlement to have or do something:

the key point here is Morally!

Your (O.P.) post falls prey to the worst abuses of relativism, the assumption that there is no external, definition of what is Right and what is Wrong! Relativism comes from the devil!

God gave us the right to Life, from conception until natural death. the action of viri, or Rhinos, provided they are not deliberately controlled by the will of another person do constitute possible natural ends to that life. The action of a burglar does not, and is a violation of that right.

By definition a Right is something which can be violated. e.g. we have a right to breath the air, and for that air to be fit to breath. it is only by complicated and deliberate action that the first can be violated, and by the misuse of technology that the 2nd can.

Our basic human rights come from Natural Law, and from God. It is the Job of our legislators to Recognise those rights in civil and criminal law. But they Recognise them or reject them they do not grant them. They may choose to grant additional “rights” such as the right to legal representation in a legal system in which specialized representation is necessary - but taht is not a Natural Right, like the right to Life, and via the right to life the right to Air, Water, and a means to support that life.

If it is not normally possible to violate a Right, there would be no reason or need to state that it is a right. (like the right to breathable air).
 
Always, we must be careful to separate law and morality. There is a clear difference between the two.

In Canada, we do not have a Good Samaritan law, at least in the federal level. What that means is that, if you were walking along a path and saw another person pinned under a fallen log, you are under no legal obligation to help them. But, if you have the ability to help them, should you not at least try? That’s the difference between what is legal and what is moral.

Civil rights are relatively new in this country, enshrined in the constitution only in 1982. People of my generation often take them for granted, but this late coming begs a question. Did the rights added to the constitution via the 1982 amendment not exist before it was given royal assent? What would happen to those rights if the constitution were to be amended again to remove them? They would no longer be legally protected, to be sure, but they would still be enshrined in the law of our hearts.

We must obey the morality of the Father, even if we are under no legal obligation. Even if, God Forbid, it would ever be made illegal to do so. This is not a statement that the law is somehow irrelevant or obsolete, but a statement that we must often go above the minimum legal requirements.
 
HerrZJA said:
Civil rights are relatively new in this country, enshrined in the constitution only in 1982. People of my generation often take them for granted, but this late coming begs a question. Did the rights added to the constitution via the 1982 amendment not exist before it was given royal assent? What would happen to those rights if the constitution were to be amended again to remove them? They would no longer be legally protected, to be sure, but they would still be enshrined in the law of our hearts.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately that would not help you if the police came and arrested you for doing something that you held as your right, but the authority disagreed. And that is the point: you can believe that you are allowed to do something (or not do something), but if the authority - upheld by sheer, brutal force - disagrees, then you have no recourse. (Maybe you can try to appeal to God, but we know that God does not have a good track-record when it comes to help us.)

During the nazi era many people disagreed with the law and helped to Jews to espace. When they were caught, they were punished, because the powers-that-be did not gave them the “right” to do what they did.

I am not interested in discussing if that or other laws are considered “good, proper, or moral”. That question is not relevant in this thread. What matters is that there are no rights unless they are granted by the authority. In other words, there are no “natural rights”.
 
Spock said:
If there would be an “inalianable right” to life, then your life would be safe, no one could take it, not a disease, not a charging lion, not a burglar, not even a state sanctioned executioner. Let’s fact it: “rights” are just a pipe-dream. As long as the powers-that-be allow you, you can dream about those “rights”. Once the powers want to take those “rights” away from you, you are S.O.L. (Read this and weep.)
Click to expand...
What have you done?

-Tim-
 
Spock said:
Unfortunately that would not help you if the police came and arrested you for doing something that you held as your right, but the authority disagreed. And that is the point: you can believe that you are allowed to do something (or not do something), but if the authority - upheld by sheer, brutal force - disagrees, then you have no recourse. (Maybe you can try to appeal to God, but we know that God does not have a good track-record when it comes to help us.)

During the nazi era many people disagreed with the law and helped to Jews to espace. When they were caught, they were punished, because the powers-that-be did not gave them the “right” to do what they did.

I am not interested in discussing if that or other laws are considered “good, proper, or moral”. That question is not relevant in this thread. What matters is that there are no rights unless they are granted by the authority. In other words, there are no “natural rights”.
Click to expand...
Well, now you have the problem of what constitutes and enforceable right. If I were to outlaw the use of cream in coffee, you would have no constitutional basis from which to challenge that law (assuming I was POTUS). Similarly, if the constitution were to be amended to remove your right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, would your atual right to any of those things vanish?

I’m sure you’ll claim I don’t grasp your argument, but I could care less about your argument, and more about the implications it presents.
 
HerrZJA said:
Well, now you have the problem of what constitutes and enforceable right. If I were to outlaw the use of cream in coffee, you would have no constitutional basis from which to challenge that law (assuming I was POTUS). Similarly, if the constitution were to be amended to remove your right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, would your atual right to any of those things vanish?
Click to expand...
Since you did not have a “natural right” in the first place, there would be nothing to vanish. Here is a simple analysis:
  1. the wishful thinker asserts that he has all sorts of natural rights, but they were violated.
  2. the rational thinker is willing to accept reality, no matter how unpleasant it might be. He understands that all of his rights will come from those who are more powerful than he is. Those rights may be modified and taken away. His only recourse is to get into power himself - if possible, peacefully (ballot), if not, forcefully (bullet).
 
I’m not sure I like the assertion that I am irrational. Making such an assertion is, in itself, irrational.

I see we are arguing about different definitions of the word ‘right’. What you are saying is indeed true, for a certain value of true and a certain value of right. There are no “natural rights”, as you call them. That is the limitation of the human legal system. You have a right only to what can and will be enforced by those above you.

There is, however, the natural dignity of the human person, which was what I was using as the definition of a right. I recommend a cursory examination of Part Three, Chapter One of the Catechism. It deals extensively with the dignity of humanity in terms of its rights, freedoms, and responsibilities, with the appropriate references to the works of the Early Fathers and the Scriptures themselves.
 
HerrZJA said:
I see we are arguing about different definitions of the word ‘right’. What you are saying is indeed true, for a certain value of true and a certain value of right. There are no “natural rights”, as you call them. That is the limitation of the human legal system. You have a right only to what can and will be enforced by those above you.
Click to expand...
At least we have a substantial agreement. That is great. Actually more than I could have hoped for. Thank you.
HerrZJA said:
There is, however, the natural dignity of the human person, which was what I was using as the definition of a right. I recommend a cursory examination of Part Three, Chapter One of the Catechism. It deals extensively with the dignity of humanity in terms of its rights, freedoms, and responsibilities, with the appropriate references to the works of the Early Fathers and the Scriptures themselves.
Click to expand...
This is not relevant to this thread. I presented a purely philosphical question, not a theological one. If you can “transplant” what the catechism says into a fully secular environment, then we can talk about it. But otherwise, I am not interested in what the bible says, or what the tradition might say.
 
I’m glad we agree on the first point.

On the second point, and not to sound rude or uninviting, but you’ve chosen an odd forum to try and avoid theological arguments. I used to know a few good philosophy forums. I’ll collate a list at some point and PM you.
 
HerrZJA said:
On the second point, and not to sound rude or uninviting, but you’ve chosen an odd forum to try and avoid theological arguments. I used to know a few good philosophy forums. I’ll collate a list at some point and PM you.
Click to expand...
I hope you don’t think that this is not a good philosophy forum 🙂 I think it is quite decent. (apart from a handful of posters who pollute almost every thread with their nonsensical posts. But as the old saying goes: “God’s zoo is huge, and it takes all kinds to fill it”.)
 
HerrZJA said:
I’m glad we agree on the first point.

On the second point, and not to sound rude or uninviting, but you’ve chosen an odd forum to try and avoid theological arguments. I used to know a few good philosophy forums. I’ll collate a list at some point and PM you.
Click to expand...
Note that no one has refuted my propositions - which make no reference whatsoever to theological arguments:
.
  1. A right is not a permission but a fact based on the value of life.
  2. Whether it is accepted, enforced, rejected or ignored doesn’t deprive life of its value!
 
Spock said:
The title is an old joke about two people walking in the wilderness, and they see a charging rhinoceros, and this is what they say to each other… I think it is a proper way to start to address the next nonsensical concept: “natural rights”
Click to expand...
👍

That’s an amusing scenario. My contribution would be questioning whether Catholics would look to genes to understand our ‘nature’ or natural characteristics. Given that the Church accepts evolution in terms of the development of our physiology, our DNA represents God’s design from right back before the Fall. Unless our DNA was modified by the Fall, which would be possible to investigate. The idea of natural anything wouldn’t be totally false, except that it is used in a contradictory way, or as a proxy for totally unrelated moral statements. Looking at our genes tells us, for example, that genes related to homosexuality are also related to female fertility. Hence God gave us the genes that make some of us gay! Though he later appeared to regret that…
 
Spock said:
A right is a permission from one being to another, from the right-giver to the right-recipient. It allows the recipinet to carry out certain actions without fear of repercussions. The “right” does not have to be explicitly enumerated, it can be implictly understood. Usually the rights are granted by some goverment to its constituents. Since “nature” is not a conscious entity, it cannot “grant” rights.

There is a major aspect of granting those rights: the enforcement of these assumed rights. If a right cannot be enforced, it is not worth the price of the paper it is written on. The goverment (or any right-giver) can assure me that I have a “right to life”, but what does that mean? The rhino in the title is not aware of my “right” to live, if I trespass into its natural habitat. It will simply take my life. A virus is not aware of my “right” to live, it will kill me. A burglar might have heard that I have a “right” to live, but he can ignore it and kill me. And the goverment is simply powerless to prevent it. So I can take that piece of papaer, which enumerates my “rights” and use it as a toilet-paper (assuming it is soft enough) since it is otherwise totally useless. The goverments can enact a law and declare my “natural right” to become a “legal right” - which is the only kind of right that counts. But even in this case it cannot enforce it, it is unable to protect me. So whether a “right” is “natural” or “legal” it does not amount to much - as long as there is no way to enforce it.

The concept of natural rights is nonsense, since there is no one to enforce them. To say that they “should not” be violated is nice, but without enforcing them, it is just another pie-in-the-sky. If we forget about cutesy slogans, and look at the harsh reality, we can see that the world is ruled by power. Whoever has the gun (goverment), can enforce his wish over those who do not have that gun. That is the reality. We may not like it, but that does not change the facts.

If there would be an “inalianable right” to life, then your life would be safe, no one could take it, not a disease, not a charging lion, not a burglar, not even a state sanctioned executioner. Let’s fact it: “rights” are just a pipe-dream. As long as the powers-that-be allow you, you can dream about those “rights”. Once the powers want to take those “rights” away from you, you are S.O.L. (Read this and weep.)
Click to expand...
The rights that you think are granted by nature are natural rights because they are a part of the nature of man. The term ‘nature’ does not refer to nature as meant in the phrase "mother nature’. Human Nature is defined within certain parametres through Natural Law reasoning and it is the inherent characteristics of man’s nature that are called natural rights, because they express natural instincts and inclinations as expressed through free will. They are inherent to man and considered to be universal and discernable in an objective way. That is why they are inalienable. They are inalienable because, being common and universal characteristics of human nature, they can not be taken away, except through the wrong doing of another, or of others.

You want to live. Your basic human desire and motivation is to live. So it is for everyone else. Thus, everyone has a right to life.

You want to associate with other human beings according to your free will. So to do others. Mankind is, universally, a social being. Thus, everyone has a right to free association.

These types of rights exist in all times and places where there are human societies. States do indeed grant ‘rights’ to individuals. However, those rights are according to the desires of the population and even, sometimes, the whims of rulers. Driving on a particular side of the road is an example of the desires of a population. The restrictions placed on minors and criminals are examples of how the desires of a population can effect the rights of association of others. Hitler’s persecutions of the Jews is an example of the whim of a ruler. His desire to incarcerate a certain class people is an example of the whimsical dictate of a ruler against the right of others to associate freely. All are examples of Positive, or man made law. They are relative to a culture, a time and a place. The inalienable rights as written into the Magna Carter, the U.S. Constitution, where they are actually described as being inalienable, the Australian Constitution and others, are what makes them Natural Law documents. They recognise the rights that every man should have qua man.
 
John21652 said:
The rights that you think are granted by nature are natural rights because they are a part of the nature of man. The term ‘nature’ does not refer to nature as meant in the phrase "mother nature’. Human Nature is defined within certain parametres through Natural Law reasoning and it is the inherent characteristics of man’s nature that are called natural rights, because they express natural instincts and inclinations as expressed through free will. They are inherent to man and considered to be universal and discernable in an objective way. That is why they are inalienable. They are inalienable because, being common and universal characteristics of human nature, they can not be taken away, except through the wrong doing of another, or of others.

You want to live. Your basic human desire and motivation is to live. So it is for everyone else. Thus, everyone has a right to life.

You want to associate with other human beings according to your free will. So to do others. Mankind is, universally, a social being. Thus, everyone has a right to free association.

These types of rights exist in all times and places where there are human societies. States do indeed grant ‘rights’ to individuals. However, those rights are according to the desires of the population and even, sometimes, the whims of rulers. Driving on a particular side of the road is an example of the desires of a population. The restrictions placed on minors and criminals are examples of how the desires of a population can effect the rights of association of others. Hitler’s persecutions of the Jews is an example of the whim of a ruler. His desire to incarcerate a certain class people is an example of the whimsical dictate of a ruler against the right of others to associate freely. All are examples of Positive, or man made law. They are relative to a culture, a time and a place. The inalienable rights as written into the Magna Carter, the U.S. Constitution, where they are actually described as being inalienable, the Australian Constitution and others, are what makes them Natural Law documents. They recognise the rights that every man should have qua man.
Click to expand...
Nice post. What you say is that those “natural rights” should be called “natural abilities” and as such calling them “rights” is just another dumb euphemism. But you are wrong. The “natural rights” are meant to be “legal rights”. The trouble is that using a particular word - in this case “rights” - out of its proper meaning is at the bare minimum - confusing. A “right” which cannot be enforced is not a “right”.

When people speak of the “right to life”, they do NOT mean the “ability to live”, they speak about a desire that their life should not be interrupted. And that is not an “ability” any more. It is a requirement.

You youself use the all important modifier “should have” - which clearly describes an “is not, but should be”. And since it is not, there are no natural rights, only the desire that there would be. So they are not rights, only desires

Besides, not only humans have a basic desire and motivation to live. Every living being has it. With your re-definition you trivialized the concept of “right”. But that is ok. Can’t win’em all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top