Are rights objectively real?

[Master PO]

Which is irrelevant to the WHOLE POINT OF THIS THREAD. :roll:

no, what is irrelevant is your opinion.

 

[Master PO]

It's true because a document says it's true is circular reasoning.

what i stated is true, the DOI states the founding principles, ..fact

from the founding principles, that rights come a higher power....fact

our laws are structured around those principles....fact

whether you believe in rights is not the question of the post, but that our system of government foundations is built on those principles, and it is via the organic laws of the u.s.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

And that's fine, but most of the crazy libertarian types do want to believe that rights are magical and that position is simply not credible.



And that's a good thing, but mostly it's the insane libertarians that get that criticism.



Then maybe you ought to pick a different phrase from the crazies, otherwise you'll just get confused with them.



Everything exists as an idea. That doesn't make that idea objective, heck, you strongly disagree with the views of the crazy libertarians, proving that the term isn't objective at all.



There is no science though. Oh, you can get a majority of people who might agree with specific rights, but you'll never get universality. There isn't a single right that you can point to that has been universally agreed upon across time and space. It just doesn't exist. People may generally want similar things because human beings have similar needs but that doesn't mean that rights are universal or objective. There is absolutely no evidence of any kind that's a reasonable position to take.



And there's nothing wrong with that, but history isn't necessarily reality. What people believed in a historical context doesn't necessarily mean anything as to the reality of it all. That's really where Po is going wrong, he thinks that because the founding fathers believed a thing, that thing has to be true. Nothing could be further from the truth.



Stupid people deserve to be bashed. If they don't want to be criticized for their stupid beliefs, they ought to stop believing stupid things. That goes for everyone.

I have not claimed that rights are universal or not subjective. A individual living on a island alone has no need for rights. You can say in that situation that individual has no rights. But humans are a social species. In every case that you could present a successful group of humans has some type of code of ethics that the group lives by consciously or subconsciously. If the group does not respect (or at least mostly) the rights of the members of the group, the group fails to exist as a group. And they wither disband or worse. Of course it should be obvious that the rights in each group are somewhat unique. Though it not is going vary a great deal.

What Locke and our forefathers saw was intuitive ethics, and they derived natural rights from that observation. I think that intuitive ethics is the modern term for natural rights. But one should not transfer the baggage of onto the other and reject it because some group of people seems crazy to you.

When you get a chance watch this video. Its almost 20 minutes long. But is very interesting and the guy talks well so it is easy to watch. It is a TED speech by Jonathan Haidt; he proposed Moral Foundations Theory.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

The selfish gene is a reference to the biological import for altruism. I should perhaps have just said that but, I thought the reference would suffice. My bad.

Since I didnt put two and two together wouldnt it be my bad?

 

[William Rea]

what i stated is true, the DOI states the founding principles, ..fact

from the founding principles, that rights come a higher power....fact

our laws are structured around those principles....fact

whether you believe in rights is not the question of the post, but that our system of government foundations is built on those principles, and it is via the organic laws of the u.s.

Actually, no. The subject is, are rights objective and real. It is you that decided to become a Pharisee with your constitution rather than debate the topic. The reason for that is that you cannot make a case for the actual topic at hand.

 

[William Rea]

Since I didnt put two and two together wouldnt it be my bad?

Not at all, I think that I sometimes post too obscurely. The bad is mine to own I'm afraid.

When I try to be more direct I think that I sometimes over step the mark so I prefer to be obscure and to clarify.

 

[Master PO]

Actually, no. The subject is, are rights objective and real. It is you that decided to become a Pharisee with your constitution rather than debate the topic. The reason for that is that you cannot make a case for the actual topic at hand.

But!..... you were talking about what i posted


the orginal post, you quoted me from:

didn't say god did, my point is the DOI lays america's founding principles.

one principle is rights are not created by government , but come from a higher power, be it god, or nature as the founders put it to be subjective, the DOI states "natures god" also.

the u.s. government by constitutional, federal, and organic law, recognizes the founding principles, and our laws are structured on these principles.

 

[NO1]

What Locke and our forefathers saw was intuitive ethics, and they derived natural rights from that observation. I think that intuitive ethics is the modern term for natural rights. But one should not transfer the baggage of onto the other and reject it because some group of people seems crazy to you.

I don't know what is exactly intuitive ethics but Locke wrote his work in order to serve his (and his group) political goals and he was influenced by the political order at the time.

 

[CrabCake]

You are over simplifying.

I addressed your claim directly. You used the fact that the founding fathers were inspired by John Locke as evidence that they held a secular view of natural rights when, if anything, this would be evidence that they did not.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

I addressed your claim directly. You used the fact that the founding fathers were inspired by John Locke as evidence that they held a secular view of natural rights when, if anything, this would be evidence that they did not.

No you misunderstood what I was saying. Or at least what I was trying to say.

Perhaps you should check it out for yourself. Secular Natural Law legal definition of Secular Natural Law

"Secular Natural Law
The school of natural law known as secular natural law replaces the divine laws of God with the physical, biological, and behavioral laws of nature as understood by human reason. This school theorizes about the uniform and fixed rules of nature, particularly human nature, to identify moral and ethical norms. Influenced by the rational empiricism of the seventeenth-and eighteenth-century Enlightenment thinkers who stressed the importance of observation and experiment in arriving at reliable and demonstrable truths, secular natural law elevates the capacity of the human intellect over the spiritual authority of religion.

~snip~

Thus, natural law in the United States may be best understood as the integration of history, secular reason, and divine inspiration."

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

I don't know what is exactly intuitive ethics but Locke wrote his work in order to serve his (and his group) political goals and he was influenced by the political order at the time.

You could have googled it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_intuitionism#Rational_intuition

 

[devildavid]

your rights that you have follow nature, or natural to the body.

its natural to speak, pray, associate, create, acquire property

its not natural to have government give us things, like food water or shelter, those require government actions and are privileges.

It is natural to breathe, eat, sleep, flatulate, defecate, and fornicate. Are these rights?

 

[Master PO]

It is natural to breathe, eat, sleep, flatulate, defecate, and fornicate. Are these rights?

they certainly are

can the government make a law denying the exercise breathe, eat, sleep, flatulate, defecate, and fornicate.

please remember that you cannot do these things, on property which belongs to others

 

[devildavid]

didn't say god did, my point is the DOI lays america's founding principles.

one principle is rights are not created by government , but come from a higher power, be it god, or nature as the founders put it to be subjective, the DOI states "natures god" also.

the u.s. government by constitutional, federal, and organic law, recognizes the founding principles, and our laws are structured on these principles.

Our laws are based on English common law.

 

[Master PO]

Our laws are based on English common law.

correct, we have a "common law system"

 

[devildavid]

they certainly are

can the government make a law denying the exercise breathe, eat, sleep, flatulate, defecate, and fornicate.

please remember that you cannot do these things, on property which belongs to others

That is laughable. These things are not rights but bodily functions. You apparently don't even know what a right is. Your reductionist view of rights is patently absurd. Rights do not equal bodily functions. Laws govern behavior, not bodily functions. No founding document of this country states that bodily functions are rights. You are mixing biology with philosophy. Rights are a philosophical and political concept. Bodily functions are not.

 

[devildavid]

correct, we have a "common law system"

So? What's the big deal about the word system?

 

[Master PO]

That is laughable. These things are not rights but bodily functions. You apparently don't even know what a right is. Your reductionist view of rights is patently absurd. Rights do not equal bodily functions. Laws govern behavior, not bodily functions. No founding document of this country states that bodily functions are rights. You are mixing biology with philosophy. Rights are a philosophical and political concept. Bodily functions are not.

rights come from nature, privileges come from government.

federal, constitutional, and organic law of the u.s. recognize natural rights.

 

[Master PO]

So? What's the big deal about the word system?

because there are legal systems of the world....like common and civil law systems, even though we have a common law system, we have civil law within it.

 

[devildavid]

rights come from nature, privileges come from government.

federal, constitutional, and organic law organic laws of the u.s. recognize natural rights.

You didn't respond to my post. Where in any documents does it state that bodily functions are equal to natural rights?

 

[devildavid]

because there are legal systems of the world....like common and civil law systems, even though we have a common law system, we have civil law within it.

So why is this of any special significance? I already know that legal systems exist and they are not all the same.

 

[Master PO]

You didn't respond to my post. Where in any documents does it state that bodily functions are equal to natural rights?

i did, natural rights are natural to the body, that is how they are defined, to have a right outside of nature would lay a cost or burden on another, natural rights do not do that

 

[Master PO]

So why is this of any special significance? I already know that legal systems exist and they are not all the same.

because i have another poster in another thread telling me, we don't have common law system, but a constitutional system and there is no such thing as a constitutional system

 

[devildavid]

i did, natural rights are natural to the body, that is how they are defined, to have a right outside of nature would lay a cost or burden on another, natural rights do not do that

What makes you the authority on natural rights? How did you come to your definition of natural rights?

 

[devildavid]

because i have another poster in another thread telling me, we don't have common law system, but a constitutional system and there is no such thing as a constitutional system

Please keep your posts to the topics in this thread to avoid misunderstanding.