Are rights objectively real?

[Quag]

3000 years ago man [A] trades goods for baby goats, he raises them and gets meat and milk from them.

1 day another man comes along and takes the goats by herding them away.

does man [A] stand there and look and what is happening and act as if it does not concern him, because of what man is doing.

no!...there is no government and man [A] uses he natural ability to secure his right to his property, his goats, by challenging the other man.

if man [A] retains his goats, he has secured his own natural right to property, if man has retained from man [A] goats, then man [A] right to property has been violated.




by creating a government man [A] goats are secured by law, and we use law enforcement to return the goats and punish man no matter how big and tough he is, .....so that each person does not have to secure his own natural right of life , liberty and property.

How did the guy manage to to gain the right to the goat in the first place?

 

[Quag]

I am not changing the English language. I am philosophically challenging dogma.You and others seem to have written off the concept of natural rights and dont seem to care that there is different type of natural rights. You seem to think there are only divine natural rights and wont even acknowledge secular natural rights. Why is that?

ANd come on it is obvious why you dismiss natural rights it has everything to do with Christianity. Or at the very least theology/the divine.

The divine version of natural rights isnt tenable. While at least the secular version of natural rights attempts to use a tenable hypothesis.

You are trying to change the language by trying to use your own personal definition of natural.
As to dogmatically writing of the concept of natural rights, nope the burden of proof remaisn witrh those who claim they exist, no one has even come close to meeting that burden of proof.
As to strawman your fixation on trying to tie me to some anti-christian theme is actually a strawman. Unlike when you accused me of using a strawman.
Secular/divine it is irrelevant as there is nothing to support the claim of natural rights.

 

[Quag]

i can say there are those who believe rights from from god, and those who believe rights come from our humanity.

If rights come from our humaity, then they come from us, if they come from us then they are subjective and man made.
thus they are neither objective or natural.

 

[Quag]

So basically as soon as I hire some force to protect my property I all of a sudden have a right to it. Excuse me as I roll my eyes at the idea. lol.

Why is it your property?

 

[Quag]

At least humans are objectively real and not fantasy.

What does the term objectively real mean???
What would be subjectively real?

 

[Zyphlin]

2. They are objectively real (non-religious). This proposes that rights are actually part of reality and that whether or not human beings respect them has no relation to whether or not they are in fact real. Therefore, something like the constitution notes the existence of those rights, but does not create them. Despite the objective reality of rights, the rights may be violated with impunity unless stopped by force. (ie, North Korea can starve millions to death for political reasons and "rights" cannot stop them...only an invasion and deposition of its government could).

"Rights" are simply a term used to simplify the notion of what an individual is capable of doing on their own, and distilling those things to their most basic.

Logically, you would not argue with me that a person in nature, away from civilization, could eat sustenance if they should find it. You would not argue that they would be able to try and tie off a cut or use some other remedy on an injury. You would not argue with me that if a beast were to attack them, that they could try to fight it off with a big stick.

These are all examples of the right to life, the right to survive. A human in nature is capable of attempting to survive, entirely dependent upon it's own power, and thus it has a right to try to do that.

However, a right...without some formalized sense of society established by a social contract...essentially holds no value beyond the individual.

But when looking at a "natural right" as simply a terminology describing that which an individual can attempt to do on their own within a statue of nature, it's not illogical at all.

 

[Quag]

"Rights" are simply a term used to simplify the notion of what an individual is capable of doing on their own, and distilling those things to their most basic.

Logically, you would not argue with me that a person in nature, away from civilization, could eat sustenance if they should find it. You would not argue that they would be able to try and tie off a cut or use some other remedy on an injury. You would not argue with me that if a beast were to attack them, that they could try to fight it off with a big stick.

These are all examples of the right to life, the right to survive. A human in nature is capable of attempting to survive, entirely dependent upon it's own power, and thus it has a right to try to do that.

That isnt describing rights but abilities.

However, a right...without some formalized sense of society established by a social contract...essentially holds no value beyond the individual.

But when looking at a "natural right" as simply a terminology describing that which an individual can attempt to do on their own within a statue of nature, it's not illogical at all.

The problem is that you are confusing rights with abilities, What you decribed holds true for every being in existence.

 

[Cephus]

oh, people had no property before government....:lamo

Since all forms of human community have some kind of leadership, that means that government of some kind has existed as long as humans have. Tribal humans largely have communal property.

 

[Henrin]

Since all forms of human community have some kind of leadership, that means that government of some kind has existed as long as humans have. Tribal humans largely have communal property.

:lol: Leadership doesn't equal government.

 

[Henrin]

How did the guy manage to to gain the right to the goat in the first place?

He already went over that.

And I quote:

[A] trades goods for baby goats, he raises them and gets meat and milk from them.

 

[Cephus]

:lol: Leadership doesn't equal government.

Of course it does. Government is just more formalized and larger. In any group, the leader makes the rules and imposes penalties for failing to follow the rules. That's the essence of government right there.

 

[Henrin]

Of course it does. Government is just more formalized and larger. In any group, the leader makes the rules and imposes penalties for failing to follow the rules. That's the essence of government right there.

:roll: No. A leader tells his follows his vision and those people that believe in that vision will follow, while those that don't will not. A government on the other hand provides no such choice, but instead tells people what to do, when to do it, and punishes them when they fail to obey. A government is totalitarian control over a given territorial area, while a leader must gain his support and his followers obedience.

 

[Cephus]

:roll: No. A leader tells his follows his vision and those people that believe in that vision will follow, while those that don't will not. A government on the other hand provides no such choice, but instead tells people what to do, when to do it, and punishes them when they fail to obey. A government is totalitarian control over a given territorial area, while a leader must gain his support and his followers obedience.

You don't have a clue, which is no surprise. All social groups have a government of sorts. In democratic groups, that leadership is elected, in non-democratic groups, it is not. Even a family is a government of sorts. The parents lead, the children follow. Anyone who doesn't follow that "vision" gets tossed out of the group or otherwise punished. Anyone who violates the law gets thrown in jail or otherwise punished. Anyone who doesn't want to follow the "vision" of the government is more than welcome to pick up and go find some other country to live in.

Why haven't you figured this out yet?

 

[Henrin]

You don't have a clue, which is no surprise. All social groups have a government of sorts. In democratic groups, that leadership is elected, in non-democratic groups, it is not. Even a family is a government of sorts. The parents lead, the children follow. Anyone who doesn't follow that "vision" gets tossed out of the group or otherwise punished. Anyone who violates the law gets thrown in jail or otherwise punished. Anyone who doesn't want to follow the "vision" of the government is more than welcome to pick up and go find some other country to live in.

Why haven't you figured this out yet?

You do realize your view is historically false, right? Stateless societies existed well before government ever did. Human beings are not bound to having a government.

Btw, if leadership is the same as government then do you think MLK could have changed his vision to something like "blacks deserve to be oppressed" and kept his followers? Do you think the government could declare in law that "all citizens are assholes" and keep governing over their citizens?

 

[Quag]

He already went over that.

And I quote:

How did he get the goods to trade for the goat?

Basically the same question I asked you, by what right do you claim the acorn?

 

[Henrin]

How did he get the goods to trade for the goat?

I have no idea. :shrug: I would assume he acquired them through trade. That's not really important for the example. In fact, you're trying to go around the argument to find where something could be suspect. Just look at the example provided for what it is and find a flaw, geez.

 

[NO1]

Then you apparently haven't comprehended a ****ing thing. And I dont have time for laziness.

From your link - "Some rationalist ethical intuitionists characterize moral "intuitions" as a species of belief (for example, Audi, 2005, pp. 33–6) that are self-evident in that they are justified simply by virtue of one's understanding of the proposition believed."

 

[Master PO]

I not only showed that they do you failed ot show that natural rights exist.

you will never be able to show me because its no law has never created a right.

 

[Master PO]

How did the guy manage to to gain the right to the goat in the first place?

he created or used his labor to obtain goods which he traded for goats, he trade his property, for the property of goats.

 

[Master PO]

If rights come from our humaity, then they come from us, if they come from us then they are subjective and man made.
thus they are neither objective or natural.

that means they comes from nature, from the body, we are born with them.

 

[Master PO]

Since all forms of human community have some kind of leadership, that means that government of some kind has existed as long as humans have. Tribal humans largely have communal property.

wrong, because their is no structure of a government.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

What does the term objectively real mean???
What would be subjectively real?

Look up the words objectively, subjectively and real and you will have your answer.

 

[Quag]

I have no idea. :shrug: I would assume he acquired them through trade. That's not really important for the example. In fact, you're trying to go around the argument to find where something could be suspect. Just look at the example provided for what it is and find a flaw, geez.

No you have to establish how ownership came about to establish propery rights.
Back to your example why is the acorn your property.

 

[Quag]

you will never be able to show me because its no law has never created a right.

I agree I will enver be able to show you because you have no intention of seeing.

 

[Quag]

he created or used his labor to obtain goods which he traded for goats, he trade his property, for the property of goats.

Doesnt explain how you first got the property.
There is a goat in a field by what right can someone claim it?
At some point there has to be soemone who estabnlished ownership, there must be a reason why this is theirs.