Are rights objectively real?

[William Rea]

rights come from ones own humanity.

Yes they do. We are social animals that can reason. We have taken our instinct for altruism, socialism and order and, reasoned it into a set of rules that afford each other rights because it works. In so doing we avoid wasting energy on excessive fighting and we reproduce more successfully. The declaration and conferring of rights upon each other is, I think, one of our greatest achievements as a species. Why is that not good enough for YOU?

 

[Quag]

i know this already, in S. Africa the new constitution granted rights, however this is America.

No this is the internet.
If natural rights are real and objective they exist everywhere.

Now you try to defend your claim
If they dont come from govt where do they come from?
How do we know what they are? and why do you claim they are objective?

 

[Quag]

it is so clear you don't red, i have already answered this, and here i get another question about this

Appartently I missed your answer can you enlighten me?

 

[Russell797]

rights come from ones own humanity.

We are speaking of 'natural rights' which the government recognizes as indigenous to people. This philosophy assumes that rights are not granted by others but rather exist as part of our humanity. People can only deny others those 'natural rights'.

I can accept that as a chosen philosophic stance to hold...I think it's a great assumption even if it lacks a solid logical foundation. I would extend it to the other great apes as well, they are really not all that different from humans. Maybe to elephants and dolphins too. Very social creatures, you know. Who are we to say they don't have these 'natural rights' as well?

 

[Master PO]

No this is the internet.
If natural rights are real and objective they exist everywhere.

Now you try to defend your claim

If they dont come from govt where do they come from?

How do we know what they are? and why do you claim they are objective?

they do, this is stated in every natural thread

some governments of the world do not recognize them.

already explained to you in previous postings

 

[Master PO]

Appartently I missed your answer can you enlighten me?

you need to go back and read, instead of continuing to not read, but keep asking the same questions over and over

 

[Master PO]

We are speaking of 'natural rights' which the government recognizes as indigenous to people. This philosophy assumes that rights are not granted by others but rather exist as part of our humanity. People can only deny others those 'natural rights'.

I can accept that as a chosen philosophic stance to hold...I think it's a great assumption even if it lacks a solid logical foundation. I would extend it to the other great apes as well, they are really not all that different from humans. Maybe to elephants and dolphins too. Very social creatures, you know. Who are we to say they don't have these 'natural rights' as well?

wells thats interesting, i have to say.

 

[Quag]

they do, this is stated in every natural thread

some governments of the world do not recognize them.

already explained to you in previous postings

Perhaps if I use larger type you will actually answer the questions
If they dont come from govt where do they come from?
How do we know what they are? and why do you claim they are objective?

 

[Quag]

you need to go back and read, instead of continuing to not read, but keep asking the same questions over and over

I ask the same questions over and over because you do not answer them.

 

[RAMOSS]

you need to go back and read, instead of continuing to not read, but keep asking the same questions over and over

I have never seen you actually answer that question. I see diversions, raw links, redefining of terms, but actually answering that is somethign more that 'He said', or 'this is so', I have not seen.

 

[Master PO]

Perhaps if I use larger type you will actually answer the questions
If they dont come from govt where do they come from?
How do we know what they are? and why do you claim they are objective?

why does this have be be explained ............again.... it seems lately that have have to keep repeating myself

 

[Master PO]

I ask the same questions over and over because you do not answer them.

ihave answered them, use just dont want to read

 

[Master PO]

I have never seen you actually answer that question. I see diversions, raw links, redefining of terms, but actually answering that is somethign more that 'He said', or 'this is so', I have not seen.

oh, i clearly answered the question of the 19th.....yet...it was asked Again, like the other questions

 

[RAMOSS]

oh, i clearly answered the question of the 19th.....yet...it was asked Again, like the other questions

You made claims.. and as it happens, you made incorrect claims, because you are trying to read too much into the words, and attribute things that are nto there.

 

[Master PO]

You made claims.. and as it happens, you made incorrect claims, because you are trying to read too much into the words, and attribute things that are nto there.

i myself and the links i posted stated the 19th is a power ,that prohibits goverment from discrmination because of sex. this was posted many many pages ago. But was not read by you

 

[RAMOSS]

i myself and the links i posted stated the 19th is a power ,that prohibits goverment from discrmination because of sex. this was posted many many pages ago. But was not read by you

I did.. and I do not see where you actually supported your point.

 

[Master PO]

I did.. and I do not see where you actually supported your point.

then you did not read well because from the begining, i posted from a site concerning voting and it clearly stated the15th and 19th is a prohibation on goverment and i believe i posted it at least twice.

 

[William Rea]

why does this have be be explained ............again.... it seems lately that have have to keep repeating myself

The problem that appears to be eluding you is that you are not repeating an answer to the points relevant to to thread topic. This have been reiterated to you countless times and every time you avoid and evade them. Until you answer the questions, we can't move on the discussion and, this has been the case in this thread for over 1200 posts now.

 

[Quag]

why does this have be be explained ............again.... it seems lately that have have to keep repeating myself

Why wont you ever answer the questions?
Are you unable or is it because you know the answers destroy your position?

If they dont come from govt where do they come from?
How do we know what they are? and why do you claim they are objective?

 

[Quag]

ihave answered them, use just dont want to read

No you havent answerd them, you never do.
You wont answer because you cannot answer.

 

[Russell797]

wells thats interesting, i have to say.

How do you know that chimpanzees do not have these natural rights? Is it because you, a human being, have decided that they do not or should not? If so then you have decided that humans alone should have these natural rights. You, a human, have granted these rights to humans.

In the same way, the founders of the U.S.A. have decided that people should have these rights. If the rights are natural, and we have no way to know if other animals have those rights as well, then who are we to deny them?

If this reasoning sounds ridiculous to you, it's because the concept of natural rights is ridiculous, arbitrary and capricious. It's as unfounded as is a belief in ghosts, spirits and gods.

 

[Master PO]

How do you know that chimpanzees do not have these natural rights? Is it because you, a human being, have decided that they do not or should not? If so then you have decided that humans alone should have these natural rights. You, a human, have granted these rights to humans.

In the same way, the founders of the U.S.A. have decided that people should have these rights. If the rights are natural, and we have no way to know if other animals have those rights as well, then who are we to deny them?

If this reasoning sounds ridiculous to you, it's because the concept of natural rights is ridiculous, arbitrary and capricious. It's as unfounded as is a belief in ghosts, spirits and gods.

do you know chimpanzees cannot reason

 

[Brewdog]

If rights can be taken away, then they're not rights.

If you have a felony, you can no longer vote or possess a firearm. Thus, they were never rights.

 

[Master PO]

If rights can be taken away, then they're not rights.

If you have a felony, you can no longer vote or possess a firearm. Thus, they were never rights.

the rights of an individual are curtailed, because of an action he took which was illegal, however the rights of the public at large do not get curtailed because of the actions of an individual.

 

[Brewdog]

the rights of an individual are curtailed, because of an action he took which was illegal, however the rights of the public at large do not get curtailed because of the actions of an individual.

I like what you say. But I still remain that if it can be taken, then it's not a right. It's a privilege. Rights are not granted by governments. You are born with rights.