Thus proving that no natural right to life exists.
A natural desire to live exists, but not a right to live.
Why would that be the fundamental purpose of government? If we know anything for certain, every government does the exact opposite on occasion. Our own government does it more often than most. So why would you think that that is the fundamental purpose of government when the evidence suggests that there is no way that could possibly be it's fundamental purpose?
rof Natural rights philosophers do not define reality. We're discussing facts, not opinions. It is a fact that a natural right to life cannot possibly exist.
I'm quite familiar with the concept. Did I say anything about laws, society, customs or beliefs? Of course not. Nothing at all about what I'm saying relates to positive law in any way.
I'm not disagreeing with the concept of natural rights, I'm disagreeing with one particular thing that most of them have mistakenly described as a natural right. I've done this by showing logically how it cannot possibly be a natural right.
It's not my fault that many natural rights philosophers failed to fully vet their premises on their claims about a natural right to life.
How does that prove that? Just because you will die doesn't mean or imply that you don't have the right to not be killed by another human being?
Well the two have nothing to do with each other, so..
Well ok then, what is the purpose of government to you?
I happen to believe the purpose of government is protect the natural rights of people and I'm very interested in hearing what you think.
Hobbes was on the money whe he discussed the idea that every man has a natural right to use his power, intellect and abilities to preserve his own life. He doesn't say that every man has a natural right to life because, as you point out, that is one thing that no one has ever had. It is natural however that he use whatever he can to protect his life for as long as possible.
He also said though, that in his natural state, every man has a natural right to every thing (including other men) and is only limited by his ability to achieve that. This leads to his observation that in a natural state there would be a constant war of everyone against everyone else, leading to human lives being 'nasty, brutish, and short'.
So, not only are our natural rights advocates wrong about the existence of a natural right to life, they are also wrong in seeing the recognition of such 'natural rights' as fundamentally preeminent or inalienable.
That's not a natural right to life, that's claiming that a natural right to not be killed by another human being exists.
But there's nothing at all which would imply, in any way, that any such natural right exists.
In fact, nobody even believes that such a right exists. Nobody.
The follow up to any claims about the existence of a natural right to not be killed by another human being is a claim that, because of this "right", that there exists a natural right to self-defense, even if that self-defense requires a human being to kill another human being.
In the simplest terms, this is saying that a natural right to kill another human being under certain specific conditions exists. If we have one natural right to not be killed by another human being, we cannot simultaneously possess a natural right to kill another human being under ANY circumstances. It's paradoxical.
So either the natural right to self defense exists or the natural right to not be killed by another human being exists, but both "natural rights" cannot possibly exist simultaneously due to the above paradox.
Since we know that almost everybody supports at least one circumstance where one human being kills another, we can say that no human being agrees that there exists a natural right to not be killed by another human being.
However, that doesn't mean that such a natural right doesn't exist. It merely means that nobody actually believes that such a natural right exists. Everyone could be wrong on that, though.
Not really. The reason why people fool themselves into believing that a natural right to life exists is because of that natural desire to live. It's why people say "try to prevent death" rather than "try to postpone death". People don't like to think about their innate mortality. They dislike the fact of their eventual demise so much that they actively avoid thinking about it.
In order to accurately assess the existence or non-existence of a right to life, though, one must directly address the certainty of death. The natural desire to live ends up in conflict with the reality of certain non-existence, making the thought exercise an unpleasant one rather than entertaining one. This is why so many natural philosophers came to such an obviously false conclusion about the existence of a natural right to life.
They may have been correct about other natural rights, however, such as the aforementioned natural right to self-defense. Unfortunately for their logical arguments, they started with the premise that the natural right to life exists in order to claim that the natural right to self-defense exists. Of course, the unsound nature of that specific argument doesn't negate the possibility of the conclusion being true.
All of the evidence available implies that the purpose of government is to unite groups of like-minded individuals under a single set of codified rules to create a specific culture and society with a clear hierarchy and consequences for violating the agreed upon rules. It appears to be an extension of our natural social tendencies as a social animal coupled with our higher order intellect (as compared to other known animals).
How can the government's primary purpose be to do something which it cannot possibly do with any certainty? We can only guess at what is or is not a natural right, and that's when we're operating under the prima facie assumption that such things even exist. If we start from a more accurate prima facie assumption that they may or may not exist, we add an even greater level of uncertainty to what we are attempting to do. We are first guessing that they do exist, and then guessing at which one's are accurately labeled as such.
What exactly is a right to you?
That is simply not true. Many people believe it on this very forum.
No, they can very well co-exist.
Maintaining the condition is the goal of the right and therefore it is understandable if action is taken to persevere it from aggressors at the time of attack.
There so paradox. Since the above individual is attempting to cause harm to the life of the one party their life is therefore forfeit for the survival of the other party that is being attacked by them.
How is it exactly unreasonable to take steps to preserve the right from aggressors?
I'm a bit lost on how that isn't in line with the protection of the right?
I don't know anyone that using the argument in a way to run away from the fact that they will one day die.
That is silly. They came to conclusion on the right because of the natural existence of life and the desirable effects of such a result of protecting it.
It is perfectly sound because self defense is preserving the desired condition.
Well if that is the reason than it would be fair to say it never did that either.
There is no guessing on what applies.
Life
Property
Liberty
Do I need to define them for you?
I don't understand how this isn't easy to follow.
"something that one may properly claim as due" or "the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled"
Nobody is "due" a life by nature, nor are they entitled to one by nature. :shrug:
I have never seen a single person who supported a natural right to not be killed by another human being. Everyone creates arbitrary exceptions. If exceptions exist, then the right cannot exist.
Saying it doesn't make it so. Mutually exclusive situations cannot exist.
That violates the right of the other person, thus paradox.
A natural right cannot be forfeit. Only legal rights can be forfeited. Natural rights would be innate and inalienable. If they are inalienable they cannot be forfeited.
What right? No natural right to life exists, as I have shown repeatedly.
You can't protect something which doesn't exist. No such right to life exists. Just because you want there to be a natural right to life doesn't make it so. You won't be lost if you respond to what is actually said instead of imaginary things you have made up to replace that which was said.
They may make passing reference to death's inevitability, but then they dutifully ignore it in their logic.
Nonsense. They came to that conclusion because they ignored all of the evidence which proves it wrong.
If that's your argument, it cannot possibly be sound because you are engaging in the fallacy of four terms. Thus, the logic is now invalid as well as unsound.
Why? Do we not have laws? do we not have culture/ Do we not have society? What is your basis for the claim above?
Those are obviously guesses. And sadly, they aren't even your guesses.
One of them has been proven to be a false guess. One is something which has nothing whatsoever to do with nature, but is instead a social construct, and the last is the very thing that governments exist to place limitations upon.
I seriously doubt you are capable of doing so with any accuracy.
It's very easy to follow. It's also very easy to see that it is false, provided one chooses not to ignore all of the evidence proving it to be pure guesswork.
He didn't say 'self-defence', he said "I have never seen a single person who supported a natural right to not be killed by another human being." The right to self-defence is not the same thing at all.Self defense is the act of defending such right. That is not an exception.
You cannot have the natural right to life and then have a natural right to kill others, even in self-defence. You can have the legal right to do so, or you can have the natural right to do so if you recognise that the natural right to life does not exist. The paradox is clear.They are not mutually exclusive though. One logically follows the other.
Then his right to life was not inalienable - it would be alienated, and not by his own hand nor his own actions.His life is forfeit from his own actions which are in violation.
That's three fallacies in one sentence - bolded.Life exists in nature and we take effort to preserve it.
Property exists in nature and we take effort to preserve it.
Liberty is the act of doing what you want as long as it doesn't violate the rights of another.
They are desired conditions of the human species and all natural and take no aggression on others to come about.
I don't want to interrupt this very interested exchange, but I'd just point out a few logical flaws in this post:
He didn't say 'self-defence', he said "I have never seen a single person who supported a natural right to not be killed by another human being." The right to self-defence is not the same thing at all.
You cannot have the natural right to life and then have a natural right to kill others, even in self-defence. You can have the legal right to do so, or you can have the natural right to do so if you recognise that the natural right to life does not exist. The paradox is clear.
Then his right to life was not inalienable - it would be alienated, and not by his own hand nor his own actions.
That's three fallacies in one sentence - bolded.
Self defense is the act of defending such right. That is not an exception.
They are not mutually exclusive though. One logically follows the other.
His life is forfeit from his own actions which are in violation.
If you are in the act of killing another it is the right of the person being attacked to protect themselves in any way possible.
Its simply a matter of where rights begin and others end.
You haven't really shown it doesn't, just like I haven't shown it does. This entire talk so fair has been a bit fruitless.
Oh ok, so we are back there again. Figures.
I have a feeling you don't understand their logic.
I haven't seen anyone come and say death isn't a factor and won't necessarily occur.
Instead they focus on preservation of life from the aggression of others.
If that life ends from natural accords has no bearing on anything.
Says who?
What? How?
Government doesn't unite people of like minds.
It never has.
This debate right here is a evidence of that.
It makes people follow the laws regardless if they agree or not.
If we wish to talk of what society actually does, that is what it actually does.
I will face the former later, but I never said anything I said here is from me.
Life exists in nature and we take effort to preserve it.
Property exists in nature and we take effort to preserve it.
Liberty is the act of doing what you want as long as it doesn't violate the rights of another.
They are desired conditions of the human species and all natural and take no aggression on others to come about.
Well ok, tell me how I did then.
Well you haven't provided such evidence.
He said that it was an exception, and its not.
I believe he already said what you did there.
His own actions lead to the party having to defend their right to life. I think that is very much in line with the principle I put out of rights ending where others begin. You must have the right to act to protect it. The one is attached to the other at its hip.
All are desired conditions, all our natural, and all take no aggression to gain. No fallacy.
You appear to be mistaking legal rights for natural rights, deliberately by the look of it. I'm not sure what rhetorical purpose is being served by doing so. What logical benefit is served by claiming natural rights status for socio-legal constructs?His own actions lead to the party having to defend their right to life. I think that is very much in line with the principle I put out of rights ending where others begin. You must have the right to act to protect it. The one is attached to the other at its hip.
You appear to be mistaking legal rights for natural rights, deliberately by the look of it. I'm not sure what rhetorical purpose is being served by doing so. What logical benefit is served by claiming natural rights status for socio-legal constructs?
I don't believe I'm doing that, so..
Where did you get that idea from?
One logically contradicts the other, as I have demonstrated quite clearly.
Thus, the right is not inalienable, ergo it is not a natural right.
Who said anything about being in the act of killing another? We're talking about self-defense. This act is not limited to times when life is threatened.
That's a discussion for legal rights, not natural rights.
False. I've shown it repeatedly. You've just ignored it repeatedly by virtue of invalid logical defenses of a false belief.
Back there? We never left there. Just because you haven't acknowledged the facts does not mean the facts do not remain facts.
I do not believe you are a competent judge of such things.
Speaking of not understanding logic, Where on Earth did you get the very silly idea that that would somehow matter?
rof That would be the basis for a natural right to self defense argument, not a natural right to life argument. I've clearly stated that a natural right to self-defense can exist. It is a very different thing than a natural right to life.
It has no bearing on a natural right to self defense, as I have already noted, but it absolutely has bearing on the existence of non-existence of a natural right to life.
Says logic.
Partially true. Only democratic governments do it. I should have been clearer on that.
False. The United States is a great example of it doing so.
I see the problem. You think like-minded means Identically minded. It does not mean that. It means similar in values, beliefs, and morality. While we differ on the details, the American public is very like-minded, for the most part. Outliers will exist, but they are scorned and rejected by society.
Exactly. Unite the like-minded, reject/punish/ostracize those that are not like-minded.
why do you think that is different form what I said?
True, meaning you can't possibly say it isn't a guess. You are simply regurgitating something you've been told, without questioning it in any way, and accepting it as fact despite no evidence to support it as such.
False. Not only do we not take great efforts to preserve life, we often go out of our way to end it.
Of course, thats irrelvent to your claim that there is a natural right to life.
:lol: What are you talking about? Property doesn't exist in nature.
That's not a real definition, it's an imaginary one.
Liberty - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
.Each and every statement you made is demonstrably false
Frankly, it was one of the most abysmal performances I have ever encountered in my life. While I did not expect accuracy, I also did not expect a near total lack of accuracy.
The first two weren't even attempts at definitions and they both contained patently false clauses: 1. that we take effort to preserve life and 2. Property exists in nature.
While the third attempted to be a definition, it was an imaginary definition that is not supported by actual definitions.
If that is your best effort, we are in a sad state of affairs.
rof Just because you have ignored it doesn't mean it is not there.
What do you mean where I got it from? That is what it is.
They don't logically contradict. One follows the other.
Yes, you keep saying that.
Legally it is not I suppose.
Again, says who?
Hardly false. Its just a no that is not true argument come from you.. Hardly worth my time and hardly of value.
There is no facts you have mentioned from what I have seen.
Alright, believe what you will.
You mentioned it, did you not?
And like usual I disagree with that assessment.
Perhaps if you explained how the one doesn't follow the other..
That isn't exactly a who, is it now?
No one "does" it.
No it is not. The history of the country and its tension today says that very clearly.
Oh so as long as you scorn the outsiders than government created a like minded society. Interesting..
Its entirely different since what you said it fails to do.
You believe I practice blind faith then.
Well then..
Of course it is not.
I'm afraid it does.
So you disagree with it then?
I really don't get how my definition is fake though. I didn't make it up.
Well then, you are still here because?
Well you are in a good mood.
Honestly, I see nothing.
Stop complaining! Romney Halloween masks are outselling the Obama ones. And by history which mask sells more is a surefire indication that candidate will win!
But that said, what this Murdoch person has said is an abomination, an absolute abomination along the same line as that Todd Akin who said rape is legitimate. Now, one can expect that the incidences of rape will increase ten fold. Folks, this insanity has got to stop! One can put the mind set of this Akin and Murdoch in the same category of madness as the taliban and others of their kind with their demented views.
The short version on the abortion debate is:
Are American women first and foremost incubators for the use of American men, or do they have rights of their own?
Actually, no. Your retarded question has nothing to do with the abortion debate.
OMG - That question IS the abortion debate.
Your response to it is about as dismissive and idiotic as I have ever seen. Shame
The assertion that the legality of abortion is about whether or not "women are incubators" is so idiotic it deserves summary dismissal, and it received it.
Shame on anyone so intellectually dishonest as to present such tripe.
OMG - That question IS the abortion debate.
Your response to it is about as dismissive and idiotic as I have ever seen. Shame
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?