Natural Rights

[Berzerker]

loinburger -

it's necessary to cut up the posts in order to make them legible, but this only makes it all the easier for "some people" to selectively ignore sections of the other person's posts.)

Trust me, it doesn't matter how he posts, he'll find a way to ignore embarassing questions.

chegitz -

1) Shared and universal are repetitive and universal is a dubious claim.

Repetitive only to add emphasis and provide clarification if someone has trouble understanding "shared", even after giving both some people still don't understand what they mean. As for dubious, I'm not saying there is some magical formula that makes: universal desires = rights. I'm saying that universal desires provide the best foundation for defining morality and that "rights" are expressions of these universal desires, i.e., moral claims deriving from the best foundation for a system of morality. The competing idea for the origin of rights offered in this thread is that "society" creates rights, but that means "society" can refuse to create rights, can deny they exist. Which means societies that engage in slavery and genocide can't be condemned on moral grounds since they took no rights from their victims.

This remains to be proven.

Do you really believe there are people who "want" to be murdered or enslaved? So far, the attempts to refute it have failed badly.

You jumble a lot of different points together here. If you're ttrying to make a proof, keep them seperate.

1) Universal desire = best system of morality
2) Rights = expressions of moral claims based on this system
3) Universal desires = rights

This does not necessarily follow. Peasants were not owned, but they were compelled to provide labor.

The fact a tyrant stole your labor doesn't mean you no longer have a moral claim to your labor, only that the tyrant behaved immorally by stealing it.

Then the qualifier natural has no meaning. Either a right exists in nature or it does not.

"Rights" qualifies "natural" since rights involve human interaction. We don't need to include animals in a statement about what is natural for humans.

Then why use the term "natural?" If nature does not respect these rights, how can they be natural?

Because these are rights that exist by virtue of creation, not government, and can only be recognised by more sentient beings.

If nothing created the unverse, then nothing gave you your rights. Therefore, by your logic, we do not have them.

But someone or something did create the universe. It's here...

On a logical and factual basis, you have not even begun to establish your premise, let alone make an argument.

That remains to be seen.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Berzerker

But someone or something did create the universe. It's here...

This is the worst claim I've seen in a while.

So, Berz, if the universe exists then, by definition God exists.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Berzerker
chegitz -

As for dubious, I'm not saying there is some magical formula that makes: universal desires = rights. I'm saying that universal desires provide the best foundation for defining morality and that "rights" are expressions of these universal desires, i.e., moral claims deriving from the best foundation for a system of morality.

What I'm claiming as dubious is the notion that there are universal desires. Even the wish to continue existence is not a universal one, otherwise the concept of suicide would not exist.

The competing idea for the origin of rights offered in this thread is that "society" creates rights, but that means "society" can refuse to create rights, can deny they exist.

That is absolutely true.

Which means societies that engage in slavery and genocide can't be condemned on moral grounds since they took no rights from their victims.

This does not logically follow. Just because I believe that rights are social doesn't mean I can't condemn what I see as violations of those rights by those that do not recognize them. The flaw in your reasoning is forgetting that if we define our rights and morals, we may also grant ourselves the right to condemn violations of those morals.

More simply, just because I think that moral code and set of values is relative doesn't mean I don't think that my moral code is not superior to other moral codes. In fact I do, and from that basis I can condemn slavery and genocide.

Do you really believe there are people who "want" to be murdered or enslaved? So far, the attempts to refute it have failed badly.

In some societies, people who were not chosen for the honor of being sacrificed to the gods committed suicide. These people wanted to be murdered (ignoring for the moment that murder is an unlawful killing and the ritual sacrifice was lawful--in this case I am expanding your use of the term murder to mean that no one really wants to be killed).

Two, a substantial portion of the world's population believes it is their proper place in the world to be enslaved by others. I am, of course, talking about women. Clearly we have made major stried in overcoming this ancient and disgusting belief, but even in the West, there are still large numbers of women who believe that their proper role is to be a servant to their husband, that their husband owns tham, and that is the way things should be.

1) Universal desire = best system of morality

You have failed to establish the premise that universal desires exist. Even if you could show that they exist today, it would not be possible to extend that claim backwards through human history, let alone prehistory. Failure of the first premise leads to the failure of all subsequent claims.

The fact a tyrant stole your labor doesn't mean you no longer have a moral claim to your labor, only that the tyrant behaved immorally by stealing it.

If you believe that it is your God given place to serve a King, then how is the King immoral?

"Rights" qualifies "natural" since rights involve human interaction. We don't need to include animals in a statement about what is natural for humans.

Actually, you need to prove that statement. You simply accept as given what is simply an assertion, not a proven fact. Why don't we need to include nature in a discussion of what is natural?

Here you introduce something new . . . what is natural for humans. Now, how do you know what is natural for humans? Are you simply claiming what is natural for humans by viture of logic (and let us remember what tortures of reality Aristotle preformed with logic) or is it through the scientific method, i.e. biology, psychology, anthropolgy, archeology, sociology, etc.? Furthermore, if you resort to logic, I must remind you that Hegel's Philosophy of Right makes a much stronger logical case that all rights derive from society.

Because these are rights that exist by virtue of creation, not government, and can only be recognised by more sentient beings.

Again, an unproven assertion.

But someone or something did create the universe. It's here...

As far as I know, nothing created the universe. It simply happened.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Agathon


This is the worst claim I've seen in a while.

So, Berz, if the universe exists then, by definition God exists.

I agree with Berzerker. There is a cause for every effect.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kidicious
I agree with Berzerker. There is a cause for every effect.

There is no reason to believe anything caused the universe.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


There is no reason to believe anything caused the universe.

There is a cause for every event in the universe. Why should we believe that there is no cause for the universe?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kidicious
There is a cause for every event in the universe. Why should we believe that there is no cause for the universe?

Why should we believe there is one? You're falling into the fallacy of the first cause. Why couldn't the universe simply have come into being for no good reason at all. Our current understanding of physics posits this as possible, and it's the most simple explanation. Given enough time and enough space, a universe will come into being.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Why should we believe there is one? You're falling into the fallacy of the first cause. Why couldn't the universe simply have come into being for no good reason at all. Our current understanding of physics posits this as possible, and it's the most simple explanation. Given enough time and enough space, a universe will come into being.

Wouldn't the critical mass of time and space be a cause then, but what is the cause of time and space?

[chequita guevara]

We don't know yet.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Kidicious


There is a cause for every event in the universe. Why should we believe that there is no cause for the universe?

Cause and effect are temporal relationships. An effect follows a cause temporally.

The Big Bang created time--there was no time before it. Ergo cause and effect do not apply, because there was no temporal relationship to be had.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Cause and effect are temporal relationships. An effect follows a cause temporally.

The Big Bang created time--there was no time before it. Ergo cause and effect do not apply, because there was no temporal relationship to be had.

I don't see any logic to your statements, but I'm jsut curious to know how the Big Bang created time.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Kidicious
I don't see any logic to your statements, but I'm jsut curious to know how the Big Bang created time.

What's not logical? Can you have cause and effect without the passage of time?

Time is a function of space. Without space, there can be no time, since time is movement of things through space.

If there was no space until the Big Bang happened, there was also no time. Even if there was space, there was nothing to move through it, ergo no time. Not until the Big Bang set things in motion did time begin.

The universe began as a single point, and then exploded into the other dimensions. Time, being the fourth of those dimensions, couldn't have existed until after the previous ones had been created.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
What's not logical? Can you have cause and effect without the passage of time?

I guess if you could convince me that time didn't exist before the Big Bang, and for the record I'm not convinced that the Big Bang occured.

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Time is a function of space. Without space, there can be no time, since time is movement of things through space.

If there was no space until the Big Bang happened, there was also no time. Even if there was space, there was nothing to move through it, ergo no time. Not until the Big Bang set things in motion did time begin.

Time is only measured by movement through space. Just because something isn't measure doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Also you can't really say that nothing existed before the Big Bang. How do you know?

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
The universe began as a single point, and then exploded into the other dimensions. Time, being the fourth of those dimensions, couldn't have existed until after the previous ones had been created.

Couldn't time be the first dimension, and we just call it the 4th?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Kidicious
I guess if you could convince me that time didn't exist before the Big Bang, and for the record I'm not convinced that the Big Bang occured.

Time is only measure by movement through space. Just because something isn't measure doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

You just contradicted yourself. Time is indeed the measure of movement through space. If there is no measure, then time can't exist. Movement through space is a requirement for time to exist. If there is nothing moving through space, time is meaningless.

The reason time didn't exist was that nothing was there to move through space. Unless you're coming up with a brand new definition of time of which we are yet aware...?

Also you can't really say that nothing existed before the Big Bang. How do you know?

The Big Bang came from a singularity - A one-dimensional point of infinite mass and zero volume. That was all there was. How could anything else have been around?

Couldn't time be the first dimension, and we just call it the 4th?

Oh come on, it's not the nomenclature that's the issue. Call it the Foofoo dimension for all we can. The ordering of the dimensions is based on simple mathematics:

1st - single point
2nd - plane (made up of single points)
3rd - space (made up of planes)
4th - time (made up of movement through space)

You can't have the higher dimensions until the lower dimensions are in place.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
You just contradicted yourself. Time is indeed the measure of movement through space. If there is no measure, then time can't exist. Movement through space is a requirement for time to exist. If there is nothing moving through space, time is meaningless.

The reason time didn't exist was that nothing was there to move through space. Unless you're coming up with a brand new definition of time of which we are yet aware...?

Time is just duration. We measure duration with movement through space. You haven't argued that there was no duration before the event in question. And meaning? What doesn meaning have to do with existence?

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
The Big Bang came from a singularity - A one-dimensional point of infinite mass and zero volume. That was all there was. How could anything else have been around?

Infinite mass? You will have to argue that seperately.

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Oh come on, it's not the nomenclature that's the issue. Call it the Foofoo dimension for all we can. The ordering of the dimensions is based on simple mathematics:

1st - single point
2nd - plane (made up of single points)
3rd - space (made up of planes)
4th - time (made up of movement through space)

You can't have the higher dimensions until the lower dimensions are in place.

I don't see why time couldn't exist first unless you define it as such, but in fact time can be teh first dimension.

[loinburger]

Tee hee hee, and they accuse me of threadjacking.

[Kidicious]

Just for the record. I'm not arguing the significance of natural rights.

[Odin]

Here is a good website on the history of the universe:

http://www.hotu.org

[Berzerker]

Agathon -

This is the worst claim I've seen in a while.

So, Berz, if the universe exists then, by definition God exists.

Gee Agathon, that was the worst strawman I've seen in a while.
Where in that quote you chose did you see me claiming "God" exists? You've just shown an ability to ignore what you quote, good job, Professor Philosophy.

chegitz -

What I'm claiming as dubious is the notion that there are universal desires. Even the wish to continue existence is not a universal one, otherwise the concept of suicide would not exist.

Then maybe the desire to continue existing in the face of great suffering isn't a universal desire, but that doesn't mean people want to be murdered. Suicide, even assisted suicide, isn't murder. We dealt with this already in the thread though...

This does not logically follow. Just because I believe that rights are social doesn't mean I can't condemn what I see as violations of those rights by those that do not recognize them.

That's illogical, you can't say a society can create or deny rights only to condemn as immoral the society that violates rights that don't even exist because they were never granted.

The flaw in your reasoning is forgetting that if we define our rights and morals, we may also grant ourselves the right to condemn violations of those morals.

But you don't get to grant yourself this right, "society" grants rights (according to you). So what if your society denies you the right to condemn other societies that deny rights? And your condemnation is hollow if you believe the offending society has the moral authority to create or deny rights only to complain once that society denies rights.

More simply, just because I think that moral code and set of values is relative doesn't mean I don't think that my moral code is not superior to other moral codes. In fact I do, and from that basis I can condemn slavery and genocide.

Then you're placing your authority to make moral judgements above the society you claim grants you the right to make those judgements. So, you say society creates rights but you have the right to condemn society regardless of whether or not society granted you that right? From where did this right of yours derive if it didn't come from society?

In some societies, people who were not chosen for the honor of being sacrificed to the gods committed suicide.

Which still isn't murder.

These people wanted to be murdered (ignoring for the moment that murder is an unlawful killing and the ritual sacrifice was lawful--in this case I am expanding your use of the term murder to mean that no one really wants to be killed).

If they agree to their death, it isn't murder. The difference between "murder" and "killed" here is that the latter can happen with the approval of the person being killed - like in assisted suicide or euthenasia - whereas murder implies an unwillingness to be killed.

Two, a substantial portion of the world's population believes it is their proper place in the world to be enslaved by others. I am, of course, talking about women.

So the fact they cannot change reality means they want to be enslaved? No, there's a difference between living with an unpleasant reality and wanting that reality to exist. What is a slave to say when they know their reality won't change with their words? All they might accomplish is angering the slaveowner once we leave with our "answer", you know how coercion works. Look at how Iraqis react in front of western cameras. I've seen a number of reporters show images of crowds shouting for the US to leave, but once these reporters get individuals away from the crowd, they change what they "want". Why? Because they know what can happen if they are identified as supporting the US action there.

Clearly we have made major stried in overcoming this ancient and disgusting belief, but even in the West, there are still large numbers of women who believe that their proper role is to be a servant to their husband, that their husband owns tham, and that is the way things should be.

Was that belief really shared by all, or just those with the power to enforce it? Yes, there are women who believe their role is cook the food and raise the children, but that doesn't mean they want to be slaves and you won't get them to agree they are slaves.

You have failed to establish the premise that universal desires exist.

C'mon, don't be silly.

Even if you could show that they exist today, it would not be possible to extend that claim backwards through human history, let alone prehistory. Failure of the first premise leads to the failure of all subsequent claims.

If a universal desire exists today, why do I need proof that it existed throughout time? If no one wants to be murdered today, that's far better proof of what people wanted in the past than the lack of proof either of us have as to what those people wanted back then.

If you believe that it is your God given place to serve a King, then how is the King immoral?

He isn't, nor does that have anything to do with what I said. I said if a tyrant steals your labor, that doesn't mean you don't have a moral claim to your labor. Obviously since this person agreed to give the King their service, the King isn't stealing.

Actually, you need to prove that statement. You simply accept as given what is simply an assertion, not a proven fact. Why don't we need to include nature in a discussion of what is natural?

Huh? You said my reference to "natural rights" must include animals and I explained why it doesn't. Do you agree that human nature does not = the nature of bees? If so, we can discuss human nature without dragging animals into the discussion.

Here you introduce something new . . . what is natural for humans.

I introduced that waaaaay back in my opening post when I brought up natural rights and universal desires. The fact some people here keep wanting to bring animals into this inspite of my request to leave them out doesn't mean I've introduced something new. Did you read my opening post?

Now, how do you know what is natural for humans? Are you simply claiming what is natural for humans by viture of logic (and let us remember what tortures of reality Aristotle preformed with logic) or is it through the scientific method, i.e. biology, psychology, anthropolgy, archeology, sociology, etc.?

I know based on universal desires, beyond that we run into the potential problem of subjectivity.

Furthermore, if you resort to logic, I must remind you that Hegel's Philosophy of Right makes a much stronger logical case that all rights derive from society.

Then state his case so I don't have to run around the internet looking for proof of your assertion.

[Berzerker]

Wouldn't the big bang require some catalyst? It seems that the single point comprising the material emanating from the big bang would require space, even if very small. And how does space create time when space and movement is just how we measure time?

For example, if the earth stopped spinning, our measure of a day would change, but time would still pass.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Odin
Here is a good website on the history of the universe:
http://www.hotu.org

It says that computers will soon start designing themselves.

[BeBro]

Wait, you´re at the big bang now? OMG

Too bad we don´t know what was "before", could be discussed here as well I always found it annoying to have different threads, let´s discuss everything in one.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Agathon


I dropped out because it seems to have gone way OT.

I dropped out becaused I realized this debate was futile. I twice pointed out a crucial flaw in Berzerker's basic premise, and he twice utterly failed to respond to that...

[GePap]

Ahh Loin:

I won't parcel post, I am probalby less likely to get banned this way>

First, on the issue of animals and the things you brought up: You can give me only two instances were the two word definition using unlawful would actually not show a disctinction between men and animals: good for you! But as far as imcomplete definitions go, better to be vague in just two types of cases than in all of them. And yes, when speaking of definitions, you DO have to spell it all out: the dictionaries did (except maybe the tiny travel one), I did, in the definition I provided, so you have been the only one insistantly pushing a 4 word definition.

As for your explination You see, the problem you have is that the only distinction you make is between a killing that is accidental, and one that isn;t, and then hope to pass that as the valid distinction. BUt that is NOT the only possible disticntion: you fail, for example, to consider the notion of killing someone outside the group and someone in it: what about killing for religious purposes? What about killing for food (cannibalism?) NOne of those three types are accidental, all are premeditated, and yet they exist utterly outside your little schema, and no, i would argue that none of the three would be considered murder.

As for ypour attempt to provide a "prmitive one, you, in all your "suck's its" failed to answer my final charge:

I gave 5 definitions, and fine, all have 4 universal threads in them: the act is between two human beings, unlawful, with malice, and premeditated. What you attempted to do is drop one of these threads and then say "hey look, a definition of murder outside of the law!, Look how clever I am!" But, perhaps being too traditional, am the type to think that if all five definitions share these 4 universal threads, its becuase ONLY THE COMBINATION OF THE 4 GIVE YOU MURDER! As I said before, by what right do you simply get to drop one of the things that all the defintions agree is important and still have the balls to claim you have not altered the meaning in a meaningfull way? Maybe its just me, but I would expect someone to provide an arguement for it, and no, as I pointed out, your arguement for it, as far as you made one, is horribly incomplete, as you drew only one disticntion and acted like that was the only possible one when in fact as I said, it is not, and I have to say is probably the weakest distcintion of all.

And that is what it boild down to: for all your "hoss, suck' on that" comments, all you have porvidfed is an imcompleet defintion backed by an incomplete arguement, and when I call you out on it, you act as if I totally ignored them: I did not, but they are incomlete and built on unbacked assumptions. But I won;t expect your answer to this to be any more enlightening, hoss.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Tee hee hee, and they accuse me of threadjacking.

Yeah, as soon as I saw a discussion of time and the Big Bang, I was smiling from ear to ear. That was funny as Hell.

[loinburger]

Gepap: Yet again you ignore half of my post, yet again you fail to address the question at hand, and yet again offer nothing more than a pack of strawmen by way of "justifying" your position. I'm done with this. When you're ready for a debate, then let me know. Otherwise, by all means return to your regularly-scheduled "let's all mindlessly ridicule berserker" circle-jerk, and sorry that I've been such a party-pooper, as I've obviously misconstrued your intentions.

[GePap]

Originally posted by loinburger
Gepap: Yet again you ignore half of my post, yet again you fail to address the question at hand, and yet again you throw out a pack of strawmen. I'm done with this. When you're ready for a debate, then by all means let me know. Otherwise, by all means return to your regularly-scheduled "let's all mindlessly ridicule berserker" circle-jerk, and sorry that I've been such a party-pooper, as I've obviously misconstrued your intentions.

You jumped in, and I am the one to misconstrue the issue? And no,I did not ignore half your post: all issues worth answering were answered above.

I tried twice, once before, and then now, to deliniate the arguement down, the first time you took it and ignored all the salient points: Hint, that was NOT a definition of murder but an explination of my points: that you chose to see it as a "definition" and not as a single theoretical point was YOUR FAULT.

[quote:]
Originally posted by The More Reasonable Version Of Gepap
The universal desire (or near universal, yes, there are points in time certain individual may want to die) is not to be killed, whether is conforms with the rules or not (no one ever says that the crew of the Enola Gay is guilty of 70,000+ acts of murder, even thought that is how many people they killed by their actions, becuase we define their actions as havcing followed the rules), so if rights coem from universal desires, then the prohibition should be on killing anyone, period (perhaps why so many people misconstrue the Bible as saying "thou shall not kill" when it in fact says "thou shall not murder"). Even Berz though seems to think some forms of killing are acceptable, hence hsi constant use the the word "innocent" and his beliefe that it is OK to kill murderers. But if the rightness of a killing is tied to the rules, HOW CAN IT BE AN EXPRESSION OF SOMETHING NATURAL?????? It is left to those that want to argue about rights being natural (whether it be all, or some) to show that the RULES are natural in themselves, and hence the rights are as wel. That is what must be shown, that is what is yet to have been shown by any libertarians here. [/quote]

The fundamental difference between "homicide" and "murder" is that homicide does not necessarily violate reciprocity, while murder does violate reciprocity. Put another way: I have a given set of desires, and to maintain consistency I am required to operate on the assumption that you (or anybody else) shares these desires, or I must adequately justify the position that you (or whoever else) is somehow different from me in such a way that you (or whoever) does not share some or all of these desires. I don't desire to be accidentally killed any more than the next guy, but the difference between being accidentally killed and being murdered (read "being killed with premeditated malice") is that somebody guilty of involuntary manslaughter has not necessarily shown that he is incapable of reciprocating with others, while somebody guilty of murder has shown that he is incapable of reciprocating -- hence the difference in the crimes. "The Rules" simply amount to reciprocation with others.

I give question (mine) and answer (yours), at least for tohers to judge if your answer had much to do with the question. I don;t think it did, and yet you claim I am the one ignoring issues? GMAFB!

[st_swithin]

Time and space are both RELATIVE terms, here. Both require a 'point of origin' in order to be determined in the first place.

If you assume God is responsible, then (x,y) God = (0,0).
If you assume the dog is responsible, then (x,y) the dog = (0,0)

Since no-one has suggested an 'absolute' which can be agreed upon by all, I posit that all definitions of time and space can be attributed to anthropocentrism and an over-inflated sense of self.

[tinyp3nis]

Gepap vs loin
Ok is this still about the thing that if you don't have laws you can't say what's wrong or right? Or better yet, what the hell is this about?

[loinburger]

Originally posted by tinyp3nis
Ok is this still about the thing that if you don't have laws you can't say what's wrong or right?

I thought that's what it was about, but Gepap apparently thinks that this is about history or anthropology or whatever other kind of argument he feels like making it into.