This kind of proves my point, which is that until someone can come up with a logical justification of this sort, we can assume that people don't have 'fundamental natural rights'. Example:
"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
Why? Where did we get this right? Did some physio-biological process endow us with the inalienable guarantee that an individual acting in accordance with the above is morally superior to one trying to prevent him from doing so? I think this is absurd.
Is there some quirk of logic that says the above, and similar statements, is true? No.
Ultimately, to believe any of this, one must fall back on some entrenched arbitrary moral locution.
And just because someone is wise doesn't mean that he ever says anything intelligent. And an imbecile barking about the sunrise fails to make it dark.
Originally posted by ChessNutLast time I checked, Tony Blair wasn't appointed by god, although he seems to think he is 😉
Funny that a freethinker would talk about the powers that be. Thinking about switching sides are you? 😉
Seriously though, rights to humanity are given in the bible. Even though many of you do not believe in God he has handed us a ha ...[text shortened]... and therefore our initial 'rights' were outlined by Moses.... 🙂
Also, all laws do not start with the bible. Laws existed long before that, and English law is still vaguely based on the Anglo-Saxon system which was pre-christian.
Originally posted by VargSoooo... you're not saying you DON'T want to join...that's ok you can think it over some more. 😉
Last time I checked, Tony Blair wasn't appointed by god, although he seems to think he is 😉
Also, all laws do not start with the bible. Laws existed long before that, and English law is still vaguely based on the Anglo-Saxon system which was pre-christian.
The Bible is just an explanation of the way God wants us to act. When he created us he developed beings that were like him and therefore were full of love for all things. He also gave us freewill which unfortunately led us to create sin and it's been downhill since then. So I agree, law existed long before the Bible, it's just the same law. 🙂
Originally posted by ChessNutBut we are fallible, so god must be too right?
When he created us he developed beings that were like him and therefore were full of love for all things. He also gave us freewill which unfortunately led us to create sin and it's been downhill since then. So I agree, law existed long before the Bible, it's just the same law. 🙂
Doesn't sound like a very good all-powerful being. 😛
Originally posted by royalchickenAll you have to do is read the preamble to the Constitution to see what the defination of a "right" is.
Discussion in another thread lead me to digress. Everyone there politely ignored the digressioin their, so I am going to ask here:
Many sources, notably the laws of the USA (and other countries), routinely talk about 'rights' as ...[text shortened]... on and tell me why it is so certain that everyone has 'rights'?
Ex: We have the "right" to free speech. Driving a car is a privlidege that can be revoked.
That is the way I see it...
Rights are exactly what they seem. Not gifts. Not endowments. Not given and not taken by anyone. They are what you, as a human being have EARNED THROUGH STRIFE AND EFFORT. They have no meaning until you have...
1- Written them down and published them for friend and foe to examine.
2- Devoted your efforts and worked hard to obtain and maintain them.
3 - Defended them to the best of your ability. Ask the dead Veterans of all the wars , of all nations. They died "earning" rights. They died to protect the stated "rights" of their country.
My specific "rights", that I have espoused and published are pretty much contained in the Declaration Of Independence and The Bill Of Rights... Also the "Right to be free from Socialism. To own and manage property. To reject (with force if necessary) any who would bring harm to me and my family. To love and cherish the memory of all those who have died in the fight against tyrany. These are the main rights that I have declared and will maintain. They are not subject to debate, because they are mine. If you have not published your rights, i would recommend it. It gives you a sense of who you are and what you stand for. "If you stand for nothing... you will fall for anything."
Originally posted by VargHehehe...That was a good joke. 😉
But we are fallible, so god must be too right?
Doesn't sound like a very good all-powerful being. 😛
We were created in his 'image'. We were not created to be 'just like him'. He gave us freewill to do want we wanted and we made a mess of things. He wanted people that he could have a relationship with, not a robot who does everything he wants it to do. It makes him no less powerful just because his creation isn't perfect. 🙂
Originally posted by ChessNut[aside: not all freethinkers are atheists. many of us believe in 'powers that be', just not dogmatically.]
Funny that a freethinker would talk about the powers that be. Thinking about switching sides are you? 😉
Seriously though, rights to humanity are given in the bible. Even though many of you do not believe in God he has handed us a handbook on how to treat others. The forefathers of this great nation believed in the Lord and incorporated what they had ...[text shortened]... egan with the 10 commandments and therefore our initial 'rights' were outlined by Moses.... 🙂
I think you are confusing rights with laws. The ten commandments are not rights in the sense that they are directed towards things that thou shall not do (i.e. killing, coveting) and things that thou shall do (i.e. obeying, honouring).
Rights are a special type of law, and are a relatively recent development. Rights can only exist within a system of laws. They are the 'rewards' or guarantees given to members of a society in return for obeying the laws of that society.
Originally posted by richjohnsonI'm glad to see that there are a few smart one's in the freethinker's clan. 😉
[aside: not all freethinkers are atheists. many of us believe in 'powers that be', just not dogmatically.]
I think you are confusing rights with laws. The ten commandments are not rights in the sense that they are directed towards things that thou shall not do (i.e. killing, coveting) and things that thou shall do (i.e. obeying, honouring).
Ri ...[text shortened]... ' or guarantees given to members of a society in return for obeying the laws of that society.
I'm not confusing anything. You have no rights if there is no law. I think any historians here would differ on the idea that rights are a recent development as well. Rights have been around for quite some time. I would go as far as saying the the animal kingdom may even show signs that they have rights within clans (lions, monkeys, etc..) Is it not the right of the dominant male to mate with the females? Wouldn't that be considered a right?
Rights are not gauranteed either. They are promised, but they are also taken away when the right of the majority overrules the right of the individual.
Besides, what is a special type of law? Either it is, or it isn't.
The commandments combined with the great commission of the Bible are the basis for current laws in the western world. If you define things you shouldn't do... aren't you at the same time defining what you SHOULD do? Sorry Rich, I can't agree with your post. 😉
Originally posted by AcolyteThis last is a good point (glad to see you back, too-issues with the 'puter? Or did you have something better to do?). Basically I think StarValleyWy has joined the list of illustrious people, including the United Nations, who have not quite answered the question. However, he has come the closest to a logical answer that this thread has seen, I think; I might agree. Basically, he is stating that not only are 'rights' subjective, they are also dictated by experience. He goes on to define a very narrow range of experience that confers rights on an individual, the upshot being that there are no 'rights' per se, rather there are conditions that a person must create through 'Darwinistic' actions.
Tony Blair would love that one to appear on a list of fundamental rights!
Seriously though, what if a socialist government is elected? Would you have a right to try to bring it down by any means necessary?
Originally posted by StarValleyWyI think what you're talking about here are more aims, ie 'what you stand for.' Others may not share your aims, and so you may well have to strive or even die for them; if you aren't prepared to strive for them, then they can't really be considered aims. That doesn't make them good, however.
Rights are exactly what they seem. Not gifts. Not endowments. Not given and not taken by anyone. They are what you, as a human being have EARNED THROUGH STRIFE AND EFFORT. They have no meaning until you have...
1- Written them down and published them for friend and foe to examine.
2- Devoted your efforts and worked hard to obtain and maintain them. ...[text shortened]... who you are and what you stand for. "If you stand for nothing... you will fall for anything."
All right...thought about this a bit more, and Acolyte has kind of anticipated me. StarValleyWy would have rights being a function of one's experience and preference, which is not usually what people mean when they say 'rights'. So while StarValleyWy may be making a case for social Darwinism or some related idea, he has not addressed the question yet.
Originally posted by royalchickenNo problems with my computer, just general absent-mindedness.
This last is a good point (glad to see you back, too-issues with the 'puter? Or did you have something better to do?). Basically I think StarValleyWy has joined the list of illustrious people, including the United Nations, who have not quite answered the question. However, he has come the closest to a logical answer that this thread has seen, I think ...[text shortened]... r se, rather there are conditions that a person must create through 'Darwinistic' actions.
I would also take the view that there are no absolute rights, but for a different reason; a right is moot if no-one believes it exists. I think it is better to see rights as part of a social covenant, similar to laws and morals that 'entitle' a person to something, such as revenge (in some cultures), refusal to serve a customer in a shop or disability benefit. If such a law appears in a constitution, it will tend to be more durable and considered more important, but it still isn't permanent; if, say, in the USA, there was an overwhelming desire among legislators and populace to remove the right to free speech, it would be removed from the constitution.