On Rights, part II
13 Sep '18 09:59I was accused of running away from a thread on this. That is not the case. I would merely insist that the previous thread ran its full course and, both parties unable to really meaningfully continue discussion, let it naturally end. That's neither here nor there.
The premise I had in the last argument is basically the same as the one here. However, the emphasis will be different.
(1) Justice transcends rights; indeed, our abstract sense of justice is the origin of the concept of "rights."
(2) Our rights hinge on the fact that all man is created in the Image of God (there is your spiritualy tie in), and thus it is inherently ugly, cruel, and wrong for him to be abused.
But, it is also very ugly for a man to abuse his faculties and to abandon rationality; there are natural limits to what a man can do. This is what not only makes tyranny against the will of God, but moreover, makes it impossible for us to condone gross narcotics abuse, bestiality, etc., and other filthy acts, because these fall out of the realm of the tolerable.
(3) The only rights that we can say that we have are ones which stem from well ordered thought and can be universally agreeable, and this consists of the right of innocent persons to never be imprisoned or harmed for living rationally and freely, nor can they be deprived of their possessions unreasonably.
i can think of no other "right" beyond the right to existence, to possession of one's property, and to be allowed to talk and relate to those around you, and to use technology and other means to state your opinions very freely.
To abridge these things is wrong. Though extenuating circumstances could exist, which make even simple statements with a universal quality hard to quantify.
(4) Some "rights" are not "rights" at all, and, indeed, the concept of "rights" is most often grossly abused, and it is used as a wedge to assault rational institutions of Western civilization and government. it is used as a cudgel to beat up on tradition, and to exaggerate ideas of what man is entitled to.
(5) Man cannot truly declare what is a "right."
The second that men contend something is a right, and He does not have the backing of God, or at least the backing of the rationale of the rights iwthin his tradition or his society, he is overstepping the good bounds of civilization and its expectations.
For just as a tyrannical King threatens the rights of man, so, too, do false rights and false claims become the basis of tyranny!
There is no tyranny greater than the Communists, the Nazis, the crazed authoritarians that claim they are liberating the world from an Old Order. In their bloodlust, they leave no stone unturned.
You may claim that they base these things on lies, and that is not difficult to prove in the least, but I merely contend that the things that you insist on as well, that are only slightly less grandiose, can become their own means of atrocities and great disturbances that benefit nobody.
(6) We should just be moderate people seeking to live as virtuously as possible, and we should resist extremist stances based off of "rights" or any political systems which seek to turn tradition and good behavior on its head. We don't actually need those things at all.
That is really the gist of some of the points that I had made before.
I am sorry that this wa snot particularly persuasive and too long -- I merely wanted to elucidate some points and create the basis for a new thread for discussing these issues.
The premise I had in the last argument is basically the same as the one here. However, the emphasis will be different.
(1) Justice transcends rights; indeed, our abstract sense of justice is the origin of the concept of "rights."
(2) Our rights hinge on the fact that all man is created in the Image of God (there is your spiritualy tie in), and thus it is inherently ugly, cruel, and wrong for him to be abused.
But, it is also very ugly for a man to abuse his faculties and to abandon rationality; there are natural limits to what a man can do. This is what not only makes tyranny against the will of God, but moreover, makes it impossible for us to condone gross narcotics abuse, bestiality, etc., and other filthy acts, because these fall out of the realm of the tolerable.
(3) The only rights that we can say that we have are ones which stem from well ordered thought and can be universally agreeable, and this consists of the right of innocent persons to never be imprisoned or harmed for living rationally and freely, nor can they be deprived of their possessions unreasonably.
i can think of no other "right" beyond the right to existence, to possession of one's property, and to be allowed to talk and relate to those around you, and to use technology and other means to state your opinions very freely.
To abridge these things is wrong. Though extenuating circumstances could exist, which make even simple statements with a universal quality hard to quantify.
(4) Some "rights" are not "rights" at all, and, indeed, the concept of "rights" is most often grossly abused, and it is used as a wedge to assault rational institutions of Western civilization and government. it is used as a cudgel to beat up on tradition, and to exaggerate ideas of what man is entitled to.
(5) Man cannot truly declare what is a "right."
The second that men contend something is a right, and He does not have the backing of God, or at least the backing of the rationale of the rights iwthin his tradition or his society, he is overstepping the good bounds of civilization and its expectations.
For just as a tyrannical King threatens the rights of man, so, too, do false rights and false claims become the basis of tyranny!
There is no tyranny greater than the Communists, the Nazis, the crazed authoritarians that claim they are liberating the world from an Old Order. In their bloodlust, they leave no stone unturned.
You may claim that they base these things on lies, and that is not difficult to prove in the least, but I merely contend that the things that you insist on as well, that are only slightly less grandiose, can become their own means of atrocities and great disturbances that benefit nobody.
(6) We should just be moderate people seeking to live as virtuously as possible, and we should resist extremist stances based off of "rights" or any political systems which seek to turn tradition and good behavior on its head. We don't actually need those things at all.
That is really the gist of some of the points that I had made before.
I am sorry that this wa snot particularly persuasive and too long -- I merely wanted to elucidate some points and create the basis for a new thread for discussing these issues.
Back to Top