I normally don't do long cut and pastes but this passage from Tom Paine's The Rights of Man answers your question far better than I could, Halitose:
Natural rights are those which appertain to man in right of his existence. Of this kind are all the intellectual rights, or rights of the mind, and also all those rights of acting as an individual for his own comfort and happiness, which are not injurious to the natural rights of others. Civil rights are those which appertain to man in right of his being a member of society. Every civil right has for its foundation some natural right pre-existing in the individual, but to the enjoyment of which his individual power is not, in all cases, sufficiently competent. Of this kind are all those which relate to security and protection.
From this short review it will be easy to distinguish between that class of natural rights which man retains after entering into society and those which he throws into the common stock as a member of society.
The natural rights which he retains are all those in which the Power to execute is as perfect in the individual as the right itself. Among this class, as is before mentioned, are all the intellectual rights, or rights of the mind; consequently religion is one of those rights. The natural rights which are not retained, are all those in which, though the right is perfect in the individual, the power to execute them is defective. They answer not his purpose. A man, by natural right, has a right to judge in his own cause; and so far as the right of the mind is concerned, he never surrenders it. But what availeth it him to judge, if he has not power to redress? He therefore deposits this right in the common stock of society, and takes the ann of society, of which he is a part, in preference and in addition to his own. Society grants him nothing. Every man is a proprietor in society, and draws on the capital as a matter of right.
From these premisses two or three certain conclusions will follow:
First, That every civil right grows out of a natural right; or, in other words, is a natural right exchanged.
Secondly, That civil power properly considered as such is made up of the aggregate of that class of the natural rights of man, which becomes defective in the individual in point of power, and answers not his purpose, but when collected to a focus becomes competent to the Purpose of every one.
Thirdly, That the power produced from the aggregate of natural rights, imperfect in power in the individual, cannot be applied to invade the natural rights which are retained in the individual, and in which the power to execute is as perfect as the right itself.
Originally posted by no1marauderThanks. I agree with quite a lot of what he says. Permit me to play the devil's advocate here. Aren't these just his (Tomas Paine's) interpretations of Natural Law? With no authority above Natural Law (or should I say our interpretation of it), what's to say Paine's is correct and Hitler's is wrong? Should we put it up to a democratic vote?
I normally don't do long cut and pastes but this passage from Tom Paine's The Rights of Man answers your question far better than I could, Halitose:
Natural rights are those which appertain to man in right of his existence. Of this kind are all the intellectual rights, or rights of the mind, and also all those rights of acting as an ...[text shortened]... ined in the individual, and in which the power to execute is as perfect as the right itself.
Originally posted by HalitoseDid we put the law of gravity up to a vote?
Thanks. I agree with quite a lot of what he says. Permit me to play the devil's advocate here. Aren't these just his (Tomas Paine's) interpretations of Natural Law? With no authority above Natural Law (or should I say our interpretation of it), what's to say Paine's is correct and Hitler's is wrong? Should we put it up to a democratic vote?
Originally posted by HalitoseWhat is the point?? If someone bereft of his senses insists that the law of gravity means that in reality all people are born with tails, does that make it even arguably true? We use our knowledge and experience and reject those "theories" which do not comport with reality. Saying there is a God doesn't solve that problem; it merely kicks the can down the road. Unless you are willing to adopt the view that Man can't know if anything is real, you resolve which is the most likely explanation for reality with observation and experiment. Human beings do not generally act as Hitler did (sociopathically), they generally act in ways you would expect from social animals. I don't have any more proof than reality that this is so. Sorry.
That was the rhetorical question. Try the other one.
Originally posted by no1marauderFair enough.
What is the point?? If someone bereft of his senses insists that the law of gravity means that in reality all people are born with tails, does that make it even arguably true? We use our knowledge and experience and reject those "theories" which do not comport with reality. Saying there is a God doesn't solve that problem; it merely kicks the ...[text shortened]... ld expect from social animals. I don't have any more proof than reality that this is so. Sorry.
During Hitler's time, his sociapathic ideas were quite novel and many people followed them. What's to prevent some other novel interpretation from occuring? Or is man's inhumanity towards man, inevitable?
Saying there is a God doesn't solve that problem; it merely kicks the can down the road.
How so?
Originally posted by HalitoseAny God is open to the same objection; you have one interpretation of God and other people have a different one. How can you say your conception of God is accurate and their's is not? How can you say the God of the Bible is more likely than Odin? Only by using your experience and knowledge. Same thing, same problem, and still only one way of "solving" it.
Fair enough.
During Hitler's time, his sociapathic ideas were quite novel and many people followed them. What's to prevent some other novel interpretation from occuring? Or is man's inhumanity towards man, inevitable?
[b]Saying there is a God doesn't solve that problem; it merely kicks the can down the road.
How so?
[/b]
Originally posted by no1marauderNo. 1 said it, not me.
What is the point?? If someone bereft of his senses insists that the law of gravity means that in reality all people are born with tails, does that make it even arguably true? We use our knowledge and experience and reject those "theories" which do not comport with reality. Saying there is a God doesn't solve that problem; it merely kicks the ...[text shortened]... ld expect from social animals. I don't have any more proof than reality that this is so. Sorry.
I don't have any more proof than reality that this is so. Sorry.
No apologies necessary. I'm glad you said it though, because this is all, and everything, that we humans have to go by. Reality. He is appealing to the knowledge of the 'knower'. Sometimes all one can say is 'you know it's true!' and simply rely on the honesty of the debating opponent to stop obfuscating and admit it.
I'm not saying this can apply to everything. We don't all 'know' that God is real, as I would have thought long ago. But as far as the natural law goes, the law that guides our actions (not controls them), all people should be able to admit they KNOW right from wrong (even if they don't DO right all the time).
Originally posted by chinking58I think you are incorrectly spinning what I said. I am not stubbornly saying "I know its true"; I am giving the reasons why I believe it is true based on objective facts. If my facts are wrong, then someone may correct them; if my interpretation is flawed, then if someone can come up with a better interpretation of the facts I will accept it. I do think that people can know from their nature what acts are "right" and what acts are "wrong", though I seriously doubt we would agree on the criteria for so defining them.
No. 1 said it, not me.
[b]I don't have any more proof than reality that this is so. Sorry.
No apologies necessary. I'm glad you said it though, because this is all, and everything, that we humans have to go by. Reality. He is appealing to the knowledge of the 'knower'. Sometimes all one can say is 'you know it's true!' and simply re ...[text shortened]... able to admit they KNOW right from wrong (even if they don't DO right all the time).
[/b]