Do Natural Rights Exist Without Government ?

[TakeAStepBack]

You're not born with free will, cognition (reason/logic)? That's fine. Enjoy, dude.

 

[G.T.]

Free will is not a right to life. They are not one in the same.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

yeah, i know that. I didn't say it was. Forget it, dude. You win Totally with ya.. Enjoy!

 

[oldfart]

Both rights and obligations are aspects of social institutions, such as religion, law, economic structures, families, and so forth. Sometimes more than one institution is involved in a particular behavior (legal regulation of corporate forms and religious and family mores on stealing come to mind), and there is a potential for conflict among institutions. Did Jacob and Esau have a legally binding contract? Did one have a moral obligation to not cheat his brother?

It matters very little where philosophically these rights and obligations come from, they exist and are enforced. What is enforced and how are the relevant questions.

Yes, sort of.
Yes, sort of. He also had an obligation to obey his mother. Nor did he cheat his brother particularly.

Thanks for reinforcing my point. Quite apart from the legalities of contract law, law of inheritance, etc, was the issue of family norms. Rights and duties can have multiple origins, and nothing guarantees they will be consistent.

 

[G.T.]

yeah, i know that. I didn't say it was. Forget it, dude. You win Totally with ya.. Enjoy!

that's mea culpa.

you cannot logically assert that any rights are inborn

your pointing to free will & the conscience is meaningless

 

[dblack]

yeah, i know that. I didn't say it was. Forget it, dude. You win Totally with ya.. Enjoy!

that's mea culpa.

you cannot logically assert that any rights are inborn

your pointing to free will & the conscience is meaningless

Why are you continuing with a pointless line of debate when we've acknowledged it's simply a matter of definition? If you define inalienable rights as "a description of the relationship between individuals and government", then of course they will depend on government. If you define them as free will, they won't. What else is there to talk about?

 

[G.T.]

yeah, i know that. I didn't say it was. Forget it, dude. You win Totally with ya.. Enjoy!

that's mea culpa.

you cannot logically assert that any rights are inborn

your pointing to free will & the conscience is meaningless

Why are you continuing with a pointless line of debate when we've acknowledged it's simply a matter of definition? If you define inalienable rights as "a description of the relationship between individuals and government", then of course they will depend on government. If you define them as free will, they won't. What else is there to talk about?

Free will =/= a right to life and a right to persue happiness.

 

[dblack]

that's mea culpa.

you cannot logically assert that any rights are inborn

your pointing to free will & the conscience is meaningless

Why are you continuing with a pointless line of debate when we've acknowledged it's simply a matter of definition? If you define inalienable rights as "a description of the relationship between individuals and government", then of course they will depend on government. If you define them as free will, they won't. What else is there to talk about?

Free will =/= a right to life and a right to persue happiness.

I get it. You're defining it differently. Nowhere to go from there I suppose.

 

[G.T.]

Why are you continuing with a pointless line of debate when we've acknowledged it's simply a matter of definition? If you define inalienable rights as "a description of the relationship between individuals and government", then of course they will depend on government. If you define them as free will, they won't. What else is there to talk about?

Free will =/= a right to life and a right to persue happiness.

I get it. You're defining it differently. Nowhere to go from there I suppose.

No, I'm seeking its origin.

Can you provide it logically, or is it an abstract idea reached through human philosophy and cannot be proven?

 

[dblack]

Free will =/= a right to life and a right to persue happiness.

I get it. You're defining it differently. Nowhere to go from there I suppose.

No, I'm seeking its origin.

Can you provide it logically, or is it an abstract idea reached through human philosophy and cannot be proven?

Why would I have any interest in proving your definition of a term? I don't even think it makes sense.

 

[G.T.]

I get it. You're defining it differently. Nowhere to go from there I suppose.

No, I'm seeking its origin.

Can you provide it logically, or is it an abstract idea reached through human philosophy and cannot be proven?

Why would I have any interest in proving your definition of a term? I don't even think it makes sense.

You cant even prove your own, so youre right there is no point.

Natural rights were defined by the founders.

We're not talking about YOUR idea of natural rights.

We are asking: where is there PROOF that they come from nature or a creator, as described by those philosophers.



And the answer is that there is no proof. It is an abstract concept.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

dblack asserts there are some kind of rights that people have, even while they are being deprived of them. That runs into what I claimed earlier: that no one can distinguish any difference between rights that are denied and rights that don't exist.

No, he is saying we have those rights even when they are being infringed upon. Your problem is that you see infringing as denial.

What do you see infringing as? What is the difference between a right infringed upon and a right that doesn't exist?

I see you're still trying to save face by implying that the answer you've been given to this very question again and again and again and again and again and again is not satisfactory, while in fact you have not once even attempted to directly refute the obvious, ontological and historical actualities of the answer.

I see right through, Rabbi, and always have.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

that's mea culpa.

you cannot logically assert that any rights are inborn

your pointing to free will & the conscience is meaningless

Why are you continuing with a pointless line of debate when we've acknowledged it's simply a matter of definition? If you define inalienable rights as "a description of the relationship between individuals and government", then of course they will depend on government. If you define them as free will, they won't. What else is there to talk about?

Free will =/= a right to life and a right to persue happiness.

So you're saying that the principle of free will ontologically precedes the fact of a living agent who asserts his free will?

 

[dblack]

No, I'm seeking its origin.

Can you provide it logically, or is it an abstract idea reached through human philosophy and cannot be proven?

Why would I have any interest in proving your definition of a term? I don't even think it makes sense.

You cant even prove your own, so youre right there is no point.

Natural rights were defined by the founders.

We're not talking about YOUR idea of natural rights.

We are asking: where is there PROOF that they come from nature or a creator, as described by those philosophers.



And the answer is that there is no proof. It is an abstract concept.

Huh... looks like you're the winner!

 

[TakeAStepBack]

The entire concept of ontology is abstract. In fact, most everything involving philosophy is abstract. Your fall back here can bring the entire understanding of reality into question. Which essentially means that your point is nothing more than "mental masturbation".

And the Founders did not define natural rights. They were well versed in the philosophies (abstract concepts, like reality) of the time that regarded such things as "self evident". In that it is universally recognizable, and egalitarian.

You have worn out that circle quite effectively though.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Why are you continuing with a pointless line of debate when we've acknowledged it's simply a matter of definition? If you define inalienable rights as "a description of the relationship between individuals and government", then of course they will depend on government. If you define them as free will, they won't. What else is there to talk about?

Free will =/= a right to life and a right to persue happiness.

So you're saying that the principle of free will ontologically precedes the fact of a living agent to assert free will?

Essentially, yes. That's his position.

 

[G.T.]

Why are you continuing with a pointless line of debate when we've acknowledged it's simply a matter of definition? If you define inalienable rights as "a description of the relationship between individuals and government", then of course they will depend on government. If you define them as free will, they won't. What else is there to talk about?

Free will =/= a right to life and a right to persue happiness.

So you're saying that free will ontologically precedes the principle of the sanctity of human life?

Sanctity is a human philosophical concept.

Edit:

Saw your edit.
That we have free will does not speak to the origin of our rights, it only speaks to our desire for said rights.

 

[G.T.]

The entire concept of ontology is abstract.

Yes, that's right.

And there is a "therefore" at the end of that.


It's "therefore, rights are an abstract concept brought on by human philosophy; ergo, can be taken away by same."

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The entire concept of ontology is abstract. In fact, most everything involving philosophy is abstract. Your fall back here can bring the entire understanding of reality into question. Which essentially means that your point is nothing more than "mental masturbation".

And the Founders did not define natural rights. They were well versed in the philosophies (abstract concepts, like reality) of the time that regarded such things as "self evident". In that it is universally recognizable, and egalitarian.

You have worn out that circle quite effectively though.

Not at all. I'm using the term in its most concrete sense relative to the rational and physical aspects of being in common experience, and Rabbi knows that as I've made that abundantly clear again and again.

 

[G.T.]

Why are you continuing with a pointless line of debate when we've acknowledged it's simply a matter of definition? If you define inalienable rights as "a description of the relationship between individuals and government", then of course they will depend on government. If you define them as free will, they won't. What else is there to talk about?

Free will =/= a right to life and a right to persue happiness.

So you're saying that the principle of free will ontologically precedes the fact of a living agent who asserts his free will?

Well, first of all I wasn't even bringing up free will, it was injected by another gentleman.

But to your re-edited question -

1st: free will is not a principle. it's a state of being and its existence can be scientifically proven: that until and unless another lifeform is operating your brain, it is free to think and attempt to assert its own thoughts. That's kind of what "free will" means to me.

2nd: if you were asking what I was saying, it's that the fact that we have free will does not assert/prove/etc that we have inborn rights which accompany said free will.