In the Absence of God; Human rights cannot exist.

[mattskramer]

Does it have to?

Jefferson felt, as do I, that such was self evident... meaning that one doesn't have to know from whence gravity comes for one to be subject to its evident effect...

Suffice it to say that humanity did not create humanity; therefore something else did; and that something provided humanity with a gift that humanity did nothing to deserve, thus it follows that the gift which is endowed to each individual is given with the intent that it be used and with the responsibility that it not be misused... which also follows that for humanity to exercise this entitlement it must be prepared to defend it against its only potential threat, which of course is sufficient power to usurp the means to exercise the entitlement; and that the most efficient means to defend it is through the vigilance of each individual, which ensures same, by default, for the collective sum.

As humanity did not understand gravity for most of its history; we still do not understand that which created us; yet we know that we didn’t create us and we know that that which did create us is a vastly superior force… Is it unreasonable then that we should rationalize this force through a species of reasoning which provides us with the means to relate to it, until such time that we are positioned to fully understand it; or should we reject the concept entirely, despite the innate instinct which consistently guides us to recognize its existence and substitute the respect born of that recognition with the hollow certainty; the utter absurdity that our present collective level of understanding contains the scope of all knowledge throughout the the expanse of infinite time and space?

Clearly our human rights rest on the existence of our very lives… and given that we did nothing to deserve this life, we were given a gift; a gift endowed by a force superior to our own, thus that force possesses the inherent authority beyond that of our own and it is on THAT AUTHORITY that our true human rights rest.

That is why (within the opening scenario) the one is justified in the taking of the lives of the citizens that have unjustly come to kill them. They came to carry out the legal, but morally unjustifiable orders of the social collective; a society who negotiated away your means to exercise your endowment; your gift. Thus you are NOT JUST WITHIN your human rights to defend yourself, it is your DUTY to defend the gift which was given to you… a gift which you did nothing to deserve; a gift which you cannot replace… a gift which is interconnected, creating a new dimension of responsibility inherent in that gift; and THAT is why; THAT IS THE BASIS FOR THE AUTHORITY WHICH PROVIDES FOR YOUR DUTY to stop the morally unjustified socially negotiated attack being LEGALLY ADVANCED by law abiding citizens against your life, which you are justly entitled to pursue… An morally unjustified attack which threatens to rob you of your gift, your entitlement, your right, your life. All of which means that the morally unjustifiable attack threatens to rob others of their gift as well; others to whom you are duty bound to defend, others that NEED YOUR HELP, even as you need theirs.

And it is TOGETHER, tethered by the irresistible, inherent, self evident, infinite authority that each individual is duty bound to defend themselves and each individual known to them to be threatened by an invalid, morally unjustified threat; and in so doing you and they will inevitably, by default, reconstitute a culture wherein the collective will reject any law that is absent a valid moral foundation; recognizing that absent valid moral principle on which to rest, the law cannot serve justice … and that NO MAN can be rightfully bound to serve injustice.

I’m sorry that I did not reply earlier. I don’t mean to brag but I have many responsibilities that geek me away. Anyway, I read your post. I think that I understand your point. I still disagree with it. Humanity did create humanity. I am, to a large extent, a follower of the evolutionary mind-set. Just as humans have physically evolved, they have mentally evolved. We have a large frontal cortex. We can post hypothetical what-if scenarios. I think that evolution and survival-of-the-fittest (along with education passed down from generation to generation) brought us to where we are. Perhaps from experiences that our ancestors faced it the past and taught us about, we learned that murder is not good for societal survival.

Imagine a grain farmer that has a relationship with a cattle farmer. The grain farmer sells grain to the cattle farmer. The cattle farmer takes the grain and sells beef to the grain farmer. One day the grain farmer decides to kill the cattle farmer and take his cattle for himself. Such a scheme works for a while until the grain farmer realizes that he is not as knowledgeable about raising cattle as was the cattle farmer. Therefore, the murderous grain farmer loses too.

That is a simplistic story but can be applied on a larger scale. I guess that my point, however poorly I may be explaining it, is that ethics is learned. Right and wrong don’t come from God but from human understanding. We used to think that interracial marriage was wrong. People should stay with their own kind. Most of us now understand that such an archaic notion is divisive and unnecessary. Doctors used to think that smoking was not only okay but was good for you. It relaxes you. Our understanding grows as our experiences (on an individual and collective level) grow. Centuries from now, if we are not destroyed by an asteroid or a war, we might learn that some things that we think are good turn out to be bad and thing that we think are bad are actually okay.

 

[WhiteLion]

I’m sorry that I did not reply earlier. I don’t mean to brag but I have many responsibilities that geek me away. Anyway, I read your post. I think that I understand your point. I still disagree with it. Humanity did create humanity. I am, to a large extent, a follower of the evolutionary mind-set. Just as humans have physically evolved, they have mentally evolved. We have a large frontal cortex. We can post hypothetical what-if scenarios. I think that evolution and survival-of-the-fittest (along with education passed down from generation to generation) brought us to where we are. Perhaps from experiences that our ancestors faced it the past and taught us about, we learned that murder is not good for societal survival.

Imagine a grain farmer that has a relationship with a cattle farmer. The grain farmer sells grain to the cattle farmer. The cattle farmer takes the grain and sells beef to the grain farmer. One day the grain farmer decides to kill the cattle farmer and take his cattle for himself. Such a scheme works for a while until the grain farmer realizes that he is not as knowledgeable about raising cattle as was the cattle farmer. Therefore, the murderous grain farmer loses too.

That is a simplistic story but can be applied on a larger scale. I guess that my point, however poorly I may be explaining it, is that ethics is learned. Right and wrong don’t come from God but from human understanding. We used to think that interracial marriage was wrong. People should stay with their own kind. Most of us now understand that such an archaic notion is divisive and unnecessary. Doctors used to think that smoking was not only okay but was good for you. It relaxes you. Our understanding grows as our experiences (on an individual and collective level) grow. Centuries from now, if we are not destroyed by an asteroid or a war, we might learn that some things that we think are good turn out to be bad and thing that we think are bad are actually okay.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

I’m sorry that I did not reply earlier. I don’t mean to brag but I have many responsibilities that geek me away.

Understandable...

Anyway, I read your post. I think that I understand your point. I still disagree with it.

Color me shocked. Let's take a look at your reasoning...

Humanity did create humanity.

LOL... Friend... Humanity has done much throughout the scope of it's history... but for a fact; to an absolute certainty; humanity did not create itself. I mean that is such an absurd position and one that is quite frankly, below you.

But just to clear it up... Lets just run down the evolutionary list of events...

#2... The earliest trace of what will become humanity is imparted to what ever originating species in which it (theoretically) began... Whats #1?

I am, to a large extent, a follower of the evolutionary mind-set. Just as humans have physically evolved, they have mentally evolved. We have a large frontal cortex. We can post hypothetical what-if scenarios. I think that evolution and survival-of-the-fittest (along with education passed down from generation to generation) brought us to where we are. Perhaps from experiences that our ancestors faced it the past and taught us about, we learned that murder is not good for societal survival.

You're making a massive leap in reasoning here... I recognize that you're an evolutionist, that you would be is something well beyond predictable. But your presuming that evolution as a theory somehow discredits the idea that God exists; that God had no role in evolution; that your large frontal cortex is a freak of nature that occurred through some accident of biology... As I see it, the theory of Evolution in no way even remotely contests Creationism.

Surely it conflicts with those who believe that the Scriptures must be interpreted literally... but this is not the central issue to the Scriptures; the principles on which Gods word rest are the core of the message; parables and analogical descriptions have no bearing on the underlying principles which are being imparted, by God, to humanity through the Holy Scriptures.

Thus Genesis and the 7 days of Creation and so many other analogical descriptions are described in such a way that the individuals hearing the message can relate to it. God is after all vastly more intelligent that humanity and I expect that he could have easily trotted out the exact calculus of the Creation of the Universe... Of course, it's pretty clear that the early nomadic tribes would have had little means to understand it. Thus he relayed the information in the form of an analogue... "In the beginning..."

The simple fact is that the more humanity learns, the more certain we become that God does in fact exists and that our understanding of the physical sciences does not discount that existance, but in fact bolsters the assumption.

The simple fact is that humanities top scientific and medical experts that have spent a lifetime studying the elements of the human brain will tell you that they have a very rudimentary understanding of how that human organ actually works... to be sure their understanding is exponentially greater than it was only a few generations ago, but those I've spoken to about it believe that the scope of current human knowledge regarding the brain represents a tiny fraction of what needs to be known to fully understand it.

That's pretty conclusive evidence that the scope of human knowledge remains what will someday be considered quite primitive; yet we're to conclude that this primitive understanding of the universe, even that section of the universe within our own bodies, is sufficient to conclude that there is no force beyond that which we presently understand effecting the universe...

I mean the whole idea is 'short-sighted' at BEST... humanity barely has a handle on the scope of that which we refer to as 'time....' and I expect that what we refer to as God operates in large measure throughout time in ways which we have absolutely no means to comprehend at this point.

That is a simplistic story ...

Indeed it is a simple story and one wherein the solution is readily handled in the principles of natural human rights which I've described through this and other threads in considerable detail. The Cattleman had no right to the product of the Grainer's labor... had he recognized that; had he vigilantly monitored his behavior; had he recognized that he not only had a responsibility to not exercise his rights to the detriment of that of the Grainer, but a DUTY to defend the Grainer's rights... he and the Grainer would have prospered to the extent that they were able, given their respective circumstances.

I guess that my point, however poorly I may be explaining it, is that ethics is learned.

Indeed... And valid ethics are intrinsically tied to the natural principles of human rights... of course they are learned, but the rights exist and each one of us will experience the effects of those rights, every day... just as the individual human must learn of the properties of Gravity to better improve their odds of a long life, gravity will nonetheless effect them every moment of their life whether or not they EVER learn the truth regarding gravity.

Right and wrong don’t come from God but from human understanding.

That's a conclusion you've drawn from no discernable basis... a projection which to this point is founded in pure assumption and one with no potential for finding its way as the sum of a valid calculation.. The good news here is that it is irrelevant.

Right and wrong are said by some to be subjective... subject to one's opinion and what is determined to be acceptable behavior, based upon that tired old saw: Social Negotiations; you may think its perfectly fine to kill the Grainer and take his grain, because you were never taught about your God given human rights and your responsibilities which inherently maintain your rights... You may even be living in a culture where that kind of behavior is perfectly acceptable, maybe even encouraged; but you would still suffer the consequences you described in your scenario, wouldn't you? Thus such behavior is conclusively wrong and this wholly without regard to the popularity of killing those who have what you want or need... in your culture.

We used to think that interracial marriage was wrong. People should stay with their own kind. Most of us now understand that such an archaic notion is divisive and unnecessary. Doctors used to think that smoking was not only okay but was good for you. It relaxes you. Our understanding grows as our experiences (on an individual and collective level) grow. Centuries from now, if we are not destroyed by an asteroid or a war, we might learn that some things that we think are good turn out to be bad and thing that we think are bad are actually okay.

It all comes down to the principles of your natural human rights... if you exercise your rights, without infringing upon another's and if you vigilantly defend your rights and those of others, it all works out.


Now people aren't perfect, each of us screw it up every day... Good people make bad decisions and that means that there are times when there will be disagreements and misunderstandings... thus the purpose of the justice system... again the goal is individual vigilance; but what I'm trying to get across to you is that the goal is exponentially easier to accomplish where we each recognize the fundamental facts regarding our rights and we each agree to the fundamental responsibilities inherent in them... just as reaching the goal is made exponentially more difficult where we allow our culture to entertain this spurious little fantasies regarding the relative aspects of right and wrong, socially negotiated rights and so on.

 

[N4mddissent]

To understand the social contract one must first understand that paramount is survival of self and perpetuity of self. By self I refer to the physical self and cognitive self. Perpetuity of self involves passing on one's genes physically and sharing one's ideas cognitively. The social contract is a framework which maximizes the ability to pursue these basic drives of the individual while allowing the individuals to cooperate effectively. So any group action which inhibits these drives for individuals without demonstrable necessity for the cooperation of the group is a violation of the contract and the individual may respond accordingly. Any individual action which threatens the ability of the group to cooperate effectively is also a violation. In the example given, one would defend themselves on the basis of the primary drives of survival and perpetuity.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Yes, human rights are negotitated between humans. In the scenario I had my human rights taken from me.

Thus... IN THE ABSENCE OF GOD>>> HUMAN RIGHTS CANNOT EXIST....

Again sir, you've proven that opening premise conclusively...

Thank you for your time and consideration. I hope that at some point you will understand the fruitlessness of your erroneous perspective and change your thinking; otherwise you fate is the same as the lowly cabbage... or ... cattle if you need a mammalian analogy... in either respect sir, your 'feelings' with regard to your Rights are not distinct from those which are common to

FOOD!

Well...no. As I pointed out, as soon as I was made outlaw I lost my human rights. I was rightless. I had then to fall back upon my own resources.

So what I see you saying here Diur... is that in you BELIEVE that your human rights are a function of and result FROM 'the social negotiation;' and that when faced with a social negotiation that determined that you were not in possession of ANY HUMAN RIGHT... particularly any right to life, that YOU BELIEVE that under such conditions...

...I lost my human rights. I was rightless

Now you're a person that does NOT believe in God; thus you're a person that does NOT believe that your human rights are unalienable, endowed to you by God... and that where the Society negotiates away your rights... YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS...

In other words, where you believe that THERE IS NO GOD... (In the Absence of God) and that where the Society negotiates away your rights, THAT YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS... (Human Rights Cannot Exist) that you do not see any underlying truth to the opening premise, "In the Absence of God, Human Rights Cannot Exist."

Your attempts to link human rights with a deity have failed Pub.

False... First I wasn't attempting anything. I'm not one to 'try'... I'm strictly a "DO" kinda guy... And what I DID was to open a thread and assert the simple premise that "In the Absence of God, Human Rights cannot Exist." Wherein I established a historically viable scenario, where society has negotiated away the means of certain individuals to exercise their human rights by asserting its power to prevent such... YOU'RE THE ONE THAT STATED THAT WHEN THAT SOCIETY DID SO, THAT YOU WERE STRIPPED OF YOUR HUMAN RIGHTS... conclusively proving the premise.

Now that is the incontestable factual history of this thread Diur... that's how it went down.

-You do not believe that God exists
-You don't believe that human rights are endowed by that Creator and
-You believe that when the society determines that you have no right,
-That you BELIEVE YOU HAVE NO HUMAN RIGHTS...

THUS CONCLUSIVELY PROVING: In the absence of God... Human Rights cannot exist.

Your examples have allowed me to repeatedly demonstrate to the point of proof beyond a reasonable doubt that human rights are bestowed upon us by membership of society.

SO what rights were bestowed upon you when the society determined that you have no rights? Let's go to the videotape:

... I was made outlaw {through invalid, immoral legislation and judicial fiat and by no fault of his own... just declared such by the social negotiation of a popular majority} I lost my human rights. I was rightless.

Your example showed that. My rights were taken from me by the society that granted them.

So because your right originated with humanity, it is humanities prerogative to withdraw those rights... Hmm... so in essence, those aren't really rights at all, then are they? They're just temporary privileges... that you need to reduce the concept of Human Right down to what is in effect a 'Temporary Privilege' says far more about who you are and the hazards associated with your species of reasoning. It says a lot about the kind of government you will accept and that you're willing to accept whatever comes along...

As for me being food - I don't think so...

Well to be honest Diur, the viability of what you think is becoming more dubious by the post... but with regard to your 'feelings' about your showing signs typical of FOOD... I expect that such thinking as yours is the general consensus in the typical cow pasture...

You've again PROVEN CONCLUSIVELY... that in the absence of God, Human RIGHTS cannot exist.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

To understand the social contract one must first understand that paramount is survival of self and perpetuity of self. By self I refer to the physical self and cognitive self. Perpetuity of self involves passing on one's genes physically and sharing one's ideas cognitively. The social contract is a framework which maximizes the ability to pursue these basic drives of the individual while allowing the individuals to cooperate effectively. So any group action which inhibits these drives for individuals without demonstrable necessity for the cooperation of the group is a violation of the contract and the individual may respond accordingly. Any individual action which threatens the ability of the group to cooperate effectively is also a violation. In the example given, one would defend themselves on the basis of the primary drives of survival and perpetuity.

But such drives, in and of themselves are merely manifestations of what? And it is that 'what' which determines the right; not the drive, or 'base instinct' as it were. With Rights come responsibility and it's a rare drive, that comes with such; the drive exists to be satisfied... but the right to satisfy that drive must be reigned to serve the best interests of the individual, which will, without exception, serve the interests of the sum of individuals. Now the question becomes how can one know what will always be in one’s BEST interests... simply refer to your inherent responsibilities... where one diligently seeks to exercise one's right without infringing upon the rights of their neighbor... one serves his BEST interest.

 

[Diuretic]

Yo Pub, this in the absence of God human rights don't exist thing.

No society - no rights.

I was cast out of society, my rights stayed behind with my spare clothes, I was out of there because I knew what was coming.

Assuming God.

How come my rights stayed behind when I shot through?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Yo Pub, this in the absence of God human rights don't exist thing.

No society - no rights.

Really? Not on my world... My Human Rights are inherent in my life... With Society, without society... If the society passes a law which removes government protections of my menas to exercise my rights... I've still got my rights...

For instance if the SCOTUS was comprised of just ONE less American, the highest likelihood is that a recent case before the Court would have determined that the US Constitution does not protect the right of the individual to keep and bear arms... meaning that I would have been in possession of firearms which were NOT protected by limitations on government power to stop me from exercising my right to own and use a firearm. That ruling would not have taken away my right to own a fire arm, or to use a fire arm... as my right to do so pre-exists the US Constitution and was not granted to me BY the US Constitution, and rests upon an authority substantially higher than those nine justices of the SCOTUS... along with the legislature and the Chief Executive.

I was cast out of society, my rights stayed behind with my spare clothes, I was out of there because I knew what was coming.

In truth your right never left you and under your illusion you never had a right, you merely had the color of right, which as I pointed out, is at best a temporal privilege.

Assuming God.

How come my rights stayed behind when I shot through?

I'm going to assume that your question is "How can I still have rights if I murdered a law abiding citizen, just carrying out his socially negotiated (legal) duties?"

The law was morally invalid... you've a duty to defend your life from morally unjustified attacks. The law that the citizen was executing did not rest on a valid moral principle; thus it did not serve justice and no man can rightfully serve injustice; thus the citizen was executing a morally unjustified threat against your rightful entitlement to pursue of the fulfillment of your life and you were duty bound to prevent him from doing so. You were also duty bound to defend the lives of others that were being threatened in a similar manner and that's pretty hard to do when you're dead. At that point the focus of your life is to destroy that which threatens you, which in that case was the government and the very culture which empowered that government.

Pretty rough stuff isn't it? Sacred duty she can be hard on ya... but that's the only way freedom works. That's why its really important to maintain that constant vigilance... as hard as it sounds, it's way easier than the spot one finds oneself in, within the Opening Scenario...

You'll notice that as a general rule food takes the easier road... which almost I'd wager tends to be a severe, albeit momentary regret right there towards the end.

 

[Diuretic]

Assuming God.

How come my rights stayed behind when I shot through?


I'm going to assume that your question is "How can I still have rights if I murdered a law abiding citizen, just carrying out his socially negotiated (legal) duties?"

The law was morally invalid... you've a duty to defend your life from morally unjustified attacks. The law that the citizen was executing did not rest on a valid moral principle; thus it did not serve justice and no man can rightfully serve injustice; thus the citizen was executing a morally unjustified threat against your rightful entitlement to pursue of the fulfillment of your life and you were duty bound to prevent him from doing so. You were also duty bound to defend the lives of others that were being threatened in a similar manner and that's pretty hard to do when you're dead. At that point the focus of your life is to destroy that which threatens you, which in that case was the government and the very culture which empowered that government.

Pretty rough stuff isn't it? Sacred duty she can be hard on ya... but that's the only way freedom works. That's why its really important to maintain that constant vigilance... as hard as it sounds, it's way easier than the spot one finds oneself in, within the Opening Scenario...

Why was the law morally invalid? And what does it matter if it was? The law gave power to those who would deal with me, stripped of my rights.

I don't have a duty to defend myself, I have an instinct to do so backed up with a rational will to self defence.

 

[N4mddissent]

But such drives, in and of themselves are merely manifestations of what? And it is that 'what' which determines the right; not the drive, or 'base instinct' as it were. With Rights come responsibility and it's a rare drive, that comes with such; the drive exists to be satisfied... but the right to satisfy that drive must be reigned to serve the best interests of the individual, which will, without exception, serve the interests of the sum of individuals. Now the question becomes how can one know what will always be in one’s BEST interests... simply refer to your inherent responsibilities... where one diligently seeks to exercise one's right without infringing upon the rights of their neighbor... one serves his BEST interest.
Reply With Quote

Those drives are basic instinct. Survival is a basic instinct in all species. Perpetuation is an instinct of all species. The interest of the individual will not always be the same as the interest of the group. Especially since "groups" as we use the term is an arbitrary boundary. One only has to use one's reason to come to the conclusion that not infringing upon your neighbor's rights is in your own best interest. These ideas were not inherent as you would expect "God-given" ideas to be, they were developed fairly recently in the course of human civilization. Not to mention that in social beings cooperation is not just a sense of "responsibility" but altruism is an instinct with a physical basis. When a bee dies to protect its hive, it is not doing so out of a conscious sense of responsibility, but rather due to instinct.

 

[LOki]

A lot of people will tell you, with a great deal of certainty that God does not exist. Now I've noticed that it is VERY common for these SAME people to also believe that they have ALL MANNER of human rights... and I've always been curious as to just what these people believe that these human rights that they lay claim to rest upon?

The self-evident, objective fact that these people are human beings.

By that I mean where do these rights come from?

From the notion that without rights, human beings cannot grow, or advance, as human beings; nor hope to improve their existence as human beings.

Now some will tell you that human rights are a function of the Social Contract...

The Social Contract is a function of aknowledging rights.

...some will quickly explain that human rights come from the government and so it goes...

Retards.

Below, I am going to lay out a scenario and I'd like the Atheists or the Secular-humanists to chime in as to how they would react to the below scenario and on what basis would they take that action.

Well things have just gone swimmingly for the ideological left for a few decades and notions such as ‘national sovereignty’ and such are behind the good people of the planet Earth… You woke up this morning, flipped on your TV or radio and you learn that the WORLD COURT has determined that Atheists are a menace to the world and that due to a litany of reasons, Atheists, the court decided, do not have ANY human rights; the World Legislature, “The People” had passed a law to that effect a year or so back; BUT before they could put it into effect, the atheists lobby: “FUCK THAT SHIT!” (Future Unitarians Cause Killing The Happy Atheists Tears Serious Holes In Them) sued to get the World Court to stop it… But inevitably, the court determined that Atheists are SO dangerous that they are to be hunted down to the last man, woman and child and executed on site; offering a $100.00 bounty for every atheist head which is brought to one's local law enforcement official.

Now for the purposes of this debate, the world is governed by one World authority (we can call it the “UN”) and the last word in such matters is the World Court; there is no recourse; the decision is final and irrevocable...

What's more, you're sitting there looking out your kitchen window and you see four of your neighbors crossing into your back yard; one is carrying a net-type bag which has the disembodied heads your boss and two of your closest friends... the neighbor carrying the bag has a machete, the other three are carrying automatic weapons. They're now at your backdoor trying to bust it down... what do you DO? (and most importantly: WHY DO YOU DO IT?)

what do you DO?:
For as long as it is necessary, kill them until they rethink, and desist in, initiating violence against me.

and most importantly: WHY DO YOU DO IT?:
Self defense. They have no right to initiate violence against me; I however, have a right to violence in defense of my own life.

 

[AllieBaba]

Those drives are basic instinct. Survival is a basic instinct in all species. Perpetuation is an instinct of all species. The interest of the individual will not always be the same as the interest of the group. Especially since "groups" as we use the term is an arbitrary boundary. One only has to use one's reason to come to the conclusion that not infringing upon your neighbor's rights is in your own best interest. These ideas were not inherent as you would expect "God-given" ideas to be, they were developed fairly recently in the course of human civilization. Not to mention that in social beings cooperation is not just a sense of "responsibility" but altruism is an instinct with a physical basis. When a bee dies to protect its hive, it is not doing so out of a conscious sense of responsibility, but rather due to instinct.

Not true. Animals do not have a conscience as we recognize it. A mother in the animal world will desert her offspring to starve or freeze in order to save herself, because as far as instinct goes, she has a better chance of survival on her own than a baby.

If it was just pure instinct, we wouldn't sacrifice ourselves for others, unless it was absolutely necessary for the perpetuation of the species. Since our species is never in danger and hasn't been for ages, and since it's never a "me or thee" thing with babies these days, the instinct theory falls all to shit.

Animals don't go to war for principle. Principles are alien to them. And man has always had principles. It's what separates us from animals, and it's another indicator that there is a god.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Why was the law morally invalid? And what does it matter if it was?

Because the law sought to strip individuals of their lives absent a valid moral justification.

The law gave power to those who would deal with me, stripped of my rights.

Yes it did and it did so absent a valid moral justification.

FYI: The only valid moral justification for taking a human life is where that life represents a clear and present threat that it is intent upon severely injuring or killing another human being.

Atheism is foolish, but atheism in and of itself does not threaten the rights to anyone's life... thus decreeing that those who adhere to it are worthy of execution because they're a general pain in the ass, is not a valid moral justification for usurping their means to exercise their unalienable right to life; even if they reject the very notion itself.

I don't have a duty to defend myself, I have an instinct to do so backed up with a rational will to self defence.

You have an instinct to seek sexual gratification among many other instincts, but that along with the other instincts in and of themselves do not provide you with a right to satisfy those urges just because the urge exists, when doing so may well effect the means of other individuals to exercise their own rights.... Just as you're not rightfully able to take the life of another human being just because you may feel that they're a threat or perhaps a severe inconvenience, despite that such is perfectly legal in many places... Places where justice is not being served.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

To understand the social contract one must first understand that paramount is survival of self and perpetuity of self. By self I refer to the physical self and cognitive self. Perpetuity of self involves passing on one's genes physically and sharing one's ideas cognitively. The social contract is a framework which maximizes the ability to pursue these basic drives of the individual while allowing the individuals to cooperate effectively. So any group action which inhibits these drives for individuals without demonstrable necessity for the cooperation of the group is a violation of the contract and the individual may respond accordingly. Any individual action which threatens the ability of the group to cooperate effectively is also a violation. In the example given, one would defend themselves on the basis of the primary drives of survival and perpetuity.

But such drives, in and of themselves are merely manifestations of what? And it is that 'what' which determines the right; not the drive, or 'base instinct' as it were. With Rights come responsibility and it's a rare drive, that comes with such; the drive exists to be satisfied... but the right to satisfy that drive must be reigned to serve the best interests of the individual, which will, without exception, serve the interests of the sum of individuals. Now the question becomes how can one know what will always be in one’s BEST interests... simply refer to your inherent responsibilities... where one diligently seeks to exercise one's right without infringing upon the rights of their neighbor... one serves his BEST interest.

Those drives are basic instinct. Survival is a basic instinct in all species. Perpetuation is an instinct of all species. The interest of the individual will not always be the same as the interest of the group. Especially since "groups" as we use the term is an arbitrary boundary. One only has to use one's reason to come to the conclusion that not infringing upon your neighbor's rights is in your own best interest. These ideas were not inherent as you would expect "God-given" ideas to be, they were developed fairly recently in the course of human civilization. Not to mention that in social beings cooperation is not just a sense of "responsibility" but altruism is an instinct with a physical basis. When a bee dies to protect its hive, it is not doing so out of a conscious sense of responsibility, but rather due to instinct.

It's worth noting that you chose to ignore the salient query... and its perfectly understandable as your purpose would suffer severely were you to have considered the question and answered it honestly... which is why you chose to simply reframe the same argument; advancing the same points in this repetitive rejoinder.

Those drives are basic instinct. Survival is a basic instinct in all species. Perpetuation is an instinct of all species. The interest of the individual will not always be the same as the interest of the group.

And it's a rare cat that is covered in blue fur... all factual points, but can you provide some insight as to how the interests of the respective group and individual might follow your stated premise regarding base instincts? And I'd be very interested in seeing your math which might support your implied conclusion that human/animal instinct, along with the human conscience is distinct and impenetrably isolated from any influence beyond the internal chemical and biological operations of which it is comprised...

What I hear you saying is that you are in possession of sufficient knowledge to conclude that the universe is absent any force which is typically referred to as God and as such, the human brain is the epitome of intelligence in this here universe...

How anyone can come to such a conclusion with full knowledge of the existence of the leftist ideology is absolutely astounding. It defies reason... The fact that the species has survived DESPITE the existence of such is itself, yet ANOTHER example which rest in evidence of the ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY that the human species survives only through divine intervention.

And this notion that one can make a case that rights=/=instinct from the examples of the lower species is again... more evidence of the certainty that God protects the dimwitted. Using an insect as an example of altruism ... are you kidding? It’s not even a fair example to set in contrast... a bee has no sentience... it doesn't reason... its entire existence is driven on instinct.

But I will say this... I never tire of watching progressives advance reasoning which in one way or another establishes that the Human Being is for all intents and purposes... just another animal; this for the purposes of rationalizing or excusing flawed human behavior...

And before you ask how I could label you a progressive... read your own posts. Nothing screams 'progressive' like a juicy rationalization which promotes regression... In this case, regressing from the understanding of unalienable individual rights based upon the innate authority of that which established humanity's self evident distinction from the animal kingdom, to the promotion of the idea that we really don't have any special rights... we're just reacting to or trying to rationalize our base animal instincts.


LOL... BRILLIANT!

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Not true. Animals do not have a conscience as we recognize it. A mother in the animal world will desert her offspring to starve or freeze in order to save herself, because as far as instinct goes, she has a better chance of survival on her own than a baby.

If it was just pure instinct, we wouldn't sacrifice ourselves for others, unless it was absolutely necessary for the perpetuation of the species. Since our species is never in danger and hasn't been for ages, and since it's never a "me or thee" thing with babies these days, the instinct theory falls all to shit.

Animals don't go to war for principle. Principles are alien to them. And man has always had principles. It's what separates us from animals, and it's another indicator that there is a god.

Couldn't rep ya... so here ya go:

 

[mattskramer]

Not true. Animals do not have a conscience as we recognize it. A mother in the animal world will desert her offspring to starve or freeze in order to save herself, because as far as instinct goes, she has a better chance of survival on her own than a baby.

If it was just pure instinct, we wouldn't sacrifice ourselves for others, unless it was absolutely necessary for the perpetuation of the species. Since our species is never in danger and hasn't been for ages, and since it's never a "me or thee" thing with babies these days, the instinct theory falls all to shit.

Animals don't go to war for principle. Principles are alien to them. And man has always had principles. It's what separates us from animals, and it's another indicator that there is a god.

Sometimes animals will risk their lives to defend their babies. Animals, humans included, do many things for different reasons and sometimes for no rational reason.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZUBC1SSWN8]YouTube - Female Wildebeest Vigorously Defends Calf[/ame]

 

[WhiteLion]

Not true. Animals do not have a conscience as we recognize it. A mother in the animal world will desert her offspring to starve or freeze in order to save herself, because as far as instinct goes, she has a better chance of survival on her own than a baby.

If it was just pure instinct, we wouldn't sacrifice ourselves for others, unless it was absolutely necessary for the perpetuation of the species. Since our species is never in danger and hasn't been for ages, and since it's never a "me or thee" thing with babies these days, the instinct theory falls all to shit.

Animals don't go to war for principle. Principles are alien to them. And man has always had principles. It's what separates us from animals, and it's another indicator that there is a god.

Dam Good kudos to ya

 

[Diuretic]

Not true. Animals do not have a conscience as we recognize it. A mother in the animal world will desert her offspring to starve or freeze in order to save herself, because as far as instinct goes, she has a better chance of survival on her own than a baby.

If it was just pure instinct, we wouldn't sacrifice ourselves for others, unless it was absolutely necessary for the perpetuation of the species. Since our species is never in danger and hasn't been for ages, and since it's never a "me or thee" thing with babies these days, the instinct theory falls all to shit.

Animals don't go to war for principle. Principles are alien to them. And man has always had principles. It's what separates us from animals, and it's another indicator that there is a god.

Not so, that's an unprovable opinion. You assume god and you try to ascribe observed behaviours to the assume god. It's another God of the Gaps fallacy.

There is plenty of science to explain animal and human behaviours.

Bernd Heinrich, PhD, was hiking through the woods in Maine when he happened upon a group of ravens feasting on a dead moose. They were making quite a ruckus, recalls Heinrich, a biology professor at the University of Vermont. In fact, the birds used a loud call that Heinrich had never heard before, a call that seemed to attract even more ravens to the area. Their behavior puzzled the researcher.

“Ecological theory would tell you that a food bonanza would be defended and not shared,” he says.

But the birds were sharing. Some of the ravens even returned to their roost to recruit more animals, Heinrich observed. The strange behavior inspired the biologist to conduct a series of field studies, which he eventually published in the book “Ravens in Winter” (Simon and Schuster, 1989).

Heinrich’s helpful ravens are now a classic example of animal altruism, says Jeff Stevens, PhD, a psychology professor at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development in Germany. But like most examples of animal altruism, the apparently selfless act had selfish benefits.

The sharing ravens, it turned out, were juveniles who had found the moose carcass in a mature raven’s territory. By bringing other young ravens to the feast, they avoided being chased off by the territory-holding bird. For any behavior to survive natural selection, it needs to help an animal or its genetic material, he notes.

“True altruism...paying a cost to help another individual and never ever receiving any kind of benefit, is not very common,” Stevens says. “It wouldn’t make much sense biologically for that to happen.”

More at link:

Monitor on Psychology - Altruism: an accident of nature?

 

[LOki]

If it was just pure instinct, we wouldn't sacrifice ourselves for others, . . .

We don't sacrifice ourselves for others.

. . . unless it was absolutely necessary for the perpetuation of the species.

Which would demonstrate the point.

Since our species is never in danger and hasn't been for ages, . . .

An assertion that bears to be proven . . .

. . . and since it's never a "me or thee" thing with babies these days, the instinct theory falls all to shit.

Well, if the proposition that you're arguing against is that rights are instinctual, you're right; but not for these reasons you bring. Rights are rational; they are contingent upon our rational faculty--not instincts.

Animals don't go to war for principle. Principles are alien to them.

Animals don't go to war; your point is meaningless if it rest upon the notion that they do.

And man has always had principles. It's what separates us from animals, . . .

Nope. Animals have principles, they are just not rational principles. What separates us from animals is not that we have princples and they don't, but rather that we are capable of rational principles and they aren't.

. . . and it's another indicator that there is a god.

Only to the superstitious.

 

[AllieBaba]

Sometimes animals will risk their lives to defend their babies. Animals, humans included, do many things for different reasons and sometimes for no rational reason.

YouTube - Female Wildebeest Vigorously Defends Calf

They don't, however, go to war for other groups of animals when those animals are threatened. You don't see groups of wildebeest running to the rescue of the gazelles, for example.