What "rights" does nature give us?

[Meathead]

Now then, for all with IQs above a single digit, can we please can the absurd notion of natural rights?

Nature does not have right and wrong. That's a human thing, which came when we evolved rational thought.

Nature has works / doesn't work. In the animal realm, about 1% works. 99% didn't; and nature has no moral qualms about it. It just trips across shit that works, i.e. social insects, flowering plants, and thus far, humans, too, albeit not to the level of social insects, nor flowering plants, which comprise the overwhelming bulk of the bio-mass on this planet.

Oddly enough, I agree with you, but with the exception of the natural right to do whatever we please. Natural rights also counters that by allowing others to do the same.

Read "Crime and Punishment" for a more philosophical slant.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

So you can not answer the question?

According to Koios and many here, humans are unnatural to the Earth. There is nature, and then there is man. I think this exposes the atheist statist for what they are - Self loathing and want to drag everyone down because they are angry that the utopia built in their mind, does not at all resemble reality.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Now then, for all with IQs above a single digit, can we please can the absurd notion of natural rights?

Nature does not have right and wrong. That's a human thing, which came when we evolved rational thought.Nature has works / doesn't work. In the animal realm, about 1% works. 99% didn't; and nature has no moral qualms about it. It just trips across shit that works, i.e. social insects, flowering plants, and thus far, humans, too, albeit not to the level of social insects, nor flowering plants, which comprise the overwhelming bulk of the bio-mass on this planet.

Oddly enough, I agree with you, but with the exception of the natural right to do whatever we please. Natural rights also counters that by allowing others to do the same.

Read "Crime and Punishment" for a more philosophical slant.

So then you agree that man is not natural to the Earth?

 

[Koios]

Now then, for all with IQs above a single digit, can we please can the absurd notion of natural rights?

Nature does not have right and wrong. That's a human thing, which came when we evolved rational thought.

Nature has works / doesn't work. In the animal realm, about 1% works. 99% didn't; and nature has no moral qualms about it. It just trips across shit that works, i.e. social insects, flowering plants, and thus far, humans, too, albeit not to the level of social insects, nor flowering plants, which comprise the overwhelming bulk of the bio-mass on this planet.

Oddly enough, I agree with you, but with the exception of the natural right to do whatever we please. Natural rights also counters that by allowing others to do the same.

Read "Crime and Punishment" for a more philosophical slant.

Never existed, not even for our antecedents who forraged. They might well have felt the right to what they forraged, and would have loved nothing more than to sit around eating it unmolested.

But no such right exists in nature, nor the human world. So in time (millions of years) we came up with rules, giving folks the relative sense they had rights ... which really are not true. They're violated frequently, in nature, including by humans, and best we can do is punish those who violated them, in hopes of mitigating violations.

Think of it this way: we decide, as a people, that all humans have right to be born free of defects. Seems fair; yeah? A loving god would do that, at a minimum, I'd think. But nature doesn't give a fuck. It just does, sometimes defectively; but if it works, it's done more often.

 

[Meathead]

Now then, for all with IQs above a single digit, can we please can the absurd notion of natural rights?

Nature does not have right and wrong. That's a human thing, which came when we evolved rational thought.Nature has works / doesn't work. In the animal realm, about 1% works. 99% didn't; and nature has no moral qualms about it. It just trips across shit that works, i.e. social insects, flowering plants, and thus far, humans, too, albeit not to the level of social insects, nor flowering plants, which comprise the overwhelming bulk of the bio-mass on this planet.

Oddly enough, I agree with you, but with the exception of the natural right to do whatever we please. Natural rights also counters that by allowing others to do the same.

Read "Crime and Punishment" for a more philosophical slant.

So then you agree that man is not natural to the Earth?

That is a bit of a silly question. I am not sure why it was posed nor its relevance to anything I wrote.

 

[Koios]

So you can not answer the question?

According to Koios and many here, humans are unnatural to the Earth. There is nature, and then there is man. I think this exposes the atheist statist for what they are - Self loathing and want to drag everyone down because they are angry that the utopia built in their mind, does not at all resemble reality.

Think what you wish. One more retard in the world just ain't going to effect my sleep.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Oddly enough, I agree with you, but with the exception of the natural right to do whatever we please. Natural rights also counters that by allowing others to do the same.

Read "Crime and Punishment" for a more philosophical slant.

So then you agree that man is not natural to the Earth?

That is a bit of a silly question. I am not sure why it was posed nor its relevance to anything I wrote.

It's both relevant and not silly. The argument here is that nature does not supply "right or wrong", that is a human construct. Humans are a product of nature (if you don't believe in the god argument), therefore nature in fact, does produce a standard of rights and wrongs through men. Man is one of natures creations. Natural rights are rights man has realized for himself, each one individually. These natural rights exist because as does nature and as part of nature, man exists. Men do not control other men through any divine right to rule. Each man is his own ruler. That was the entire point.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

And they are still both relevant and exist today. Even if some are removing the natural rights of others, or if some have not realized that they have such rights.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

With all this talk about "natural" rights..I was wondering. What are they?

In my opinion, none. I struggle with this issue as I've studied the founding fathers and what they believed in their time.

It's an interesting concept to debate.

So far not a single person has actually defended the premise that natural rights do not exist. One person tried, and ended up agreeing that at least some do exist. I would ask you to try, but all you do is troll.

Gods do not exist. Rights do not exist. Both are human constructs

 

[Meathead]

So then you agree that man is not natural to the Earth?

That is a bit of a silly question. I am not sure why it was posed nor its relevance to anything I wrote.

It's both relevant and not silly. The argument here is that nature does not supply "right or wrong", that is a human construct. Humans are a product of nature (if you don't believe in the god argument), therefore nature in fact, does produce a standard of rights and wrongs through men. Man is one of natures creations. Natural rights are rights man has realized for himself, each one individually. These natural rights exist because as does nature and as part of nature, man exists. Men do not control other men through any divine right to rule. Each man is his own ruler. That was the entire point.

I think we conflict on the definition of natural. Mine is perhaps more constricted.

However, I sort of remember myself pondering as I child why if man builds a dam, it is unnatural, while a beaver's marvel of nature. I still do not have that answer.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Now then, for all with IQs above a single digit, can we please can the absurd notion of natural rights?

Nature does not have right and wrong. That's a human thing, which came when we evolved rational thought.

Nature has works / doesn't work. In the animal realm, about 1% works. 99% didn't; and nature has no moral qualms about it. It just trips across shit that works, i.e. social insects, flowering plants, and thus far, humans, too, albeit not to the level of social insects, nor flowering plants, which comprise the overwhelming bulk of the bio-mass on this planet.

Right and wrong are human constructs.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

In my opinion, none. I struggle with this issue as I've studied the founding fathers and what they believed in their time.

It's an interesting concept to debate.

So far not a single person has actually defended the premise that natural rights do not exist. One person tried, and ended up agreeing that at least some do exist. I would ask you to try, but all you do is troll.

Gods do not exist. Rights do not exist. Both are human constructs

btw windy, twas you who trolled first.

see?

 

[Koios]

Now then, for all with IQs above a single digit, can we please can the absurd notion of natural rights?

Nature does not have right and wrong. That's a human thing, which came when we evolved rational thought.

Nature has works / doesn't work. In the animal realm, about 1% works. 99% didn't; and nature has no moral qualms about it. It just trips across shit that works, i.e. social insects, flowering plants, and thus far, humans, too, albeit not to the level of social insects, nor flowering plants, which comprise the overwhelming bulk of the bio-mass on this planet.

Right and wrong are human constructs.

I could not put it more succinctly. Bravo sir.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

That is a bit of a silly question. I am not sure why it was posed nor its relevance to anything I wrote.

It's both relevant and not silly. The argument here is that nature does not supply "right or wrong", that is a human construct. Humans are a product of nature (if you don't believe in the god argument), therefore nature in fact, does produce a standard of rights and wrongs through men. Man is one of natures creations. Natural rights are rights man has realized for himself, each one individually. These natural rights exist because as does nature and as part of nature, man exists. Men do not control other men through any divine right to rule. Each man is his own ruler. That was the entire point.

I think we conflict on the definition of natural. Mine is perhaps more constricted.

Natural

: based on an inherent sense of right and wrong <natural justice>
2a : being in accordance with or determined by nature b : having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature
3a (1) : begotten as distinguished from adopted; also : legitimate (2) : being a relation by actual consanguinity as distinguished from adoption <natural parents> b : illegitimate <a natural child>
4: having an essential relation with someone or something : following from the nature of the one in question <his guilt is a natural deduction from the evidence>
5: implanted or being as if implanted by nature : seemingly inborn <a natural talent for art>
6: of or relating to nature as an object of study and research
7: having a specified character by nature <a natural athlete>
8a : occurring in conformity with the ordinary course of nature : not marvelous or supernatural <natural causes> b : formulated by human reason alone rather than revelation <natural religion> <natural rights> c : having a normal or usual character <events followed their natural course>
9: possessing or exhibiting the higher qualities (as kindliness and affection) of human nature <a noble … brother … ever most kind and natural — Shakespeare>
10a : growing without human care; also : not cultivated <natural prairie unbroken by the plow> b : existing in or produced by nature : not artificial <natural turf> <natural curiosities> c : relating to or being natural food
11a : being in a state of nature without spiritual enlightenment : unregenerate <natural man> b : living in or as if in a state of nature untouched by the influences of civilization and society
12a : having a physical or real existence as contrasted with one that is spiritual, intellectual, or fictitious <a corporation is a legal but not a natural person> b : of, relating to, or operating in the physical as opposed to the spiritual world <natural laws describe phenomena of the physical universe>
13a : closely resembling an original : true to nature b : marked by easy simplicity and freedom from artificiality, affectation, or constraint c : having a form or appearance found in nature
14a : having neither flats nor sharps <the natural scale of C major> b : being neither sharp nor flat c : having the pitch modified by the natural sign
15: of an off-white or beige color


Natural - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

How is your strict" definition of natural and what were the founders talking about?

 

[neomalthusian]

Now then, for all with IQs above a single digit, can we please can the absurd notion of natural rights?

Nature does not have right and wrong. That's a human thing, which came when we evolved rational thought.

Nature has works / doesn't work. In the animal realm, about 1% works. 99% didn't; and nature has no moral qualms about it. It just trips across shit that works, i.e. social insects, flowering plants, and thus far, humans, too, albeit not to the level of social insects, nor flowering plants, which comprise the overwhelming bulk of the bio-mass on this planet.

Right and wrong are human constructs.

I could not put it more succinctly. Bravo sir.

If I can interrupt the self-congratulating for a moment, what makes "human" and "natural" mutually exclusive? The argument for natural rights does not suggest that morality is inherent to all species. Right and wrong could be uniquely human without being artificial/unnatural. IOW, right and wrong is natural to us as humans, and our concept of what is a natural right is deeper than just a human decision or institution. For those of us who can comprehend right and wrong, anyway.

I'm not sure what to think about people who, without a set of laws to explicitly delineate it, would be oblivious to what's right and what's wrong. Maybe they missed a stage of child development?

This must explain why they see no problem legislating damn near imposition they think will yield some desirable outcome. Because no matter how obscene it is, if it's "the law," that makes it right. There's apparently no sense of morality without the law to tell them, and so making law means defining morality. Scary.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

That is a bit of a silly question. I am not sure why it was posed nor its relevance to anything I wrote.

It's both relevant and not silly. The argument here is that nature does not supply "right or wrong", that is a human construct. Humans are a product of nature (if you don't believe in the god argument), therefore nature in fact, does produce a standard of rights and wrongs through men. Man is one of natures creations. Natural rights are rights man has realized for himself, each one individually. These natural rights exist because as does nature and as part of nature, man exists. Men do not control other men through any divine right to rule. Each man is his own ruler. That was the entire point.

I think we conflict on the definition of natural. Mine is perhaps more constricted.

However, I sort of remember myself pondering as I child why if man builds a dam, it is unnatural, while a beaver's marvel of nature. I still do not have that answer.

Because man's bridge or dam is not any more unnatural than the beaver dam. But there are a lot of people that will tell you that humans are unnatural. Such as the OP and many in this thread.

What we're doing is wrong, unnatural and we need to stop it and change. That is the cry of the athiest statist the loudest. They are self loathing humans, and angry that their mentally contructed utopia does not match reality, because everyone else isn't realizing their personal little utopia.

 

[Meathead]

It's both relevant and not silly. The argument here is that nature does not supply "right or wrong", that is a human construct. Humans are a product of nature (if you don't believe in the god argument), therefore nature in fact, does produce a standard of rights and wrongs through men. Man is one of natures creations. Natural rights are rights man has realized for himself, each one individually. These natural rights exist because as does nature and as part of nature, man exists. Men do not control other men through any divine right to rule. Each man is his own ruler. That was the entire point.

I think we conflict on the definition of natural. Mine is perhaps more constricted.

Natural

: based on an inherent sense of right and wrong <natural justice>
2a : being in accordance with or determined by nature b : having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature
3a (1) : begotten as distinguished from adopted; also : legitimate (2) : being a relation by actual consanguinity as distinguished from adoption <natural parents> b : illegitimate <a natural child>
4: having an essential relation with someone or something : following from the nature of the one in question <his guilt is a natural deduction from the evidence>
5: implanted or being as if implanted by nature : seemingly inborn <a natural talent for art>
6: of or relating to nature as an object of study and research
7: having a specified character by nature <a natural athlete>
8a : occurring in conformity with the ordinary course of nature : not marvelous or supernatural <natural causes> b : formulated by human reason alone rather than revelation <natural religion> <natural rights> c : having a normal or usual character <events followed their natural course>
9: possessing or exhibiting the higher qualities (as kindliness and affection) of human nature <a noble … brother … ever most kind and natural — Shakespeare>
10a : growing without human care; also : not cultivated <natural prairie unbroken by the plow> b : existing in or produced by nature : not artificial <natural turf> <natural curiosities> c : relating to or being natural food
11a : being in a state of nature without spiritual enlightenment : unregenerate <natural man> b : living in or as if in a state of nature untouched by the influences of civilization and society
12a : having a physical or real existence as contrasted with one that is spiritual, intellectual, or fictitious <a corporation is a legal but not a natural person> b : of, relating to, or operating in the physical as opposed to the spiritual world <natural laws describe phenomena of the physical universe>
13a : closely resembling an original : true to nature b : marked by easy simplicity and freedom from artificiality, affectation, or constraint c : having a form or appearance found in nature
14a : having neither flats nor sharps <the natural scale of C major> b : being neither sharp nor flat c : having the pitch modified by the natural sign
15: of an off-white or beige color


Natural - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

How is your strict" definition of natural and what were the founders talking about?

Semantics, eh? I think we've reached a stalemate.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Well, if we can not define a term, we certainly can not debate the merits of it in any context.

 

[Koios]

Right and wrong are human constructs.

I could not put it more succinctly. Bravo sir.

If I can interrupt the self-congratulating for a moment, the argument for natural rights does not suggest that morality is inherent to all species. Right and wrong could be uniquely human without being artificial/unnatural. IOW, right and wrong is natural to us as humans, and our concept of what is a natural right is deeper than just a human decision or institution. For those of us who can comprehend right and wrong, anyway.

I'm not sure what to think about people who, without a set of laws to explicitly delineate it, would be oblivious to what's right and what's wrong. Maybe they missed a stage of child development?

What's right and wrong are HUMAN CONSTRUCTS, as Dante so succinctly teaches us.

And they ain't done evolving, still. Once was a time it was right to own slaves, and women were chattel, too, if you married one (and were a man). Is that right, today? Fuck no.

Today cocaine is wrong; once was a time when getting it without having to also drink the EVIL ALCOHOL, was more right than wrong. Ergo, Coca-Cola (2 parts coca; one part cola) took off and became a success.

Once was a time, even among Norman Kings of the Anglo-Saxons, that homosexuality was wrong. Now it's okay, and even marrying is become more okay by the minute.

The Bible say eye-for-an-eye is okie doke and that women who cheat should be stoned. That ain't right today. Take and eye and face due process in criminal and possibly civil court, WHERE WE HAVE MAN-MADE RIGHTS. Plus, fuck around with impunity, in no-fault divorces states.

Facts.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Humans aren't part of nature. They are separate from nature. Thats' the argument I'm getting here.