What "rights" does nature give us?

[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, 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.

They're not. However in the context of natural vs. man-made, THEY'RE DIFFERENT.

 

[Meathead]

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

I understand. We were getting into semantics. It is something that only has a philosophical rather than logical argument. At that point it comes down to a matter of definition and will be too difficult to pursue short of a master's theses.

 

[nodoginnafight]

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.

That's a very good point. Human rights ARE natural rights because humans are natural.

So does the term "natural rights" imply that these rights are universal? Is it natural for a polar bear to live on the equator? So "natural rights" can even vary from one environment to the next.

I like it.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

That's a very good point. Human rights ARE natural rights because humans are natural.

Thank you.

 

[Meathead]

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.

And you, get a grip! This is not a very elite league, but you are probably way out of it anyway.

 

[nodoginnafight]

That's a very good point. Human rights ARE natural rights because humans are natural.

Thank you.

Your welcome. But I don't think labeling something as a natural right implies that it pertains to everyone in every situation.

 

[Koios]

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.

And you, get a grip! This is not a very elite league, but you are probably way out of it anyway.

Exactly. So before taking off be sure to try to soothe your battered ego. Well done!

 

[Meathead]

That's a very good point. Human rights ARE natural rights because humans are natural.

Thank you.

Classic! "Humans have human rights because humans are natural.

Let's examine this.

Humans "have natural rights", ok.

Human's are natuaral, again ok.

Could you tell me what rights "humans" have by right of their being natural?

At the end of the day, we are building philosophical castles in the sand. We do not command nature, neither individually nor collectively. It commands us and does not have scruples.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Or perhaps there are absolute truths and absolute rights that humans simply choose to ignore. Relativism may be popular, but that doesn't mean it is right.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

That's a very good point. Human rights ARE natural rights because humans are natural.

Thank you.

Classic! "Humans have human rights because humans are natural.

Let's examine this.

Humans "have natural rights", ok.

Human's are natuaral, again ok.

Could you tell me what rights "humans" have by right of their being natural?

At the end of the day, we are building philosophical castles in the sand. We do not command nature, neither individually nor collectively. It commands us and does not have scruples.

Sure. They have the right to life, liberty and property. As assigned from the times when men were literally ruled over by other men and were not granted these inalienable or natural rights. Which as stated are inalienable and hence, differ from legal rights.

 

[neomalthusian]

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.

Facts that fail to address my question or point. Apparently you have no opinion as to whether slavery was right or wrong. It is wrong now, and it was not wrong then. Your answer would depend on whatever the law says or said. Does the right to life, liberty and property only applied to white men because the law told you so? Was a black man's right to life and liberty invented by emancipation? Or did he have those rights inherently except live in a time when they were routinely violated? Based on your comments it would seem you'd have no sense of the issue that would occur to you naturally, i.e. that right and wrong can only be set forth and instructed to you by your laws.

If you were traveling through a country that descended into anarchy, and you had an opportunity to rob a family, have your way with the woman, murder the dad in front of his children, or whatever other heinous thing... would that idea strike you as wrong? Or is it neither wrong nor right? If rights only exist to the extent that their law recognizes it, why not do any violent or assaultive thing that occurs to you. Would any other thing than your impulses guide you if you were where no law or authority existed or was recognized?

 

[Koios]

Or perhaps there are absolute truths and absolute rights that humans simply choose to ignore. Relativism may be popular, but that doesn't mean it is right.

Hmmm. Points of view can have an absolute right and wrong? If so, name one.

 

[Meathead]

Sure. They have the right to life, liberty and property. As assigned from the times when men were literally ruled over by other men and were not granted these inalienable or natural rights. Which as stated are inalienable and hence, differ from legal rights.

No, they have not "natural right" to anything except for the right to do anything of which they are capable. They just have to be willing to accept the retribution of the undefeated.

 

[Koios]

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.

Facts that fail to address my question or point. Apparently you have no opinion as to whether slavery was right or wrong. Your answer would entirely depend on whatever the law says or said? If it were 1859 you'd say there is nothing wrong with slavery, because the law told you so? That the right to life, liberty and property only applied to white men because the law told you so? Based on your comments it would seem you'd have no sense of the issue that would occur to you naturally, i.e. that right and wrong can only be set forth and instructed to you by your laws.

If you were traveling through a country that descended into anarchy, and you had an opportunity to rob a family, have your way with the woman, murder the dad in front of his children, or whatever other heinous thing... would that idea strike you as wrong? Or is it neither wrong nor right? If rights only exist to the extent that their law recognizes it, why not do any violent or assaultive thing that occurs to you. Would any other thing than your impulses guide you if you were where no law or authority existed or was recognized?

It was a point and not a question. And yes; I addressed it directly.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Or perhaps there are absolute truths and absolute rights that humans simply choose to ignore. Relativism may be popular, but that doesn't mean it is right.

I wonder what other animals think about rights?

Unless humans are not evolved animals, we know it is our brains, our minds that give meaning to nature.

Human constructs come from the human mind. Rights are human constructs. Unless of course we are separate from the rest of the animal kingdom. Maybe we are superior beings from an alien world who just got planted here?

 

[Koios]

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.

Facts that fail to address my question or point. Apparently you have no opinion as to whether slavery was right or wrong. It is wrong now, and it was not wrong then. Your answer would depend on whatever the law says or said. Does the right to life, liberty and property only applied to white men because the law told you so? Or did others have those rights but the law failed to acknowledge and uphold them? Based on your comments it would seem you'd have no sense of the issue that would occur to you naturally, i.e. that right and wrong can only be set forth and instructed to you by your laws.

If you were traveling through a country that descended into anarchy, and you had an opportunity to rob a family, have your way with the woman, murder the dad in front of his children, or whatever other heinous thing... would that idea strike you as wrong? Or is it neither wrong nor right? If rights only exist to the extent that their law recognizes it, why not do any violent or assaultive thing that occurs to you. Would any other thing than your impulses guide you if you were where no law or authority existed or was recognized?

No. Opinions on it (right / wrong) changed sufficiently that the law was revised.

 

[Koios]

Or perhaps there are absolute truths and absolute rights that humans simply choose to ignore. Relativism may be popular, but that doesn't mean it is right.

I wonder what other animals think about rights?

Unless humans are not evolved animals, we know it is our brains, our minds that give meaning to nature.

Human constructs come from the human mind. Rights are human constructs. Unless of course we are separate from the rest of the animal kingdom. Maybe we are superior beings from an alien world who just got planted here?

My dog feels entitled to everything on my dinner plate. I'm certain of it!!! LOL

 

[Meathead]

Maybe we are superior beings from an alien world who just got planted here?

I think that we may have to go case-by-case here. I cannot see you more progressed than a plant let alone than by anyone from another planet.

 

[neomalthusian]

Facts that fail to address my question or point. Apparently you have no opinion as to whether slavery was right or wrong. It is wrong now, and it was not wrong then. Your answer would depend on whatever the law says or said. Does the right to life, liberty and property only applied to white men because the law told you so? Or did others have those rights but the law failed to acknowledge and uphold them? Based on your comments it would seem you'd have no sense of the issue that would occur to you naturally, i.e. that right and wrong can only be set forth and instructed to you by your laws.

If you were traveling through a country that descended into anarchy, and you had an opportunity to rob a family, have your way with the woman, murder the dad in front of his children, or whatever other heinous thing... would that idea strike you as wrong? Or is it neither wrong nor right? If rights only exist to the extent that their law recognizes it, why not do any violent or assaultive thing that occurs to you. Would any other thing than your impulses guide you if you were where no law or authority existed or was recognized?

No. Opinions on it (right / wrong) changed sufficiently that the law was revised.

I think that slaves that were executed were denied their inherent right to life. You're saying they had no right to life in the first place until the law said they did.

This difference is crucial. It reveals why you appear to think our morality is determined by our law, whereas I think laws are (should be) determined by our morality.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

and our concept of what is a natural right

Concepts? neomalthusian, child development happens within a community. We are not born free and let loose to roam the wild finding our own ways. There are people who rear children without any sense of right and wrong. Do you not understand what you are actually saying?

Concepts, human constructs...they come out of our minds, not nature.