What "rights" does nature give us?

[TakeAStepBack]

The human mind is alien to nature.

 

[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.

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?

So if there are natural rights that are universaly applicable, humans may not be aware of them. or it is very possible that nature has a meaning that is not bestowed by the human mind and that is beyond the human mind.

 

[nodoginnafight]

The human mind is alien to nature.

You mean it does not occur in nature?

 

[neomalthusian]

and our concept of what is a natural right

Concepts? Now 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.

And so you're saying our minds, cultures, customs, and everything else are separate from nature. We tend to be monogamous... because we make our minds to be? Or are we that way naturally? We typically nurture our children... naturally? Or because our minds originate the idea?

The things humans do, think and feel can absolutely be natural. Our recognition of it being wrong to murder, assault, steal, etc. is so pervasive that it can be considered natural. Our recognition that we need to cooperate with one another to some degree to get our needs met is inherent (natural) and is what causes us to feel anything for one another. Even some of our features that are uniquely human can be (and are) nonetheless natural. I believe our sense/feeling/intuition that harming others is wrong is so fundamental that it's fair and accurate to call it "natural." I find it borderline alarming that so many of us apparently relegate it to something as arbitrary and mutable as a human decision or written law.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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?

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?

If one were raised in a community where savage warfare were the norm, raping and pillaging would not seem wrong. We have history to show us this. We do know a community to survive needed to create laws in order to protect itself from itself.

Demonize the neighbor, the opponent, or the enemy as the 'other' and what is right and wrong becomes relative (pun intended).

We do know from archeological evidence that there was a time when 'man' walked away from their dead brethren and left them behind, and as awareness grew man started to bury his brethren, and later bury them with ritual and symbolic items.

Our nature has evolved and with it our concepts. With our concepts of right and wrong we invented natural rights.

 

[Koios]

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.

And many agreed. When enough did, the law was revised.

And no, there is no right to life. It just happens, and has happened, due to random events. But try not to think about it that way, or you'll see that you're merely a tool of evolution, and prisioner to the life cycle that evolved by chance on this planet, which is true by the way, but uncomfortable to think about.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

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.

And many agreed. When enough did, the law was revised.

And no, there is no right to life. It just happens, and has happened, due to random events. But try not to think about it that way, or you'll see that you're merely a tool of evolution, and prisioner to the life cycle that evolved by chance on this planet, which is true by the way, but uncomfortable to think about.

An opinion is not truth, dude. FAIL.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

So in short Athiest Statists believe that rights of any kind only exist when government makes them law. Otherwise it's the law of the jungle and evolution is fact.

 

[dblack]

So in short Athiest Statists believe that rights of any kind only exist when government makes them law. Otherwise it's the law of the jungle and evolution is fact.

You guys are just talking about different things. Legally protected rights aren't the same thing as intrinsic existential freedoms.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

and our concept of what is a natural right

Concepts? Now 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.

And so you're saying our minds, cultures, customs, and everything else are separate from nature. We tend to be monogamous... because we make our minds to be? Or are we that way naturally? We typically nurture our children... naturally? Or because our minds originate the idea?

The things humans do, think and feel can absolutely be natural. Our recognition of it being wrong to murder, assault, steal, etc. is so pervasive that it can be considered natural. Our recognition that we need to cooperate with one another to some degree to get our needs met is inherent (natural) and is what causes us to feel anything for one another. Even some of our features that are uniquely human can be (and are) nonetheless natural. I believe our sense/feeling/intuition that harming others is wrong is so fundamental that it's fair and accurate to call it "natural." I find it borderline alarming that so many of us apparently relegate it to something as arbitrary and mutable as a human decision or written law.

One need look too far back in human existence to see what I am saying. Look to the Hebrews of the Bible. They made laws. Laws are usually made to keep people from doing what they are already doing. We know people had to be told (commandments) to stop acting certain ways.

Monogamy/sexual partners and child rearing/nurture evolved with our nature. Evolution. What is natural changes with time. It was once natural for people to sacrifice other humans to the gods.

I believe our sense/feeling/intuition that harming others is wrong is so fundamental that it's fair and accurate to call it "natural." I find it borderline alarming that so many of us apparently relegate it to something as arbitrary and mutable as a human decision or written law.

Of course what is natural now was not natural in the past. Our brains evolve. We imprint patterns onto our brains. Why is it our intuition that it is wrong to harm others? It wasn't always so until we evolved enough to see ourselves in others: it is called "Thou art That" in mythology.

You are saying we have a human nature. No one with any credibility disagrees. But where you go off is when you confuse our 'nature' with a super human controller guiding us to a preordained end

 

[Koios]

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.

And many agreed. When enough did, the law was revised.

And no, there is no right to life. It just happens, and has happened, due to random events. But try not to think about it that way, or you'll see that you're merely a tool of evolution, and prisioner to the life cycle that evolved by chance on this planet, which is true by the way, but uncomfortable to think about.

An opinion is not truth, dude. FAIL.

Yes; I know. Google "relativism." But then, life evolved is not an opinion. It's a fact.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

And many agreed. When enough did, the law was revised.

And no, there is no right to life. It just happens, and has happened, due to random events. But try not to think about it that way, or you'll see that you're merely a tool of evolution, and prisioner to the life cycle that evolved by chance on this planet, which is true by the way, but uncomfortable to think about.

An opinion is not truth, dude. FAIL.

evolution is scientific theory and fact. facts can change with evidence. you can have the opinion that science is junk.

truth is a different thing. saying something is true can be different than stating something is a truth. language, it's something you have to learn...it's not natural for people like you

Evolution Resources from the National Academies

 

[Koios]

And many agreed. When enough did, the law was revised.

And no, there is no right to life. It just happens, and has happened, due to random events. But try not to think about it that way, or you'll see that you're merely a tool of evolution, and prisioner to the life cycle that evolved by chance on this planet, which is true by the way, but uncomfortable to think about.

An opinion is not truth, dude. FAIL.

evolution is scientific theory and fact. facts can change with evidence. you can have the opinion that science is junk.

truth is a different thing. saying something is true can be different than stating something is a truth. language, it's something you have to learn...it's not natural for people like you

Evolution Resources from the National Academies

It's a fact, and the only thing that remains a theory is the mechanisms, albeit not of animals, plants and this planet, but the events leading up to the Big Bang, which is still anyone's guess, but they're working overtime trying to figure it out, and we may, one day.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Yoga masters the world over are impressed with the stretch. You didn't pull anything did you?

The THEORY of evolution, and any "by chance" evolution of the planet is a matter of opinion, not a matter of fact. Or it would be the fact of evolution, or simply evolution. It is a theory. It is not fact on any level. Except in the utopia you've constructed in your own mind.

 

[Koios]

Yoga masters the world over are impressed with the stretch. You didn't pull anything did you?

The THEORY of evolution, and any "by chance" evolution of the planet is a matter of opinion, not a matter of fact. Or it would be the fact of evolution, or simply evolution. It is a theory. It is not fact on any level. Except in the utopia you've constructed in your own mind.

Oh no!!! Only a THEORY???

Hey dipshit; theory = something comprised of MANY FACTS (all of them.)

It's actually way more valid than a mere FACT. Here's but one very simple example: sky is blue; fact. Okay; why? Gods favor blue? Or is something else at play within the visible light spectrum and particles in the atmosphere? Whadaya think, genius?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

The sky is not blue.

 

[Contumacious]

Our nature has evolved and with it our concepts. With our concepts of right and wrong we invented natural rights.

Exactly.

You only have those privileges the government grants.

Benito Mussolini

.

 

[Koios]

The sky is not blue.

Wait for the cloud cover to clear, and then look up. But wait, definitely, since if you look up now and it's raining, I fear you'll drown, since you lack the sense god gave a domestically-raised turkey, and haven't the intelligence to look down and stop taking in water.

Just getting you back, pal. Be safe out there.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Perception is not reality, bud. The sky is not blue.

 

[Koios]

Perception is not reality, bud. The sky is not blue.

It is when all sighted people see the same blue (higher frequency/low wave length light) being scattered by particles in the upper atmosphere. That there'd be the very fucking definition of reality.

Here's how: we all see / percieve it, via our sense of vision. Next, folks go find out why, by being curious and not asking a fucking cleric. Works like a charm, if knowing shit is your thing.