Do natural rights exist?

Do natural rights exist?

  • Yes

    Votes: 5 41.7%

  • No

    Votes: 7 58.3%
  • Total voters
    12
Mr. Conservative said:
Idiotic. Morality is derived from our nature. "Reason" has nothing to do with ti.
Click to expand...

Why do you say that? I assure you that I could produce several people including myself who a conversation with would convince you entirely that morality is not derived from our nature but rather learned and enforced.
 
Epicurus said:
Why do you say that? I assure you that I could produce several people including myself who a conversation with would convince you entirely that morality is not derived from our nature but rather learned and enforced.
Click to expand...

When given choices between moral dilemmas, most people choose the same thing. If they used reason, they'd all choose different things, because they'd all be making errors somewhere.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/158760/page/2
 
Mr. Conservative said:
Idiotic. Morality is derived from our nature. "Reason" has nothing to do with ti.
Click to expand...
What is idiotic is refusing to understand that reason is behind empathy which is the "reason" for morality.

Without empathy (which involves reasoning on how another 'feels' or is effected by something) there would be no 'reason' to set such rules.
 
Mr. Conservative said:
When given choices between moral dilemmas, most people choose the same thing. If they used reason, they'd all choose different things, because they'd all be making errors somewhere.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/158760/page/2
Click to expand...
And this is silly. If there was enough of a "gray area" people will choose different things, because human reasoning is often flawed.

I believe that the "study" is flawed because it does not relate to different values. There is a reason that religions without contact still created the same basic "golden rule" how it is applied is often different due to different "values" set by the social contracts of different areas.

People in Zimbabwe are likely to choose differently than people in the US, because they set priorities differently and teach those values in the social construct we call family.

What you really need is a good solid basis in philosophy, much of your argument has already been discussed by Locke.
 
The nature of some men, without restraints would be to take what they can. Without civilizing power, (government), these freaks would terrorize the many. It would be rule by minority, a brutal rule at that.

With enough constraints, most of even the aggressive will want to keep their 'freedoms,' thus play by the rules in the main. Thus the rest of civilization also keeps their freedoms and 'rights.'

The few that still wish to deny the rights of others, are held to be outside of the law, thus imprisoned.
 
Annie said:
The nature of some men, without restraints would be to take what they can. Without civilizing power, (government), these freaks would terrorize the many. It would be rule by minority, a brutal rule at that.

With enough constraints, most of even the aggressive will want to keep their 'freedoms,' thus play by the rules in the main. Thus the rest of civilization also keeps their freedoms and 'rights.'

The few that still wish to deny the rights of others, are held to be outside of the law, thus imprisoned.
Click to expand...

Sometimes, however, those abusive men become the government itself, and use it as an extension of their abuse. This is the nature of all "states", unfortunately.
 
Damocles said:
And this is silly. If there was enough of a "gray area" people will choose different things, because human reasoning is often flawed.

I believe that the "study" is flawed because it does not relate to different values. There is a reason that religions without contact still created the same basic "golden rule" how it is applied is often different due to different "values" set by the social contracts of different areas.

People in Zimbabwe are likely to choose differently than people in the US, because they set priorities differently and teach those values in the social construct we call family.

What you really need is a good solid basis in philosophy, much of your argument has already been discussed by Locke.
Click to expand...

Erroneously.

And I refuse to waste time in a philosophy 101 class.
 
Annie said:
The nature of some men, without restraints would be to take what they can. Without civilizing power, (government), these freaks would terrorize the many. It would be rule by minority, a brutal rule at that.

With enough constraints, most of even the aggressive will want to keep their 'freedoms,' thus play by the rules in the main. Thus the rest of civilization also keeps their freedoms and 'rights.'

The few that still wish to deny the rights of others, are held to be outside of the law, thus imprisoned.
Click to expand...

It is the Christian view that human nature is evil and must be restrained. I disagree. Human nature is good and "bad people" aren't evil, they are amoral creatures who are divorced from human nature.
 
And I'd like to point out that our society imprisons far more people than is necessary even under the most delusionally expanded basis, and most of them were never aggressive towards anyone. The nature of the sensationalistic society that has drove us towards this idiocy is... divorced from human nature, pushed on us by sociopathic Christians who use the government rather than the gun and get off scot-free.
 
Mr. Conservative said:
And I'd like to point out that our society imprisons far more people than is necessary even under the most delusionally expanded basis, and most of them were never aggressive towards anyone. The nature of the sensationalistic society that has drove us towards this idiocy is... divorced from human nature, pushed on us by sociopathic Christians who use the government rather than the gun and get off scot-free.
Click to expand...
Which wouldn't change one iota what I speak of. Again, misapplied. The different social contracts reflect the fact that the "study" you linked to is not only flawed but proven wrong by reality.
 
Damocles said:
Which wouldn't change one iota what I speak of. Again, misapplied. The different social contracts reflect the fact that the "study" you linked to is not only flawed but proven wrong by reality.
Click to expand...

LOL, different in practice, maybe, but not in their ultimate basis. All human nature is grounded in several ultimate values which are recognized in every culture, and applied in different, often seemingly conflicted, sometimes extreme ways.
 
Damocles said:
Natural Rights Theory is the belief that humans as creatures of Nature and/or Creations of God have certain Rights that should never be infringed by a government.

Pretty much the idea of inalienable rights and a list of human rights comes from the idea of the social contract put forward by John Locke who was a Natural Rights philosopher.
Click to expand...

This
Annie said:
Agreed. In general Locke was responding to Hobbes who spoke about 'social contract theory' as a defense against 'laws of nature.' While Hobbes saw man as a beast if not constrained government', preferably a strong king; Locke saw 'social contract' as a way to ensure the most rights by a mutually agreed system.

If memory serves, Hobbes was still alive when Locke was young, I think both their theories interesting and with merit, but what a difference a generation made when the older was writing on the cusp of medieval times; the younger within the Enlightenment.
Click to expand...
This too
Mr. Conservative said:
Idiotic. Morality is derived from our nature. "Reason" has nothing to do with ti.
Click to expand...
Okay, now why the fuck did you go and do that?

SELF PWN
 
'natural rights' per se are specious

the only human rights or any others are those that we give to each other as part of a society


otoh, without those 'rights' or liberties a society is not worth saving and will usually die
 
Mr. Conservative said:
LOL, different in practice, maybe, but not in their ultimate basis. All human nature is grounded in several ultimate values which are recognized in every culture, and applied in different, often seemingly conflicted, sometimes extreme ways.
Click to expand...



Ultimate and conflicted values? Tell us more Professor Bullshit.:rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top