[voilsb]

Okay, this seems like a no-brainer. Everybody knows the Bill of Rights doesn't grant rights, it simply enumerates and offers to protect them. Our Declaration of Independence states that people "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." This is generally believed to be the case.

I don't get it, though. It's more than "if you don't believe in God, then from where do your rights come?" Although that's a good question, and it might server to help this, it's more than that. I'm a Christian. I do believe in God. And I have never seen anything where I'm given any unalienable rights. The closest I've seen is that I have no rights and that He gives and takes as He pleases, and who is the clay to question the potter?

I'm curious. Where do we get our rights? If it's from God, where does He say it? If it's not from God (this one is more aimed at those who don't believe in God), then from where?

And if this violates the new-and-improved L&P rules, I apologize. My intent is for this to centered on from where our rights come, not whether God exists or whatnot.

[Cosmoline]

As I understand it, the notion of inalienable rights comes from Enlightenment philosophy. I'm far from an expert, but I believe the key phrase is "we hold these truths to be self-evident." There's no citation to the Bible. The citation is simply to creation itself. We have a brain and free will. As a natural part of these gifts from the creator we have the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It would make no sense to have the gift of free will and a mind to use it if any meaningful right to life and liberty could be taken away at will by some dusty monarch. It is self-evident that King George III was the half-mad son of a krautlander, for example, not the hand of God on Earth.

[Molon Labe]

Excellent response, Cosmoline.

voilsb: This is a philosophical issue. To achieve a full understanding of it you’ll have to read the writings of Cicero, Polybius, Coke, Locke, Montesquieu, and Blackstone, among others.

But Cosmoline has it right… in a nutshell, we consider it “obvious” that all humans are simply born with certain rights.

You can also look at it another way... the last thing we want is a philosophy that states the government is the source of our rights. So if our real goal is to unequivocally state that the government is not the source of our rights, then we must state that our rights come from our Creator. Or that we’re simply born with them.

[voilsb]

So in other words they're not inalienable rights, they're simply stuff we as a society currently like that we don't want the government to be allowed to take away so we call them that to give credibility to our argument.

(yes, I'm playing devil's advocate here. I generally hold them to be inalienable rights, because it makes sense for them to be, but was wondering if there was anything more concrete on it than that)

[tcdrennen]

The only thing that all rational humans can agree on as a starting point is that each person's OWN LIFE is of value TO HIM or her. From that one can deduce ethical and moral guidelines for the individual, and extrapolate a social contract that enhances one's abilities to ensure the value of one's life while not interfering with the same processs for others.

Christianity, BTW, is revolutionary among world religions by making demands ONLY on an individual; the basic value system is based on one's SOUL, and ONLY the individual has ANY power to save or lose same.

State, Church, Community - all these are only valuable so long as they enhance the individual's ability to preserve and protect one's LIFE and SOUL (which is equivalent for an agnostic or non-believer to LIBERTY and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS) [see where I'm going here? :cool: ] which leads us back to the idea of inalienable rights that adhere to the person a priori and cannot be denied by institutions nor surrendered by individuals.

This is a philosophical issue. To achieve a full understanding of it you’ll have to read the writings of Cicero, Polybius, Coke, Locke, Montesquieu, and Blackstone, among others.

Excellent starting points. I'd add Hobbes, Burke, Ricardo, Adam Smith, JS Mill; and Suetonius, Tacitus, Thucydides, Aristotle, Aquinas - for classics and classicals. More recently, Albert Jay Nock, Rose Wilder Lane, Ayn Rand, Jean Revel; and Belloc, Chesterton, Tolkien for a spiritual reference.

So many [books guns places people things] so little time. :D

[Barbara]

I believe they come from God.

If that were not the case, I would still believe our US Bill of Rights spells out the bare minimum needed to live with dignity our lives as human beings.

[Mr. Bombastic]

Rights are inherent.

[voilsb]

Barbara said:
I believe they come from God.
Based on what? Why do you believe this? As stated before, I believe this, too, for the above reasons: they're a fairly obvious extension of having free will.

Mr. Bombastic said:
Rights are inherent.Okay. We already covered that. Why are they inherent?

[mantispid]

To me, my rights are inherent because I'm willing to die for them.

If I successfully defend my rights, I live and I have them to exercise. If I can't defend my rights successfully, I'm dead. If I'm dead, my rights can't be violated.

Pretty simple, eh?


My rights exist as a function of my will.

If a person isn't willing to die for their rights, then they really don't have any rights.

[Standing Wolf]

This lifelong atheist believes all human rights are inherent. If I had proof, I'd share it with you.

[Carlos]

edited out

[Molon Labe]

I look at it as a logical argument:

1. Each person has fundamental rights.

2. Government does not have authority to give people rights.

3. Therefore, people are born with rights.

4. If you’re not religious you stop at #3 (i.e. people are born with rights). If you are religious, you also believe these rights are a gift from God.

[voilsb]

Mantispid: Good call. That's actually a pretty good line of reasoning.

Standing Wolf: Thanks for being honest. Any ideas why you might feel that way? Or does it just "make sense"?

Malon Labe: any pressupposition to give a reason to #1? Otherwise, it sounds circular reasoning. "Human rights are inherent. Because they're inherent, the .gov doesn't grant them. Therefore, they're inherent." Granted, that's not quite what you said, but it's basically how I read it.

Thanks for the discourse, guys!

[Barbara]

Well, I believe we are created by God. Therefore, everything we are and everything we have is also the creation of God. What I meant was that even if I did not believe that, I would still believe the rights enumerated in the Constitution are inherent because without them human beings could not live to their fullest, most free, potential.

[Mr. Bombastic]

'Rights are inherent.'

Okay. We already covered that. Why are they inherent?

No, at the time of posting, I don't think it had been covered. (I was in a hurry, hence the three-word-post). I don't believe my rights have been granted to me by God, even though I am a Christian. Who is he to tell me that I have this right, but not that right? I am sentient (thank God ;)), so I will decide for myself what rights I need to be a free man. And the rights I believe are inherent in being free are the rights I believe I inherently have (or I wouldn't be free).

I have a right to free speech because I can comprehend that right exists, and it is against my sense of freedom to deny that right to myself and others.

The same can be said for the right to exist, to eat, sleep et al.

A dog cannot comprehend the right to free speech, so it does not have that right, but it can well comprehend the concept of the right to exist, so it has that right.

If your freedom infringes on others (like a murderer's right to exist would infringe on his victim's right to exist) the particular right of the infringer, relating to the aspect of freedom being infringed, is revoked.

Why? Because I say so.

Rights are the essence of freedom. They outline each aspect of what being free means. Without rights, there is nothing to define the concept of freedom.

Rights are the blueprints of freedom.

[spartacus2002]

Let's look at it like this:

1. before governments existed, each person's self-defense was that individual's responsibility. Would anyone argue that other people would have right to kill each other? Of course not. So, each individual would have a right to defend themselves - either individually, or thru mutual cooperation and defense agreements.

2. people sought to charge certain individuals in the group with the primary responsibility for defending the other individuals, probably for division-of-labor purposes (easier for the tribe to pick the berries and kill the deer if Joe and Schmoe are in charge of keeping the other tribe at bay).

3. As states and governments arose, people formalized #2 above by making the governmental employees their agents.

Now, there are two thoughts to consider at the end of this:

1. 2 and 3 above are pretty utopian; most govts arose because a strongman took over a demographic group in a certain geographic area. If a govt was formed against the people's will, do they lose their right to self-defense?

2. If a just govt is formed with the consent of the governed, do the people lose their right of self-defense just because a govt is formed?

In America, govt is our agent, not our lord and master. The people retain their rights, and we do not hand them over to the govt and bureaucrats REGARDLESS of whether 5 of the 9 dudes in black robes say we do.

THat's just self-defense. Anyone else care to argue other rights? I bet Don Galt could give a good explanation of the right to free trade.

[AnklePocket]

Our Rights are very alienable. They come from our ancestors who fought for them and our ancestors who fled to this country to live by their rule. They cease to exist when we stop being willing to fight for them as they're always at risk. I'm not quite sure why they're always at risk, but they are for some strange reason.
Maybe it's because we sometimes take these rights somewhat for granted although I can't comprehend living without them. That must be why I'm willing to die for them just as many before us have died for them. Maybe that's why real Americans don't like being told what to do - we already know what to do.
So, to summarize: Our Rights come from us and God gives us the opportunity to maintain them. The obligation is ours.

[CaesarI]

This is a VERY good post, and a VERY good topic. Regretably most replies have not been very good.

I got into an argument not too long ago with a friend who is the most rigorously logical person I know. I lost rather soundly.

I can prove every other right once I have the right to life, however, I can't prove that with nothing else. So if someone can provide a solid argument for the right to life that no rational person could disagree with, we can tack'em together.

However, in aid of this endeavor, I propose we define our terms (::cough::):
Rights: Moral principles sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context.

So then, one who took my right to life would become "bad".

While it is true that force of arms are often necessary to defend rights, they cannot create them. This claim can be disproven by example: I have a right to the property I earn. While I'm away a criminal breaks into my home, and takes my cup. If the source of my rights is that I defend them, then my right to property has ceased to exist because I have been robbed. While it is certainly the case that rights would cease to be of much importance if anyone could violate them with impunity, this would not mean that they do not exist (if one accepts the founder's principle that such rights are self-evident).

There are those on the left who would of course insist that "property is theft" and that by my exercising my right to property I am denying them the use of property which was once communal (particularly land). That is to say I am granting myself a monopoly on a particular piece of property. Such claims of course are not as valid for things like firearms as they are for land. In the case of a firearm it was something that would not of existed were it not for the person or persons who created them. In order that a person's creations be their property of course, it is first necessary that they own themselves, that is, have a right to life. Thus those who deny the right to property are also denying the right to life. This concept is of course lost on the leftists, but still doesn't prove the right to life.

Hmmm..... arguably... my right to life comes from, of all people, my parents!
Take the right to property argument:
1. The parents create something which heretofore did not exist, namely the child. Were it not for the existence of the parents, and further their decision to create a child, and further their decision to do the things necessary to create one (such as keep themselves alive, well fed, there's some part about birds and bees too) the child would not be
2. The child then becomes the property of the parents just like anything else they create.
3. The parents essentially "set the child free" at some point or another.

The only complication with this is that it also pre-supposes the parents own themselves.

-Morgan

[Moparmike]

I believe what some others have said. I have my rights because I "am." I think, therefore I am. I exist, therefore I have rights. I cant logically argue how I derive my rights or how they were "granted" to me, except to say that all the rights I have are also inherent to every other person.

For gun-relatedness, some might paraphrase Mao Tse Tung, and say "My rights come from the barrel of my gun." I am not 100% one of those people.


If we cannot define from where we derive our "inherent rights," then from where or by whom are they taken away?:confused:

[MJRW]

I don't get involved in this often, but I'm going to throw in my penny. I believe rights are inherent because man can exist without government, but government cannot exist without man. It is on the introduction of government that rights become subdued and controlled. Prior to that introduction, man has all rights. He may speak freely, assemble with what he wishes, practice a religion, find and use weapons, and so on.

[jfh]

for us to weigh in on.

Pragmatically speaking, it seems to me that the observations--and maybe even the conclusions we can draw here--give THR readers and posters concepts that allow us to better deal with the 'living document' political 'philosophy' for the Constitution. It has long seemed to me that this is the fundamental tenant of the gun grabbers....

Over the course of my life I have gradually moved to a position of atheisim although I was raised as a Protestant Christian. So, like some others here, I do NOT see these 'inalienable rights' as granted by God. It does seem to me that we can start with believing that since we have the right to exist (once created), we have to right to maintain that state of being.

Since this 'philosophical split' is being used to build the anti-gunner's political rights--i.e., in our current collective consciousness as citizens, the living document argument appeals to many people--we need a well-built model to deal with it.

If we can build a rational, logical model that builds on these primary 'notions'--those necessary a priori assumptions--and eliminate a bit of the apparent conflict, then promote that model into the culture wars over firearms, we stand a much better chance at gaining the support of the general public.

Does anyone have a link to / the title of / textbook author / whatever a class 101 level for Philosophy?

[Sven]

I believe rights come from self-awareness, consciousness. "I am"

[matis]

First, I've zipped myself completely into my flame suit, gloves on vizer down.


In theory our rights come from G-d or we're born with them (natural rights theory). And as has been mentioned above there are many good books to read on the topic.


But actually our rights come from government!


Now understand that I'm not saying that they SHOULD come from government (I believe rights are inherent) -- only that, actually, they do.

And actually, you all agree with me.

For instance, those of you who carry, do you do so without a CCW?

Again, I'm not saying you should; I may get a CCW myself one day.

But if you first got a CCW, then you agree with me that after all the discussion of 2nd amendment "rights" dies down, it is the government that allows you to carry, which makes it a priviledge, actually. And then only subject to onerous rules and regulations, many of which are absurd and some even dangerous.

Another example: if you bothered to learn a good trade or profession and earn good money, and if you work for yourself as is the ideal, then government takes, whether you like it or not, at least 50% of every dollar you earn.

Fica = 15.03% (self-employed pay both sides) and the top bracket is (only after our wonderful tax reduction -- which evaporates after 10 years) 35%.


I just replaced a tire and battery. I paid $1 dollar to the state for each tire, one old and one new. And I paid $1.50 tax for the battery. Only then did I pay the 7% sales tax.


It's now November 23rd. By the end of the month I'll pay the real estate tax on my house or the state will take it from me. So, although, my house is now "paid for", actually I rent it in perpetuity from the government.

Writing the checks for my electricity and water and for my telephones I noticed all kinds of special taxes, about 30% of the total, that I can either pay or forgo the services.

Taking this all into account I'm lucky if I get to keep 35% of what I earn and that's in FLA where there is no state income tax.

In NYC, for example the poor saps also get to pay a state and a borough!! income tax, in addition fo the Federal W/H..


If I don't wear my seat belt I get fined. Should I spank my child, I risk the state taking her away. In most places in the US I can go to prison for defending myself with the appropriate weapon.


I could go on, but you know what I mean. Perhaps you might like to read a book by James Bovard called, Lost Rights. Whatever isn't mandated is now forbidden.


Now! tell me where my rights come from?


There was a joke the Soviets used to tell on themselves:

An American fellow-traveler was visiting the Moscow Zoo accompanied by his intourist guide (government agent). He stopped to read the plaque on the gorilla's cage.

It listed as his daily diet: 25 lbs of monkey chow, 20 lbs of mixed vegetables, 10 lbs of bananas, 2 gallons of fruit juices, vitamin and mineral supplements, etc. etc.

"My goodness!", gushed the American, "what a wonderful diet!"

"Yes, it is." Agreed the intourist guide, "But who's going to give it to him?"


We get more and more like this gorilla every day.


In theory we're free. But so were the Soviets.

In actuality?

Monkey chow, anyone?



matis

[jfh]

and actually little more than rhetorical game-playing.

IOW, using poster's comments on what starts as appearing to be an open-ended topic...and then playing it to rationalize your point.

Clearly, the issue you wished to examine appears NOT to be the source of "rights" per se, but the institution of various social contracts that exist in ANY form of social group / government. As a simple example: It isn't only the US Gov't or the Soviets for whom their citizens perform as "law abiding." and who would not disobey (certain) laws--and the 'conventions' of paying taxes for real estate would not generally be defined as "rent."

Are you trying to examine (individual) performance in accordance with 'the law?' or are you trying to determine where rights 'come from?'

So, what assumptions are you making that lead you to define that 'paying taxes' is the same as rent?

[mantispid]

I think you're mixing up rights and privileges.

For instance, when I decide to fully exercise (peacefully, of course!) my 2nd Amendment rights (which exist even if there wasn't a 2nd Amendment) in the distant future, I'll be carrying, permit or not.. and I'll probably be carrying something like an FN P90 (http://world.guns.ru/smg/smg13-e.htm). The gun laws won't matter to me. My rights transcend any law. And my sense of ethics and morality is enough to keep me from ever lifting a finger against another person unless they are putting my life or the life of others in immediate danger.

For now, I'll voluntarily choose to suppress my own rights and go with the privileges simply because it's more conducive to my long-term goals of individual freedom in today's political climate. (I.e., being thrown in jail at this time isn't something I'm willing to risk at this time.)

Even government can't suppress my rights without my cooperation. I don't have to follow laws if I don't want to. All government can do is threaten a bigger and bigger hammer to drop on me. Again, if I'm willing to die for my rights, then it doesn't really matter *what* they threaten to do to me. Perhaps that is why some oppressive regimes threaten the entire family, rather than the individual. Fortunately, my family is raised that liberty is more important than family, so such threats wouldn't work on us.

Even a slave is partially responsible for his slavery. You can't be made a slave if you're willing to die to be free. If all would-be slaves had that attitude, slavery would be a profitless enterprise.

[jfh]

mantispid: what I am questioning is the terms--the rhetoric, as it were--in which you posted the question about where do our rights come from.

Your observation that your "rights transcend any law" may well be true if there is a test that can be identified to make them true.

But that isn't what you asked in your original post. To have a parallel construction, you need to ask the question "what assumptions am I making when I say that "my rights transcend any law." It is this question--i.e., as the rest of us answered it--that was put in to play.

While there are numerous linguistic / rhetorical / logical structures we can use to examine the etiology of statements, yours is at best a non-conventional one. As you have stated it, your statements about transcendance, your behavior in response to government, etc., etc., do not seek any validation in what most of us would call "reality." As they stand, your comments are assertions and do not serve as a basis for your statements. Or, it is possible to say that if they do server as a basis, you may well find no "support" among others, as the conventional bases now tend to rest in rational / historical use, rather than individual assertions.

Put another way, it seems to me you are saying "(I believe) that my rights transcend any law." And, I am asking you, "what about that belief makes you believe that statement is true?" Since it is equally valid to state that "I believe the moon is made of green cheese" we need to find a test that grounds these beliefs in 'the real world.'

The rest of us are trying to examine the basis for those assertions in the real world--which is why I am calling you out on your rhetoric.

[mantispid]

That's easy. As I said in my earlier post in this thread, my rights are inherent because I'm willing to die for them. If I survive, then I am exercising them and have them. If I am dead, my rights can't be violated. That's the test that makes the statement 'My rights transcend any law' true.

As for the assumption I make.. the assumption is that my actions are governed by my will... and that my will can not be controlled by anyone but the entity known here as mantispid.

The very fact that I would grab hold of my rights and exercise them, consequences be damned, is empirical proof of their existence.


It may be a 'non-conventional' view.. and it may not garner the support of others. But quite frankly, I don't give a damn. My beliefs do not require the support of others.

[jfh]

then why ask others where our rights come from if you don't give a damn?

BTW, I'm implying that there is a consequence of language--nominal agreement between parties on some elements of conversation.

[mantispid]

Umm.. I never asked the question 'Where do our rights come from?'... I think you may be confusing me with voilsb, perhaps?

[another okie]

It's a belief, not a mathematical theorem. If one is uncomfortable with saying our rights come from God, say from Nature, which is what Jefferson would have written in the Declaration if he hadn't been trying to suck up to the Baptists.

Some of the posts above seem to confuse having a right violated with losing a right. If someone denies me the power to have a firearm, they have violated my right, but I still have the right. The reason this is important is if they can take my right away, then I have no basis for fighting back.

In Enlightenment philosophy some rights are alienable and some are not. If I consent to a search of my person, I have temporarily alienated my right to be secure in my person.

The opposite belief, that rights come from government, is called positivism.

[matis]

jfh said:
cheap trick, IMHO, matis
________________________________________

If this is a trick, then I'm certainly glad that it's cheap -- I'm frugal and don't like to waste money. :D


jfh also said:
...and actually little more than rhetorical game-playing
_________________________________________________

And that's exactly my point about this thread.

As we play intellectual games about our rights, we allow them to be pilfered, a bit here , a bit there, until we have precious few left.

What difference does it make whether our rights are G-d given, natural or inherent or given by Santa Claus, if we allow them to be taken from us?


If you read the Soviet constitution or the UN charter, or whatever parchment they pay lip-service to in Albania -- they all enshrine rights.

And they're all worth a pot of warm p-ss.


Americans today are not made of the same stuff as those who broke away from the Brritish and founded the country.

I perceive most members of this forum to be conservative. Yet the conservatives are fatally divided and we are not so gradually losing out to the left who now define our very reality for us.


then jfh said:
--and the 'conventions' of paying taxes for real estate would not generally be defined as "rent."
___________________________________________
and:
So, what assumptions are you making that lead you to define that 'paying taxes' is the same as rent?
____________________________________________

Again, we get so hung up on "definitions" that we overlook the obvious: If you stop paying rent, you end up evicted.

If you stop paying taxes, which never end, you end up on the same cold street.

So if you like to play with definitions, whatever happened to the definition of "property rights" (we won't even get into property regulations)?

If I can NEVER truly OWN my property, what difference does it make how you justify or what you call that? It is the result that counts.

By definition they're different, but the result is exactly the same.





Here's another joke for you: When asked about the outcome, the doctor said, "The operation was a success, but the patient died."

Does that ring a bell for you?


If not, can I, perhaps, recommend some homeopathic monkey chow?




matis

[jfh]

your points are well taken, matis. I certainly enjoy intellectualized discussions--but I don't do them for fun; I do them because I believe I might learn something.

And, I do believe that finding a way to make those statements will allow us to maintain / advance / restore / whatever RKBA rights in the general discourse of our larger community.

I'm very much aware about successful operations as well--my 95 year-old mother had a 'successful' stay in the hospital last August: It was successful in that she received medical treatment and diagnosis that eliminated some acute problems she had then / may have had. However, that treatment, et.al., did not cure the problem--and any proposed treatment would not have been successful, IMHO, except in prolonging the death of dying person. As a result, I signed her into a hospice program last week. Hopefully, her ending days will have some dignity and little or no pain.

However, I'm not so sure that we can ignore the means to the end--which is what I think our disagreement over 'rent' and 'taxes' comes down to. And that is the point of the above discourse. To some extent, if only to the extent it allows us to assign common meanings to the acts that we do, the choices she and I made about the remaining time for her gives us 'meaning.'

So, do you see your point--i.e., that we get tangled up in definitions rather than action--as a 'means and ends' discussion?

[tyme]

I don't know where my rights came from, but I'm pretty sure I have a legitimate claim to them whether the government says I do or not. I have them because I am alive and because I haven't upset the government enough to kill me or lock me up. Certainly not everyone who's alive has rights - as has been pointed out numerous times in these sorts of discussions, prisoners do not have the right to vote, nor do they have 2nd or 4th amendment rights. So saying rights come from "God" or that everyone has rights by virtue of being alive creates problems. Are prisoners justified in trying to escape from a bunch of State actors who are depriving the prisoners of their rights? If rights are inherent and are inalienable, how can the legal system justly deprive a prisoner of those rights?

[Gordon Fink]

Certain rights are inalienable, meaning they can’t be taken away or even surrendered. We call these “natural” rights, because we have them by virtue of our existence—whether we believe we owe that existence to ancient energy fluctuations in a vacuum field or to the whim of a powerful deity. It really is that simple.

Though natural rights can be suppressed, they cannot be taken away—short of death. This is the proof and test of their existence. For example, as I’ve said before, even an inmate in a maximum-security prison can fashion crude weapons. The inmate thus retains the right to keep and bear arms, though it has been suppressed to an extreme degree.

This brings us to the “right to life.” The discussion of natural rights does not hinge on this right, because it does not, in fact, exist. We have no right to life. We do, however, have the right to defend our lives … and those of others.

Now, if I may digress, those who practice one of the Judeo-Christian faiths, your deity is properly named Yahweh or Jehovah. “God” is not His given name. To show respect/fear, you need not write “G-d.” The tetragrammatons YHWH or JHVH may be used for this purpose. ;)

~G. Fink

[CaesarI]

Well I can't agree that we don't have a right to life, I tend to consider it rather important, as it is my right to life that makes murder wrong. The right to life is what grants men the right to self defense, it is reliant on the right to life for its justification. Further, the justly convicted men in jail have forfeited their right to Liberty usually temporarily (and usually some property) due to their crimes.

Ironically enough I find myself agreeing with the right on the matter that the lack of morality in this country has lead to our downfall. Few people anymore think in terms of whether or not a particular action is moral or not, only whether the outcome is beneficial. Human rights are intricately connected to morality.

I think I'm just gonna have to fall back on the founder's claim that these rights are self evident. Anyone remember being a young child? Anyone spent time with kids 5 and younger? Ever notice how you have to teach them to share? How about the phrase "I don't want to, you can't make me!"

When I was forced to do community service I did so at a daycare. While the other employees would settle disputes over ownership with claims that they should share, I would settle them much more decisively with an argument that their claim to the object in question was ill-founded. As a side note play-toys at a daycare are a perfect example of the Socialist economy at work.

On the other hand your remarks about the Christian Deity are spot on. The interesting side story to that has to do with ancient deities in the old world. It was believed that if one spoke the name of a deity they gained power over it, hence the prohibition.

Oh, and for the Indiana Jones fans.... "in Latin JHVH begins with an I"

-Morgan

[Gordon Fink]

Some things can be wrong or immoral even though they violate no one’s rights. It would be wrong for me to insult you, though you have no right not to be insulted. It would be wrong for me to seduce your wife, though you have no right to her fidelity. It would be wrong for me to murder you, though you have no right to life.

Initially at least, your life depends on the cooperation of others—namely your parents. Once you have life, then you have the right to defend it. Others have the right to defend it, as well. This fact also establishes the moral basis for killing. Some killing (survival) is moral, while other killing (murder) is immoral. Obviously, the implications here are quite dramatic snd really more than we flawed humans can handle, but the alternative (a universal right to life) is entirely untenable itself.

~G. Fink

[Khornet]

Someone said it's wrong to murder.

What's wrong with murder? Why is it bad?

[CaesarI]

If killing for survival is somehow moral, then you've missed a chapter on morality. Killing for survival *may* be moral, but not always. e.g.: Jack the Ripper attacks my (non-existant) wife, I notice Jack doing this, Jack kills me so that I do not kill him for attacking my wife. Jack is still wrong, and I am still right.

Define "universal right to life" and why such would be "untenable".

The assumption that one can "seduce" another man's wife is rather sexist. If you're drinking with my (non-existant) wife, and she decides to do things which violate our marriage vows then she's morally wrong, not you. Further, I'm a fool for marrying a slut.

Your insulting me, unless its libel, is just poor manners.

We call them "victimless crimes" crimes that violate no one's rights aren't crimes, because they aren't morally wrong.

This is based on the definition of "morally wrong" as that which violates another person's rights. If you define "morally wrong" as that which the bible prohibits we're talking a whole other ballgame.

*******************************
Khornet:
assume: I have a right to life.

If I have a right to life, then by definition, no one who is not me has a right to deny that right from me. Just as if I have a right to keep and bear arms, then no one has a right to prohibit my keeping and bearing of arms. Some people insist on still violating these two rights. Those people are thus morally wrong because they did something which they had no right to do.

Thus, murder is wrong because the person committing murder has no right to commit that act. The person committing murder has no right because in exercising such a right, if it existed, he would be violating another person's rights. Since, rights which violate other rights are not rights, such a right cannot exist, and therefore does not exist.

-Morgan

[spartacus2002]

Rights to life, liberty, and property are the most important rights. Murder violates right to life.

[matis]

___________________________________________________________
So, do you see your point--i.e., that we get tangled up in definitions rather than action--as a 'means and ends' discussion?
_____________________________________________________

Sorry jfh. No offence meant, but I do not get your point here.



Gordon Fink said:
Now, if I may digress, those who practice one of the Judeo-Christian faiths, your deity is properly named Yahweh or Jehovah. “God” is not His given name. To show respect/fear, you need not write “G-d.” The tetragrammatons YHWH or JHVH may be used for this purpose.
__________________________________________________________

And CaesarI said:
On the other hand your remarks about the Christian Deity are spot on. The interesting side story to that has to do with ancient deities in the old world. It was believed that if one spoke the name of a deity they gained power over it, hence the prohibition.
__________________________________________________________


Nice of both you erudite guys to tell me how to practise my religion, but no thanks.

I DO need to write "G-d", because that is the Orthodox Jewish practise, and, although I am not myself (yet?) Orthodox, they are the only ones I respect and trust to know Judaism

And this is not done because we are afraid to gain power over the deity, an absurd concept if you understood Judaism, but because his name is considered so holy and he is so far above us and so unknowable to us that we dare not even speak his name.

Even saying, "his" or referring to his "wrath" and so on is simply anthropomorphizing, but done not unwittingly, but on purpose.


May I repeat my offer of some homeopathic monkey chow? :D




matis

[voilsb]

I saw another thread (What's the foundation for your beliefs? (http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=51450)) that has a similar theme to this one. Between reading how this one's going, reading that one, and some time thinking about the topic, here's my view:

I'm a conservative Christian. So my view is that basically we were created by God, and He described what is or is not sin (to include murder, theft, etc). Based on these, it seems easy to infer that, since murder is wrong, we must have a right to life. Since theft is wrong, we have a right to keep our property. Etc. Since we seem to have a right to these, it makes sense that we would have a right to defend them. Hence, "we hold these truths to be self-evident."

If you're not of a belief that we get such things from God (whether or not I diagree with that), a similar line of reasoning still works: as a society, we have decided murder, theft, etc, is wrong. Therefore, as a society we have created a right to life, property, etc. Therefore, we have rights to defend our lives and secure our property.

[Blain]

in the distant future, I'll be carrying, permit or not.. and I'll probably be carrying something like an FN P90.


Would you care to elaborate on this part?

[Khornet]

So murder is wrong because people have a right to life.

Sez who?

[CaesarI]

I can prove every other right once I have the right to life, however, I can't prove that with nothing else. So if someone can provide a solid argument for the right to life that no rational person could disagree with, we can tack'em together.

[Gordon Fink]

Lots of points to answer, so here goes …


What’s wrong with murder? Why is it bad?

Murder is wrong essentially because we say it is wrong. It is also clearly an aggressive act, but this fact alone doesn’t necessarily make it wrong. A more probative question: what is murder?


If killing for survival is somehow moral, then you’ve missed a chapter on morality. Killing for survival may be moral, but not always. e.g.: Jack the Ripper attacks my … wife, I notice Jack doing this, [and] Jack kills me so that I do not kill him for attacking my wife.…

This example is probably the one case where killing in self-defense is not moral. However, we can’t expect the criminal to not defend himself when his life is threatened, but as the killing would be in support of another crime, we can classify it as murder.


Define “universal right to life” and why such would be “untenable.”

A universal right to life would mean that everyone has the right to be conceived, to be born, and to live until death by natural or accidental causes. No one could be intentionally killed for any reason, as this would violate the right to life. This means no self-defense, no death penalty, no abortion, no war, no euthanasia, no suicide, and no failure to procreate. If we further recognize that plants and other animals also have this right, then our dietary choices are also greatly restricted.


The assumption that one can “seduce” another man’s wife is rather sexist. If you’re drinking with my … wife, and she decides to do things which violate our marriage vows then she’s morally wrong, not you.…

Actually, we would both be wrong, if I knew she was married. The right thing for me to do would be to wait until she received permission for a dalliance or until she dissolved the marriage. And how is the scenario sexist? Cannot men and women seduce each other?


I DO need to write “G-d,” because that is the Orthodox Jewish practise, and, although I am not myself (yet?) Orthodox, they are the only ones I respect and trust to know Judaism …

Matis, I meant no disrespect to your faith, but I am puzzled. Why is the generic noun god treated with such circumspection, even when it refers to your God? The word is what He is, but it is not His name. Could this be a translation issue? An attempt to transcribe the Hebraic tetragrammaton into the vernacular English?

~G. Fink

[CaesarI]

Based on your definition of a universal right to life, even ignoring non-humans, I would also agree that people do not have a right to life. Such a definition is inherently self-contradictory, as the result is that no one has a right to life. You cannot deny a right to self-defense without denying a right to life, without self defense my right to life exists on condition of no one else murdering me. This is rather like saying I've a right to keep and bear arms, but must ask the state's permission if I want to exercise that right. This makes it cease to be a right based on the definition of a right. Thus it is contradictory: You have a right to life, except that you don't. =><=

I, and most other people, define it differently. As a working definition:
A right to life grants one the right to live in such a manner that does not violate the rights of other rational beings to live.

Murder is wrong essentially because we say it is wrong.
Who's we? Presumably the peoples of this nation. So suppose "we" say that we have a right to life, but not a right to self-defense. As already proven, this is contradictory. In short, neither saying something is wrong, nor punishing people because you say it is wrong, makes something wrong.

I acknowledge that our buddy Jack would prolly, in fact, most definitely try and defend his life. You, however, have acknowledged that he is immoral for doing so. If I have a right to self-defense, then I have a right to defend my life. I only have this right, however, as you are acknowledging, if my right to life is just. Jack doesn't have a right to life, and therefore he has no right to defend it. Just as I've no right to defend unjustly acquired property, I've no right to defend my life if I'm in the act of violating someone's right to life.

Self-defense must rest on a right to life, or else what are you defending? What right do you have to defend it? Just because you defend it doesn't grant you a right to live as you've acknowledged in declaring Jack immoral for defending his life.

I appologize for the claim that it was sexist, it was based on my reading into the word 'seduce' based on its Latin roots, apparently it doesn't have the connotations of "leading" one astray that the latin root (ducere to lead) would imply. My issue, had it such connotations, is that it implies that women don't make their own sexual choices, but rather are victims of a man's wiles. I still see nothing inherently wrong with tempting anyone with anything. If I leave $10,000 in cash on my living room table with the window open, and a neon sign around the window and leave the house to go on vacation I'm going to be robbed. This does not mean I've acted immorally, foolishly, but being foolish is hardly immoral.

-Morgan

[mantispid]

Oh it's easy to have a right to life... thought, etc.. and you can even kill without violating it.

It's simple: Rights are to be respected until such time an entity violates the rights of another. At that point, their rights are null and void (or at least one no longer has an ethical obligation to respect those rights).

Simple, clean.. problem solved.

[matis]

_________________________________________________________
Matis, I meant no disrespect to your faith, but I am puzzled. Why is the generic noun god treated with such circumspection, even when it refers to your God? The word is what He is, but it is not His name. Could this be a translation issue?
__________________________________________________________

Gordon Fink

I may have been a trifle "bent, but I'm over it. No harm done. :)


As to why the noun is treated with such circumspection, I think I covered that in my previous post.

As for "G-d" in English, it may well be a translation issue. In Hebrew the most common reference is "Hashem". This translates as simply, "the name". In Hebrew the reference is understood, but that wouldn't work in English.

It may also be that the injunction against taking His name in vain may be related to this, although that is speculation on my part.


In my atheist days, when I liked nothing better than to make mince-meat out of religious believers, I had fun asking if they knew the difference between the words, "know" and "believe".

Although most knew the difference, this knowledge seemed to disappear when they discussed religion.


When my daughter was born, 15 years ago, I realized that the fun I got p-ssing on tradition and religion was NOT going to help me to be a good father and to raise her to be the best she could be.

After much inner struggle, I stumbled across a group of Chassidim and was invited to the Friday night (Shabbat) meal. I went.

And I was astounded at the level of the conversation at the table and at who these people were. Professors, lawyers, doctors, business men, but seemingly intellectuals all -- at least when it came to their discussion about Judaism.


After a few weeks of contact I asked the rabbi my test question: did he "know" all he said about G-d or did he simply "believe" it.

By this time I hoped with all that was in me that he would "pass" the test.

I was raised by immigrant parents -- from Russia and Poland -- and although they were secular, I grew up speaking Yiddish at home.

These Chassidim (Chabad-Lubavitch) spoke Yiddish. I have 2 photos of my grandparents, one of each set, but Hitler's intervention had prevented my meeting them.

This rabbi not only spoke Yiddish at home, he looked, with his full beard and his yarmulka (skull cap) just as my grandfathers had in my photos. And his wife looked like my grandmothers.

I had already fallen in love with these people, but I didn't want to compromise my integrity and therefore my "test".

I was overjoyed at his answer. He said he didn't know, that no human could possibly "know" G-d. And he explained what I said in my previous post.

That was 12 years ago and a lot has happened since. It took me awhile, but I eventually became a founding member of the Chabad Center here, began to learn what my heritage is and who I am. I became the Chabad atheist, sort of, kinda like the village idiot.

But my terror about what would become of my child in the cesspool of current American, and especially teen-age society, was taken care of.

My ex and I home-schooled her until high school and she now attends a Yeshiva for girls, (a high school) where she gets excellent coverage of the secular subjects, but where her Jewish education comes first. They are stictly Orthodox.

So she is not temped to tattoo or pierce herself, she won't come home pregnant at 13 and there is no need in her school for a room to park the babies (daycare). And this terrible self-absorbtion that Americans and especially teens are prone to will be at least somewhat tempered.

What she is imbued with transcends what is currently faddish and trendy and she is anchored in values/traditions that go back thousands of years.

Once I delved into real Judaism and not the watered-down versions that predominate I was astounded at the profundity and wisdom I found. It wasn't at all what I had thought. There is even room for one like me, brain-damaged (that's what I used to call THEM) as I am by my culture.


Since I am so thoroughly secular in my weltenchaung (sp), the transition for me is slow and difficult. Brain-damage is not easy to heal.

But even when the best I can do is resort to metaphor, I am amazed at what my forefathers knew about the nature of man and about reality generally.

I can probably be accused of revering science. And these people long ago had no cell phones, jetliners or penicillin.

But the human nature they understood hasn't changed one whit. And their values and their ways are, I believe far superior to our own statistical and Phd confirmed "reality".

Western society is based largely on their outlook and values.

And as we attain our current "enlightenment" and shed their wisdom, we pay the price. Just look around you.




Well, this may not have been the kind of responce you wanted, but at least I sure feel better. :) :)



Happy thanksgiving to you and to all THRers.


matis

[Gordon Fink]

You cannot deny a right to self-defense without denying a right to life.…

I don’t deny a right to self-defense. In fact, I consider it an inalienable right. Even a criminal in the midst of a crime has this right, though he can expect no understanding from our society after the fact.

Let me phrase the question in another way. Do we have a right to exist? If your parents did not conceive you, would they have violated your right to exist?

The existence of a right to life or lack thereof is an extremely complicated issue, morally, socially, and practically. The human species is not capable of handling (or perhaps even comprehending) all of the implications in either position. For the sake of practicality, it is probably easiest to claim a “right to life,” though I believe this to be incorrect.

Of course, this discussion goes back to your (CaesarI) losing debates because you couldn’t prove a right to life. I merely suggest that this “right” is a red herring and has no bearing on the existence of other rights. For example, you have no right to property, but once you justly acquire it, you certainly have a right to defend it. It’s a fine but important distinction.

~G. Fink

[Khornet]

you're getting it now. "Who's we?" indeed! Calling something wrong, and punishing it, do not make it wrong.

So what makes somethigng, e.g. murder, wrong? It's not because we call it so. And if it's not really a moral decision, but just something prgrammed into us for the benefit of the species, then there's nothing moral about the prohibition of murder, because there's no morality in evolution--it just happens, like a thunderstorm.

So what's wrong with murder?
It's taking innocent life.
What's wrong with taking innocent life?
We all have a right to life.
Sez who? Us? Whyever should that carry moral weight?

What makes us call something wrong? And if that something which makes us call murder wrong is just species-preservation, why should I care about it? When I'm dead, there will be nothingness. What do I care what happens to my species, or even the family I leave behind? They may grieve, but they'll be dead soon enough anyway, and once dead, their suffering will be as if it never happened---forever. So why on earth should I ever inconvenience myself in the slightest over being fair or honest or kind? It will all amount to nothing in the end.

[Chris Rhines]

A very good question, and one that I think has not been adequately answered (ever, not just in this thread.) If y'all will forgive my stepping into the pop philosophy:

A right is a social construct* between two or more people, with the intention of defining their behavior towards each other. For lack of a better term, a right is an agreement that is universal in both scope and application. If such agreement cannot be universally applied, then it is not a right.

I'm going to start with the assumption that there are only three rights, life, liberty, and property**, and all other rights are restatements of the same. The three primary rights all spring from a common concept - that it is immoral to initiate force against other sapient beings. Killing other people, imprisoning them, or stealing their property all count as initiation of force.

The concept mentioned above is sometimes referred to as the NAP, the Non-Aggression Principle. It's not a new concept; most religious texts contain an analogue to it. So the question becomes, "Where did the NAP come from?" If you're a religious type, you could say that it came from God. If you're an atheist (as I am) you would probably say that some individual invented the NAP, and signed on to by other individuals who thought it was a good idea. Other individuals probably didn't thing much of the idea, and formed other social constructs (as an aside, many of these early social constructs, mainly the ones that concentrated force in the hands of a few, evolved into governments.) Classic memetic propagation of ideas ensued, and the fact that the principle of non-aggression is still around gives it some degree of historical validity.

In short, rights come from one's status as a thinking individual, and his actions reflect the rights he is accorded. If one lives his life in accordance with a certain idea set, then he can claim those same rights as his own. For example, a big, nasty person who makes a habit of killing and enslaving others cannot claim his rights when confronted with someone even bigger and nastier.

- Chris

* - Note that I didn't say social contract. The idea of the social contract is a faulty one. Valid contracts require a positive action to indicate acceptance, as well as a set of start and stop conditions.

** - Some say that property is the only true right, and that life and liberty spring from it in the form of self-ownership. I find this idea pretty compelling.